A simple question for creationists.

[PolyHedral]

Atom is the most basic unit of matter.

Most basic stable unit of matter. It has lots of components.

Is that an assumption that the universe is 13 billion years old?
If not, why is it not an assumption

It is calculated from observation of stars and the larger universe, mostly gravitational redshifting.

 

[gnostic]

Most basic stable unit of matter. It has lots of components.

That's why I had included this in the last line:

And each atom is made out of particles (electrons, protons and neutrons).

 

[waitasec]

Actually, it is the other way around.

Matter are made out of atoms.

i guess that's what happens when one presumes to know what they are talking about....

 

[gnostic]

I claim that it is an assumption to say that all matter popped into existence in the big bang

If you don't know how matters can be form, then I would suggest that you do some reading.

I would suggest that you start some encyclopedias, which will at least start small, rather than beginning with astrophysics textbooks. The textbook would explain in more in-depth detail, but you might not understand it all.

Start with Wikipedia Big Bang, since it is readily available. If you want to explore further about the Big Bang cosmology you can look up the References and find other books, journals, etc.

To put it simply, the Big Bang only describe or explain the evolution of the universe as we know it - that is when the universe began to expand from the singularity, which in turn, to form matter, and then matters (mostly hydrogen atoms) into stars, and then planets, etc.

To expand from my brief outline above, we would look at the singularity.

The singularity, as far as we can tell, was too hot and too dense for MATTERS to form. This mean that the singularity is ever more denser than any black hole, and more hotter than any star. It is only when the universe began to expand from the singularity (about 13.7 billion of years ago) that the universe began to rapidly cool down for energy to convert to subatomic particles.

And subatomic particles began to form into atomic particles (electrons, protons, neutrons). The (atomic) particles are the building block of matter, and the 1st matters to form were hydrogen atoms.

When there were enough clouds of hydrogen were formed in the young, and ever-expanding universe, large clouds of hydrogen were pulled together by gravity, making them more massive, that eventually form the 1st new stars between 200 and 400 millions years after the initial expansion (Big Bang). Stars don't just appear out of nowhere.

Stars are formed from hydrogen and gravity. The energy from the stars, like light and heat, come from the fusion of hydrogen atoms to form into helium atoms, from which nuclear scientists would call it thermonuclear fusion.

These young 1st stars began forming heavier elements, and by the time these 1st stars began dying and exploding as supernova, more heavier matters were created to form other new stars as well as planets. Our Sun (as well as the rest of our Solar System) was actually formed from gigantic molecular cloud (or nebula, about 4.6 billion years ago), and the (molecular) cloud (or nebula) itself was most likely created from the supernova of older stars.

Anyway, matters don't just pop out of nothing. For you think that, clearly showed that you don't understand the Big Bang model.

 

[Krok]

I claim that it is an assumption to say that all matter popped into existence in the big bang

This one is always funny. The Big Bang Theory does not claim that matter popped into existence from nothing in the Big Bang. It does not say that at all. In fact, it claims the opposite.

However, theists claim and believe that their chosen diety popped into existence from nothing. Then thet try to project their beliefs on science and claim that it is the Big Bang!

 

[orcel]

This one is always funny. The Big Bang Theory does not claim that matter popped into existence from nothing in the Big Bang. It does not say that at all. In fact, it claims the opposite.

The Big bang theory claims all matter exploded form a single microscopic point that included all matter and energy in the universe since. The formation of that point that point is something else entirely.

However, theists claim and believe that their chosen diety popped into existence from nothing. Then thet try to project their beliefs on science and claim that it is the Big Bang!

This is a extreme mischaracterazation or misunderstanding of theology. No Christian for example applies a creation or begining to God. God is believed to exist completely external from the 10 dimentional universe and therefore external from popping into existence.

 

[Krok]

This is a extreme mischaracterazation or misunderstanding of theology.

Claiming hat the Big bang includes a Universe popping out of nothing is an deliberate and extreme mischaracterization of the Big bang Theory.

No Christian for example applies a creation or begining to God.

What people want to apply to some imaginary thing is not important. You can give imaginary things any characteristic you want. Any empirical, verifiable evidence that any kind of god even exists? Only after that you can start characterizing that phenonema.

God is believed to exist completely external from the 10 dimentional universe and therefore external from popping into existence.

Any empirical, verifiable evidence for this?

