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

[MARCELLO]

Evolution is studied even in Iran and Saudi Arabia medicine schools,what else?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

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...

You can't prove any physical fact with logic alone. You need physical evidence.

And you can't argue something is true due to a lack of proof against it.

 

[outhouse]

You can't prove any physical fact with logic alone. You need physical evidence.

That is correct.

We do not use imaginative opinions as credible evidence

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You can't prove any physical fact with logic alone. You need physical evidence.

And you can't argue something is true due to a lack of proof against it.

It is a combination of physical fact, physical evidence, and pure analytical logic...if you are wanting to avoid the challenge...then you have been all huff and puff and no substance...

ps...same goes for you outhouse....

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

It is a combination of physical fact, physical evidence, and pure analytical logic...if you are wanting to avoid the challenge...then you have been all huff and puff and no substance...

ps...same goes for you outhouse....

Saying that something "simply makes more sense" isn't a logical argument.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Saying that something "simply makes more sense" isn't a logical argument.

Is English not your first language...what are you trying to say?

I say that the universe is eternal...and I can prove it to you if you accept the challenge?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Is English not your first language...what are you trying to say?

I say that the universe is eternal...and I can prove it to you if you accept the challenge?

Go ahead. The burden of proof is on you after all. I'm glad you're starting to realize this.

And whether the Universe is eternal or not, the Big Bang still happened.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Go ahead. The burden of proof is on you after all. I'm glad you're starting to realize this.

And whether the Universe is eternal or not, the Big Bang still happened.

So the universe is defined as complete/absolute existence....or the one that is all...

We know from science that it is composed as matter and energy.

There is no knowledge in existence that can make existing energy to disappear or to become non-existing. To imagine that the whole of existence, or even the smallest part thereof, can be made to cease existing is not rational or logical....and so far as I know, no scientist is suggesting it is possible...

Therefore, universal existence not only will never cease its existence, it could never have not existed for we have already agreed that it is not possible to make existence to not exist...and to have a beginning means this universal existence must be made to not exist in order to have nothing from which to bring forth universal existence....an absurdity...

If you disagree with any part of what I said, please quote my exact words so I can address your point...

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

So the universe is defined as complete/absolute existence....or the one that is all...

Well then we simply disagree on definitions. I don't define the Universe as all of existence. I define it as this 4D realm we currently occupy.

We know from science that it is composed as matter and energy.

This one is, yes.

If you disagree with any part of what I said, please quote my exact words so I can address your point...

The problem is your understanding of time it self. Time it self had a beginning in this Universe, or at least it seems like it did. Saying all of existence has always exists is placing all of existence, including other Universes, in the same dimension of time, so-to-speak.

There's no "before" the Big Bang. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Big Bang is the start of all of existence it self, but time for this Universe begins at the Big Bang. If there are other Universes, we would only be able to say they exist. We can't say they've always existed, because we can't talk about time when referring to other Universes. Another way to put it, say we know another Universe exists. We couldn't talk about what might be going on in another Universe at "this" particular "moment". There is no "this moment" when referring to another Universe, because we don't occupy any moment in time in another Universe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well then we simply disagree on definitions. I don't define the Universe as all of existence. I define it as this 4D realm we currently occupy.


This one is, yes.

The problem is your understanding of time it self. Time it self had a beginning in this Universe, or at least it seems like it did. Saying all of existence has always exists is placing all of existence, including other Universes, in the same dimension of time, so-to-speak.

There's no "before" the Big Bang. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Big Bang is the start of all of existence it self, but time for this Universe begins at the Big Bang. If there are other Universes, we would only be able to say they exist. We can't say they've always existed, because we can't talk about time when referring to other Universes. Another way to put it, say we know another Universe exists. We couldn't talk about what might be going on in another Universe at "this" particular "moment". There is no "this moment" when referring to another Universe, because we don't occupy any moment in time in another Universe.

Ok...you are a hopeless case..I use the dictionary meaning of universe and you just make up your own...

I requested that if you disagree with anything I said, please quote my exact words that you disagree with....where did I mention the big bang?

