Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

[viole]

I think it's fortunate if atheists accept Big Bang over Steady State, since the Big Bang shows the laws of conversation did not apply when the universe was created. Thank you!

Why not? The total energy in the Universe is zero. Do you think that "before" the Big Bang it had a different value?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Energy cannot exist without matters (including subatomic particles).

You have heard of potential energy and kinetic energy in physics, haven't you?

An object at rest, will have potential energy, and energy being the ability to do work. So when object move or doing work, then kinetic energy is produced.

Energy is closely related to mass. Mass is a property of matter.

If you have ever study physics, then you should notice that many of the equations regarding to energy, often have mass as one of the variables in those equations.

I would say energy is not only related to mass. It IS mass, as the most famous equation of physics shows. Funny thing, it could also be negative.

Incidentally, the fact that energy is the capacity to do work entails that the Universe has zero energy. For on what could the Universe do work, if there is nothing else to do work on?

Ciao

- viole

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I would say energy is not only related to mass. It IS mass, as the most famous equation of physics shows. Funny thing, it could also be negative.

Incidentally, the fact that energy is the capacity to do work entails that the Universe has zero energy. For on what could the Universe do work, if there is nothing else to do work on?

Ciao

- viole

By extension, wouldn't that mean any isolated system has zero energy?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I would say energy is not only related to mass. It IS mass, as the most famous equation of physics shows. Funny thing, it could also be negative.

Incidentally, the fact that energy is the capacity to do work entails that the Universe has zero energy. For on what could the Universe do work, if there is nothing else to do work on?

Ciao

- viole

I don't quite get how you conclude the universe has zero energy?

 

[Willamena]

I don't know what "kinds" is.....

There is the dictionary....

 

[Willamena]

Guy Threepwood:

The irrationality is associating certain fields of science to be "atheism", while ignoring other fields to be "atheism".

I don't care if you accept one cosmology over another, but to put one cosmology as being "theistic", and others as "atheistic" as absurd.

You still failed to answer me the questions I have asked:

Who among the atheist members here (at RF) accept Hoyle's steady state model over the Big Bang model?​

You keep bringing up one atheist (Hoyle), who no one accept these days, and yet nothing in the history of Big Bang does it say that the Big Bang as being theistic.

Science =/= atheism. They are not synonymous, guy.

That's not fair. I don't accept Hoyle's steady state model as an atheist because I don't know it, but that says nothing about its validity.

But if I knew it, it might just fit into my atheistic model.

 

[Willamena]

I don't quite get how you conclude the universe has zero energy?

*polite applause*

 

[gnostic]

That's not fair. I don't accept Hoyle's steady state model as an atheist because I don't know it, but that says nothing about its validity.

But if I knew it, it might just fit into my atheistic model.

The Steady State Model (SSM) has been throughly debunked, back in the 60s. There were even serious doubts about SSM back in the 40s & 50s.

The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) was predicted by Alpher and Herman in 1948 (or 49) about the Big Bang. CMBR is the remnant radiation heat of the Big Bang.

And the CMBR was first discovered in 1969. And more recently, the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) space telescope/probe further confirmed that the Big Bang cosmology was right, and further confirming that the observable universe is about 13.77 billion years old.

Fred Hoyle is a quack, willamena. His only contribution to science is his small part on stellar nucleosynthesis; but I preferred George Gamow's stellar nucleosynthesis over Hoyle's. All of Hoyle's other science papers have been refuted and dismissed. His only fame is really his science fiction stories.

And science should be based on science, on verifiable evidences or testings, not on it being "atheistic".

Atheism is not science. Nor is theism.

Why should science be about atheism or theism, willamena?

 

[Willamena]

The Steady State Model (SSM) has been throughly debunked, back in the 60s. There were even serious doubts about SSM back in the 40s & 50s.

The cosmic background microwave radiation (CBMR) was predicted by Alpher and Herman in 1948 (or 49) about the Big Bang. CBMR is the remnant radiation heat of the Big Bang.

And the CBMR was first discovered in 1969. And more recently, the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) space telescope/probe further confirmed that the Big Bang cosmology was right, and further confirming that the observable universe is about 13.77 billion years old.

Fred Hoyle is a quack, willamena. His only contribution to science is his small part on stellar nucleosynthesis; but I preferred George Gamow's stellar nucleosynthesis over Hoyle's. All of Hoyle's other science papers have been refuted and dismissed. His only fame is really his science fiction stories.

And science should be based on science, on verifiable evidences or testings, not on it being "atheistic".

Atheism is not science. Nor is theism.

Why should science be about atheism or theism, willamena?

Thanks for explaining.

I'll lend it the same amount of salt as I do most things I know nothing about until I investigate them.

I agree that atheism is not about science, but they can touch subjects, as most subjects do. Science can be atheistic, and atheism can be scientific, and in many cases there is a perspective from which both can be seen to serve common purpose (pragmatism).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The Steady State Model (SSM) has been throughly debunked, back in the 60s. There were even serious doubts about SSM back in the 40s & 50s.