In any way, why can't matter or energy also exist "external from the 10 dimentional Universe and therefore external from popping into existence"? We have empirical, verifiable evidence that matter and energy exist, you know.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

If you don't know how matters can be form, then I would suggest that you do some reading.

I would suggest that you start some encyclopedias, which will at least start small, rather than beginning with astrophysics textbooks. The textbook would explain in more in-depth detail, but you might not understand it all.

Start with Wikipedia Big Bang, since it is readily available. If you want to explore further about the Big Bang cosmology you can look up the References and find other books, journals, etc.

To put it simply, the Big Bang only describe or explain the evolution of the universe as we know it - that is when the universe began to expand from the singularity, which in turn, to form matter, and then matters (mostly hydrogen atoms) into stars, and then planets, etc.

To expand from my brief outline above, we would look at the singularity.

The singularity, as far as we can tell, was too hot and too dense for MATTERS to form. This mean that the singularity is ever more denser than any black hole, and more hotter than any star. It is only when the universe began to expand from the singularity (about 13.7 billion of years ago) that the universe began to rapidly cool down for energy to convert to subatomic particles.

And subatomic particles began to form into atomic particles (electrons, protons, neutrons). The (atomic) particles are the building block of matter, and the 1st matters to form were hydrogen atoms.

When there were enough clouds of hydrogen were formed in the young, and ever-expanding universe, large clouds of hydrogen were pulled together by gravity, making them more massive, that eventually form the 1st new stars between 200 and 400 millions years after the initial expansion (Big Bang). Stars don't just appear out of nowhere.

Stars are formed from hydrogen and gravity. The energy from the stars, like light and heat, come from the fusion of hydrogen atoms to form into helium atoms, from which nuclear scientists would call it thermonuclear fusion.

These young 1st stars began forming heavier elements, and by the time these 1st stars began dying and exploding as supernova, more heavier matters were created to form other new stars as well as planets. Our Sun (as well as the rest of our Solar System) was actually formed from gigantic molecular cloud (or nebula, about 4.6 billion years ago), and the (molecular) cloud (or nebula) itself was most likely created from the supernova of older stars.

Anyway, matters don't just pop out of nothing. For you think that, clearly showed that you don't understand the Big Bang model.

Is there any real way to measure how big the universe is? How do you know if the universe is expanding or not? As far as I am aware you kind of need to know where the outside edge of the universe is and be able to observe it to be able to know if the universe is expanding wouldn't you say? Did someone find it? If so who found it and when?

So you are stating that matter can be created and destroyed?
Also something to remember, the big bang is a theory and so long as it is a theory there will be assumptions in it.

 

[gnostic]

How do you know if the universe is expanding or not?

It is determine by observing lights and wavelengths.

I don't know how much physics you've learned from high school or university, or do anything related to science. Particularly about light or electromagnetism. Have you ever study light or electromagnetism?

Because in order to for you to even have a hope in heaven to understand why the universe was expanding and still expanding, you have to understand light, electromagnetism, and wavelength.

If you have studied about light, then I can go straight into explaining "redshifts". Let me know how much you know, then we can go from there.

 

[Krok]

So you are stating that matter can be created and destroyed?

This is evidence that there is no god who could create matter or energy. Matter and energy can't be created. Nor destroyed. It can change form.

 

[Krok]

Also something to remember, the big bang is a theory and so long as it is a theory there will be assumptions in it.

Are you under the impression that scientific theories change into anything else?

 

[Looncall]

Is there any real way to measure how big the universe is? How do you know if the universe is expanding or not? As far as I am aware you kind of need to know where the outside edge of the universe is and be able to observe it to be able to know if the universe is expanding wouldn't you say? Did someone find it? If so who found it and when?

So you are stating that matter can be created and destroyed?
Also something to remember, the big bang is a theory and so long as it is a theory there will be assumptions in it.

This is all quite amusingly ignorant.

The expansion of the universe occurs by more space appearing throughout the universe. Think of dots on the famous inflating balloon. Observation of the boundary is not required.

Matter is created and destroyed all the time, everywhere. Look up virtual particles. A nuisance in my work of gamma ray spectrometry comes from a process called pair production. Gamma rays (high energy light) are converted to an electron-positron pair. The positron annihilates, producing gamma rays that mess up my spectra.

You clearly have no idea what what constitutes a scientific theory.

You need to be aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect and abate your arrogance.