And where did I mention other universes ?

I am not going to waste another moment on you until you learn to address what I say instead talking about stuff that is totally irrelevant to my post...That is why I asked you to quote my exact words so as to avoid this nonsense.....and you can't even understand what that means....

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Ok...you are a hopeless case..I use the dictionary meaning of universe and you just make up your own...

I didn't make up my own. I'm using the cosmological definition of universe.

Would observable universe be a better term then? Our observable universe has a time that began at the Big Bang. The universe, as you define it, wouldn't comprise a single temporal existence... unless the observable universe is all there is. In which case, it's not eternal. If there is more to it then that, then "eternal" sorta just loses it's meaning.

requested that if you disagree with anything I said, please quote my exact words that you disagree with....where did I mention the big bang?

I only disagree with the way you're thinking about time. That's what I addressed. So words like "eternal" kinda don't make sense when referring to all of existence. You said the universe is eternal. That's what I'm addressing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I didn't make up my own. I'm using the cosmological definition of universe.

Would observable universe be a better term then? Our observable universe has a time that began at the Big Bang. The universe, as you define it, wouldn't comprise a single temporal existence... unless the observable universe is all there is. In which case, it's not eternal. If there is more to it then that, then "eternal" sorta just loses it's meaning.


I only disagree with the way you're thinking about time. That's what I addressed. So words like "eternal" kinda don't make sense when referring to all of existence. You said the universe is eternal. That's what I'm addressing.

Ok..let's be patient...my dictionary says...universe = all that exits...complete existence. And that is what I mean when I speak of the universe so please accept my definition for the purposes of my explanation. I am not concerned with the manifested universe nor now...the observable universe as you put it...but only the whole of existence.. And I am also not concerned with time...any talk of changes taking place within the universe, beginnings or endings, etc., is not relevant to my point..

So I am saying simply that the sum total of all that exists can not be made to not exist..... If you think otherwise please explain how this would be possible?

So if it can not cease to exist...it follows logically that existence is all there is...time is irrelevant...

 

[gnostic]

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...

You seriously don't know how to read, do you, ben?

Theory are verified through observation. And observation comes from either through testing or discoveries of evidences (and even both).

And there are number of evidences to support the Big Bang, and I gave you two already.

Didn't I presented to you with evidences?

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.

The fact that you deny there are no evidences, clearly show that you are one of the following:

1. You are ignorant.
2. Or you are biased, and refused to recognise the evidences available.
3. Or you have agenda to spread misinformation.

Or it could be any combination of the 3 above.

There are also other evidences, that I haven't mention in my earlier post (about redshift and CMB radiation).

For instance, another important evidence is the presence of quasars.

Quasars are among the oldest light in the universe, therefore the most distant of them. Quasars is about the almost the same age as the the universe, around 12.5 billion years old.

And another important evidence is nucleosynthesis.

This tell how the matters were formed from the subatomic particles (read up particle physics), before the earliest stars formed from the early universe. The Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) is one of the more important evidence.

It also explain how the lightest elements (hydrogen atoms) fused into heavier elements (like helium atoms).

That you would think that there are no evidences, just demonstrated to us how woefully ignorant you really are, Ben.

You are forgetting that a number of observatories, space probes (WMAP, Cosmic Background Explorer (or COBE), Planck spacecraft from ESA), or space observatories (Hubble, Chandra X-ray Observatory, Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO), Spitzer Space Telescope) have made a number of recent discoveries that have uncover these evidences, and have collected abundant of data and measurements for the Big Bang.

Compared to the age of the universe, our Sun (as well as the rest of our solar system) is youngster. Our entire solar systems were formed from the earlier stars than our sun.

If you have bother to look them up you would know that there are evidences, instead you make a bold but terribly claims that there have been none.

Look up Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation and Redshift. Read up on Nucleosynthesis (and why you are at, look at general relativity and quantum physics in relation to the Big Bang and nucleosynthesis), do a little research on quasars, dark energy, dark matter.

If read all of these then you wouldn't repeatedly make foolish and ignorant claims.