The cosmic background microwave radiation (CBMR) was predicted by Alpher and Herman in 1948 (or 49) about the Big Bang. CBMR is the remnant radiation heat of the Big Bang.

And the CBMR was first discovered in 1969. And more recently, the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) space telescope/probe further confirmed that the Big Bang cosmology was right, and further confirming that the observable universe is about 13.77 billion years old.

Fred Hoyle is a quack, willamena. His only contribution to science is his small part on stellar nucleosynthesis; but I preferred George Gamow's stellar nucleosynthesis over Hoyle's. All of Hoyle's other science papers have been refuted and dismissed. His only fame is really his science fiction stories.

And science should be based on science, on verifiable evidences or testings, not on it being "atheistic".

Atheism is not science. Nor is theism.

Why should science be about atheism or theism, willamena?

Show me the proof that the universe is not eternal....iow where is the proof it had a beginning?

 

[gnostic]

Show me the proof that the universe is not eternal....iow where is the proof it had a beginning?

Man, you are scientific illiterate and incompetent.

Science can only show what evidences are available.

Science, at this moment, doesn't indicate the universe to be eternal or not eternal. Those who favor for ONE or for the OTHER, is purely speculation and theoretical.

The only solid evidences we have are -

1. the CMBR (BB remnant radiation) that indicate the universe is...to date...about 13.77 billion years. Science can't look beyond there (YET) either because we have reach the limit of our technology.
   
2. The other evidences show that the universe is continuing to expand, with galaxies moving away from each other, we measure the wavelength known as redshift. Because the universe is continuing to expand, it would seem that it is actually accelerating.

These two evidences (there are actually a lot more than these two) show the Big Bang cosmology is still a very valid theory.

All other theories are still very theoretical, and are based on complex mathematical equations and mathematical models, and THEY ARE ALL CURRENTLY UNTESTABLE!

Multiverse (alternative or parallel universe), eternal universe, Big Bounce (or the Oscillating model), Big Rip, Big Crunch, Big Freeze, and a few others, are all untestable and theoretical theories.

The Big Bounce or the Oscillating model is one in which there are series of universe, in which universe go through birth, death, re-birth, death again, rebirth again, etc. In another word, the universe goes through Big Bang --> Big Crunch --> Big Bang --> Big Crunch, etc. That's one scenario (Big Bounce) of the eternal universe. But so far, the Big Bounce is untestable and purely speculative.

Likewise, there are many competing multiverse theories, and each one is untestable, therefore NONE OF THEM FACTUAL.

Theory can only explain facts, when they are verifiable, and "verifiable" means either having evidences or be testable.

Meaning any theory that is not testable, then it is not fact.

Until there are evidences to support, I may find each theoretical theory interesting, but not factual...and if it is not factual, I don't have to accept it as real.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

There is the dictionary....

You took that out of context. He means in the context of evolutionary biology.

"Kind" isn't a formal term used for any given group of lifeforms.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Show me the proof that the universe is not eternal....iow where is the proof it had a beginning?

Show me the proof that there's not an invisible dragon-fairy on the Moon making chocolate cake out of paper clips and cotton balls. If you can't show the prove that there isn't one, then that means there assurably is one.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Man, you are scientific illiterate and incompetent.

Science can only show what evidences are available.

Science, at this moment, doesn't indicate the universe to be eternal or not eternal. Those who favor for ONE or for the OTHER, is purely speculation and theoretical.

The only solid evidences we have are -

1. the CBMR (BB remnant radiation) that indicate the universe is...to date...about 13.77 billion years. Science can't look beyond there (YET) either because we have reach the limit of our technology.
   
2. The other evidences show that the universe is continuing to expand, with galaxies moving away from each other, we measure the wavelength known as redshift. Because the universe is continuing to expand, it would seem that it is actually accelerating.

These two evidences (there are actually a lot more than these two) show the Big Bang cosmology is still a very valid theory.

All other theories are still very theoretical, and are based on complex mathematical equations and mathematical models, and THEY ARE ALL CURRENTLY UNTESTABLE!

Multiverse (alternative or parallel universe), eternal universe, Big Bounce (or the Oscillating model), Big Rip, Big Crunch, Big Freeze, and a few others, are all untestable and theoretical theories.

The Big Bounce or the Oscillating model is one in which there are series of universe, in which universe go through birth, death, re-birth, death again, rebirth again, etc. In another word, the universe goes through Big Bang --> Big Crunch --> Big Bang --> Big Crunch, etc. That's one scenario (Big Bounce) of the eternal universe. But so far, the Big Bounce is untestable and purely speculative.

Likewise, there are many competing multiverse theories, and each one is untestable, therefore NONE OF THEM FACTUAL.