[old joke] Those who think they know everything really annoy those of us who do.[/old joke]

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This is all quite amusingly ignorant.



You clearly have no idea what what constitutes a scientific theory.

I suspect he's trolling.....or may be he a POE.....:sad:

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Are you under the impression that scientific theories change into anything else?

Oh I am very much aware that they can, but then it becomes a fact and ceases to be a theory, thus so long as it remains a theory, it shall remain an assumption.

 

[painted wolf]

Oh I am very much aware that they can, but then it becomes a fact and ceases to be a theory, thus so long as it remains a theory, it shall remain an assumption.

So... you don't know how a scientific theory differs from the common usage of the word theory then?

In science a theory is the framework that explains how a large number of facts work. Germ theory for example ties all the facts about germs and how they relate to illness into a functional model that lets us prevent and cure diseases.
Germ theory isn't an assumption, it's a collection of facts.

wa:do

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

So... you don't know how a scientific theory differs from the common usage of the word theory then?

In science a theory is the framework that explains how a large number of facts work. Germ theory for example ties all the facts about germs and how they relate to illness into a functional model that lets us prevent and cure diseases.
Germ theory isn't an assumption, it's a collection of facts.

wa:do

then why is it called a theory?
People use a collection of facts to form assumptions all the time.
What would you say the difference between a theory and a law are?

 

[johnhanks]

What would you say the difference between a theory and a law are?

PW has explained what a scientific theory is. A law is a different thing entirely - it's a (usually mathematical) formulation of an observed relationship between variables. A law generally states something like 'if this event occurs, it will be accompanied by this (other) event' - like, 'if I double the volume of a fixed mass of gas (at constant temperature), its pressure will halve', or 'if I double the voltage across a wire (at constant temperature), the current will also double'.

Contrary to widespread and erroneous belief, theories don't 'graduate' into laws; rather, laws get incorporated into theories.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

PW has explained what a scientific theory is. A law is a different thing entirely - it's a (usually mathematical) formulation of an observed relationship between variables. A law generally states something like 'if this event occurs, it will be accompanied by this (other) event' - like, 'if I double the volume of a fixed mass of gas (at constant temperature), its pressure will halve', or 'if I double the voltage across a wire (at constant temperature), the current will also double'.

Contrary to widespread and erroneous belief, theories don't 'graduate' into laws; rather, laws get incorporated into theories.

That is interesting, what are your sources?

 

[painted wolf]

then why is it called a theory?

Because that is the proper use of the word going back to the ancient Greek origin of the word theoria.
The scientific use of the word came first... it was later used as slang.

It's not my fault that you use the word incorrectly as slang.

People use a collection of facts to form assumptions all the time.

Yes, but they are not scientifically valid theories... which must have explanatory power in a model... they need to be able to make testable predictions and then be backed up by experimental evidence.
Again, a theory is not an assumption.

What would you say the difference between a theory and a law are?

A law is a very limited bit of mathematics or factual statement that describes a part of a theory... a theory is the framework that explains how a group of laws work together in reality.

For example the "law of gravity" is this...

The above however only applies to the mutual attraction of masses in classical physics... it can not account for quantum physical reality or Einstein's relativity. It is thus still very useful, but too limited to account for the whole reality of gravitation.

Thus, the theory of gravity unites this law with other laws from quantum physics to produce a complete view of how gravity operates in the real world.

Theories are higher than laws because they unite several laws into a real world framework or model.

wa:do

 

[britagainststupidity]

the best question is not how do you explain fossils but rather how do you explain fossils of dinosaurs that were on this "young earth" at least 65 million years ago, even better the fossils of invertebrates that are hundreds of millions of years old, carbon dating proves the age of the earth, just like fossils prove the existence of such animals and how they evolved, the evidence is overwhelming. i personally do not believe there is a "God" or an afterlife, thats not to say there isnt one, i just dont believe there is, most people take on religion because they cannot accept death, be it their own mortality or the mortality of those around them,so they choose to live in a fantasy world where life never ends, instead saying it just changes state and location if there is any such thing as a spirit how would you explain people with frontal lobe damage who suffer from a severe personality change? the fact of the matter is death is a scary idea and some people would rather live a lie than accept it. whenever science says something that contradicts the bible, creationists will do one of two things, 1) call it a lie. 2) find something in the bible that is vague at best and apply that meaning to it. All they do is sweep things they dont want to face under the rug that is faith.