Here are few good webpages:

• Test of the Big Bang: The CMB, WMAP Big Bang (NASA)
• Tests of Big Bang: Expansion (about expansion and redshift), WMAP Big Bang (NASA)
  
• When Did the First Cosmic Structures Form? (Quasars), WMAP Big Bang (NASA)
  
• Tests of Big Bang: The Light Elements (nucleosynthesis), WMAP Big Bang (NASA)
• What is the Universe Made Of? (This contain information about matters and energy, as well as about dark matters and dark energy.) WMAP Big Bang (NASA)

All of the above links are from NASA. And I have provided sources without resorting to using the Wikipedia.

Read them, understand them. And stop making false statements or false claims, Ben.

​

Sources:

WMAP's Introduction to Cosmology, NASA
ESA (European Space Agency)
NOAO (National Optical Astronomy Observatory)​

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You seriously don't know how to read, do you, ben?

Theory are verified through observation. And observation comes from either through testing or discoveries of evidences (and even both).

And there are number of evidences to support the Big Bang, and I gave you two already.

Didn't I presented to you with evidences?


The fact that you deny there are no evidences, clearly show that you are one of the following:

1. You are ignorant.
2. Or you are biased, and refused to recognise the evidences available.
3. Or you have agenda to spread misinformation.

Or it could be any combination of the 3 above.

There are also other evidences, that I haven't mention in my earlier post (about redshift and CMB radiation).

For instance, another important evidence is the presence of quasars.

Quasars are among the oldest light in the universe, therefore the most distant of them. Quasars is about the almost the same age as the the universe, around 12.5 billion years old.

And another important evidence is nucleosynthesis.

This tell how the matters were formed from the subatomic particles (read up particle physics), before the earliest stars formed from the early universe. The Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) is one of the more important evidence.

It also explain how the lightest elements (hydrogen atoms) fused into heavier elements (like helium atoms).

That you would think that there are no evidences, just demonstrated to us how woefully ignorant you really are, Ben.

You are forgetting that a number of observatories, space probes (WMAP, Cosmic Background Explorer (or COBE), Planck spacecraft from ESA), or space observatories (Hubble, Chandra X-ray Observatory, Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO), Spitzer Space Telescope) have made a number of recent discoveries that have uncover these evidences, and have collected abundant of data and measurements for the Big Bang.

Compared to the age of the universe, our Sun (as well as the rest of our solar system) is youngster. Our entire solar systems were formed from the earlier stars than our sun.

If you have bother to look them up you would know that there are evidences, instead you make a bold but terribly claims that there have been none.

Look up Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation and Redshift. Read up on Nucleosynthesis (and why you are at, look at general relativity and quantum physics in relation to the Big Bang and nucleosynthesis), do a little research on quasars, dark energy, dark matter.

If read all of these then you wouldn't repeatedly make foolish and ignorant claims.

Here are few good webpages:

• Test of the Big Bang: The CMB, WMAP Big Bang (NASA)
• Tests of Big Bang: Expansion (about expansion and redshift), WMAP Big Bang (NASA)
  
• When Did the First Cosmic Structures Form? (Quasars), WMAP Big Bang (NASA)
  
• Tests of Big Bang: The Light Elements (nucleosynthesis), WMAP Big Bang (NASA)
• What is the Universe Made Of? (This contain information about matters and energy, as well as about dark matters and dark energy.) WMAP Big Bang (NASA)

All of the above links are from NASA. And I have provided sources without resorting to using the Wikipedia.

Read them, understand them. And stop making false statements or false claims, Ben.

​

Sources:

WMAP's Introduction to Cosmology, NASA
ESA (European Space Agency)
NOAO (National Optical Astronomy Observatory)​

So gnostic...concerning your big bang.......reflect on the events that would be observed if you play the flow of time backwards from now..... somewhere, all that exists will disappear... .So what is the mechanism by which all that now exits could disappear including matter and energy and space and singularity and time?. And would not this state be absolutely nothing? Now reverse it again to fast forward....from this nothing comes time and all that now exists...is this not something from nothing? So what is the mechanism by which all the now exists could arise from nothing? So why did nothing give rise to everything?