Theory can only explain facts, when they are verifiable, and "verifiable" means either having evidences or be testable.

Meaning any theory that is not testable, then it is not fact.

Until there are evidences to support, I may find each theoretical theory interesting, but not factual...and if it is not factual, I don't have to accept it as real.

Haha...we may soon find out who is scientific illiterate....and what is incompetent about getting you to answer the question I asked....you replied and so I am happy with that? ...

Your right... the theory of the big bang can not be considered a fact as it can't be tested... But even more to the point, it can not be taken seriously even as a theory as the concept of a causeless effect is illogical..... The theory of an eternal universe however, does not defy the laws of logic...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Show me the proof that there's not an invisible dragon-fairy on the Moon making chocolate cake out of paper clips and cotton balls. If you can't show the prove that there isn't one, then that means there assurably is one.

Ahem....I have no idea what that is meant to address?

What I am saying is the universe is eternal and I can prove it with logic....the big bang theory believers otoh who think there was a beginning to the universe need to prove it with science or logic, to disprove me wrong...

 

[viole]

By extension, wouldn't that mean any isolated system has zero energy?

No. Because the isolated system can, potentially, do work on the outside. All you need to do is remove the insulation.

For the Universe this is impossible. There is no outside, by definition.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I don't quite get how you conclude the universe has zero energy?

The positive energy of mass is perfectly cancelled out by the negative energy of the gravitation that attracts it. These two form of energies, one negative the other positive, seem to cancel each other exactly.

This can be measured. An umbalance of energy in the universe will result in a not-zero large scale curvature of the universe. By observing very distant things we can estimate the curvature of the universe.

Evidence suggests the universe is large scale flat. Ergo, there is no appreciable unbalance of energy. Therefore, total energy is neither negatve (negative curvature of the universe) nor positive (positive curvature of the universe).

So, the only possible value of total energy, consistent with the observed geometry of the universe, is zero calories.

By the way, if this is true (the energy of the universe is zero), as it seems, then the Wheeler-De Witt equation of quantum gravity, which is an extension of the Schroedinger equation to the state function of the whole universe, entails that the universe is ETERNAL. The variable "time" disappears for universes with zero net energy like ours. As expected.

Expected because there are no possible clocks outside of the universe (there is no external time the universe "evolves" through) and there is no externat reality the universe can reveive or apply work to (its energy must then be zero) So, both eternalism and zero energy are basically two sides of the same coin. The absence of a physical reality outside of the Universe, by definition, and the strong physical link that exist between time and energy.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The positive energy of mass is perfectly cancelled out by the negative energy of the gravitation that attracts it. These two form of energies, one negative the other positive, seem to cancel each other exactly.

This can be measured. An umbalance of energy in the universe will result in a not-zero large scale curvature of the universe. By observing very distant things we can estimate the curvature of the universe.

Evidence suggests the universe is large scale flat. Ergo, there is no appreciable unbalance of energy. Therefore, total energy is neither negatve (negative curvature of the universe) nor positive (positive curvature of the universe).

So, the only possible value of total energy, consistent with the observed geometry of the universe, is zero calories.

By the way, if this is true (the energy of the universe is zero), as it seems, then the Wheeler-De Witt equation of quantum gravity, which is an extension of the Schroedinger equation to the state function of the whole universe, entails that the universe is ETERNAL. The variable "time" disappears for universes with zero net energy like ours. As expected.

Expected because there are no possible clocks outside of the universe (there is no external time the universe "evolves" through) and there is no externat reality the universe can reveive or apply work to (its energy must then be zero) So, both eternalism and zero energy are basically two sides of the same coin. The absence of a physical reality outside of the Universe, by definition, and the strong physical link that exist between time and energy.

Ciao

- viole

You are talking about relative zero...like a bookkeeping accounting zero...but never is there nothing... There is no science that shows there can be nothing...in fact there is no science that can show there is even negative energy except in the relative sense of being out of phase with that it relative to... If you think it is not so...show me the science?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Your right... the theory of the big bang can not be considered a fact as it can't be tested... But even more to the point, it can not be taken seriously even as a theory as the concept of a causeless effect is illogical.....

The observations support the big bang. As for the concept of a causeless effect, well cause and effect are a feature of space-time and cannot be assumed "prior" to the big bang.
There may well have been something prior to the big bang or outside it, or containing it, whatever, but we simply don't know at this stage.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The observations support the big bang. As for the concept of a causeless effect, well cause and effect are a feature of space-time and cannot be assumed "prior" to the big bang.
There may well have been something prior to the big bang or outside it, or containing it, whatever, but we simply don't know at this stage.

You are almost there...go the extra mile and the unknown will become clear...there is no such thing in logic as a causeless effect...if you posit that space-time was not "prior" to the big bang....my question to you now is...why did the big bang occur? Of course I know you don't know, nobody knows that because there was never a beginning...except as a mental construct in mortal minds....