Take your time and I look forward to your answers...

 

[gnostic]

So gnostic...concerning your big bang.......reflect on the events that would be observed if you play the flow of time backwards from now..... somewhere, all that exists will disappear... .So what is the mechanism by which all that now exits could disappear including matter and energy and space and singularity and time?. And would not this state be absolutely nothing? Now reverse it again to fast forward....from this nothing comes time and all that now exists...is this not something from nothing? So what is the mechanism by which all the now exists could arise from nothing? So why did nothing give rise to everything?

Take your time and I look forward to your answers...

You are again making false claims, but this time about what I think and believe.

No where does the Big Bang even postulate that energy or matters or universe came from nothing.

The Big Bang cosmology was never a creatio ex nihilo.

The creatio ex nihilo has always been a religious and philosophical concepts.

There are no evidences to support ex nihilo in the Big Bang.

I have always thought the everything from nothing an absurd concept, so that you think that I hold to the ex nihilo claim, is nothing more than you attacking straw man.

Try again. Stop making things up what I have said and believe.

Read the links I gave to you from my previous reply, and learn about all the evidences that do support the Big Bang. Examples, cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), the quasars, redshift (observation of expansion), (BB) nucleosynthesis, etc.

So some research on particle physics and nuclear physics in order to understand nucleosynthesis. Stop being ignorant and making things up.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are again making false claims, but this time about what I think and believe.

No where does the Big Bang even postulate that energy or matters or universe came from nothing.

The Big Bang cosmology was never a creatio ex nihilo.

The creatio ex nihilo has always been a religious and philosophical concepts.

There are no evidences to support ex nihilo in the Big Bang.

I have always thought the everything from nothing an absurd concept, so that you think that I hold to the ex nihilo claim, is nothing more than you attacking straw man.

Try again. Stop making things up what I have said and believe.

Read the links I gave to you from my previous reply, and learn about all the evidences that do support the Big Bang. Examples, cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), the quasars, redshift (observation of expansion), (BB) nucleosynthesis, etc.

So some research on particle physics and nuclear physics in order to understand nucleosynthesis. Stop being ignorant and making things up.

OK..you say you have always thought the everything from nothing an absurd concept, so please read the following questions and tell me your answers...

Reflect on the events that would be observed if you play the flow of time backwards from now..... somewhere, all that exists does not exist including time itself...yes?

What would this state be called before the singularity....for example could we refer to it timelessness?

Now reverse it again to fast forward....from this timeless state comes time and space and all that now exists. So what is the mechanism by which time and space could arises from timelessness-spacelessness?

And why did timelessness spacellessness give rise to time and space?

In your response, please be relevant wrt my questions, I have no interest at this point in any other aspect of the universe...understood?

 

[gnostic]

OK..you say you have always thought the everything from nothing an absurd concept, so please read the following questions and tell me your answers...

Reflect on the events that would be observed if you play the flow of time backwards from now..... somewhere, all that exists does not exist including time itself...yes?

What would this state be called before the singularity....for example could we refer to it timelessness?

Now reverse it again to fast forward....from this timeless state comes time and space and all that now exists. So what is the mechanism by which time and space could arises from timelessness-spacelessness?

And why did timelessness spacellessness give rise to time and space?

In your response, please be relevant wrt my questions, I have no interest at this point in any other aspect of the universe...understood?

Sorry, but what part of me preferring "empirical" and "experimental" physics over "theoretical physics" that you don't understand?

Although I may like to read about theoretical physics, like superstring theory, M-theory, multiverse cosmology, the Oscillating model (Big Bounce), Big Crunch, etc, they are still currently untestable and no verifiable evidences, therefore I don't accept any of them to be true...until evidences can found for them.

We - meaning science communities, not you and I - currently don't have the tools or technology yet to see beyond the 1st 10 seconds AFTER the Big Bang, so we don't know what is BEFORE the Big Bang.

Scientists can only what happen in the first 10 seconds after the Big Bang, and they are only speculating what is the singularity and they can only speculate about the universe being eternal. But essential they don't know.

These fields of theoretical physics are theoretical because they rely on mathematical equations and mathematical models, but otherwise untestable, which is another word for scientific proof. Proof and evidence are two different things in the word of science.

• Evidence is something that can be verified or tested or refuted. Evidence is real.
• Proof is those mathematical equations, models. Proof is a logical construct, and not necessarily real.

Meaning, we don't know what is the singularity, we don't know if there were universe before OUR universe, and we don't know if the universe is eternal OR not.

So let me spell out to you THAT I cannot possibly answer your what-if questions or what-if scenario that you have cooked up. You are asking me to say something that pure speculation as if it is real.

Without evidences and without being able to test it, what you are asking from me, is like asking me to believe that a cow can jump over the moon.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but what part of me preferring "empirical" and "experimental" physics over "theoretical physics" that you don't understand?

Although I may like to read about theoretical physics, like superstring theory, M-theory, multiverse cosmology, the Oscillating model (Big Bounce), Big Crunch, etc, they are still currently untestable and no verifiable evidences, therefore I don't accept any of them to be true...until evidences can found for them.

We - meaning science communities, not you and I - currently don't have the tools or technology yet to see beyond the 1st 10 seconds AFTER the Big Bang, so we don't know what is BEFORE the Big Bang.

Scientists can only what happen in the first 10 seconds after the Big Bang, and they are only speculating what is the singularity and they can only speculate about the universe being eternal. But essential they don't know.

These fields of theoretical physics are theoretical because they rely on mathematical equations and mathematical models, but otherwise untestable, which is another word for scientific proof. Proof and evidence are two different things in the word of science.

• Evidence is something that can be verified or tested or refuted. Evidence is real.
• Proof is those mathematical equations, models. Proof is a logical construct, and not necessarily real.

Meaning, we don't know what is the singularity, we don't know if there were universe before OUR universe, and we don't know if the universe is eternal OR not.

So let me spell out to you THAT I cannot possibly answer your what-if questions or what-if scenario that you have cooked up. You are asking me to say something that pure speculation as if it is real.

Without evidences and without being able to test it, what you are asking from me, is like asking me to believe that a cow can jump over the moon.

That's a lot of words to tell me you can't answer the questions... I don't have the constraints or excuses you raise and use pure logic to understand that it is an impossibility for existence as we know it to arise from non-existence... That's my only point...not the validity or not of the contemporary theories being put forward about the the universe that we know exists...

 

[metis]

Let me provide my "drift" in very brief terms: I have no reason to believe that something came out of nothing, nor do I have a reason to believe that a deity or deities created all.

There, that's my "evidence".

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

So I am saying simply that the sum total of all that exists can not be made to not exist..... If you think otherwise please explain how this would be possible?

I can't explain how it would be possible, but I'm not the one making a claim.

I can agree that it makes sense and that it seems incomprehensible for the totality of existence to become non-existent. My mind cannot fathom how all of existence can become non-existent. But this is my own mind and the limitations of it, and it's NOT proof of anything. I can't be so egocentric to project the notions I have in my head on how the Universe ought to be like. You have to understand that there are things about this Universe that won't make sense to us. Quantum superpositions didn't make sense to us upon discovery, but they're nonetheless, a fact of reality. Black holes didn't make sense to us and Einstein refused to believe they existed. But they do.

You're making a claim. You need physical proof.

So if it can not cease to exist...it follows logically that existence is all there is...time is irrelevant...

It is logical. I agree and I can give you that. But like I said, logic alone doesn't prove anything physically. You're trying to prove conclusively that existence is eternal. But right now, considering all we know about the observable universe and the way time behaves, the totality of existence is beyond our comprehension right now. We don't have enough information. So anything about the totality of existence is inconclusive and I think that's the stance you should take.

You're too quick to want a conclusion and an answer about the fundamental natures of the Universe. Learn to see when something is inconclusive.