• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Kilgore Trout

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
sandy whitelinger said:
Will you show it to me?
Click to expand...

furry_corner_official_gold_stars_star_sticker-r1347b1859da14d728e7652f97fcaee53_v9w09_8byvr_512.jpg
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
leibowde84 said:
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

The above link explains it pretty well.
Click to expand...
Haha....it doesn't explain it at all...it says this...."The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself."

Now in the first case of pre-existing space and time....this is not nothing, a true vacuum does not, and can not exist....it is an impossible proposition... Prove me wrong if you disagree?

In the second case of absolute nothing, no time or space...this also is not possible and can never have existed.If you disagree, prove me wrong?

So in both cases, if follows that to theorize the universe coming from an impossible nothing is proposing to believe in an impossible miracle...:)
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
ben d said:
Haha....it doesn't explain it at all...it says this...."The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself."

Now in the first case of pre-existing space and time....this is not nothing, a true vacuum does not, and can not exist....it is an impossible proposition... Prove me wrong if you disagree?

In the second case of absolute nothing, no time or space...this also is not possible and can never have existed.If you disagree, prove me wrong?

So in both cases, if follows that to theorize the universe coming from an impossible nothing is proposing to believe in an impossible miracle...:)
Click to expand...
You obviously didn't read it.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
ben d said:
Haha....it doesn't explain it at all...it says this...."The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself."

Now in the first case of pre-existing space and time....this is not nothing, a true vacuum does not, and can not exist....it is an impossible proposition... Prove me wrong if you disagree?

In the second case of absolute nothing, no time or space...this also is not possible and can never have existed.If you disagree, prove me wrong?

So in both cases, if follows that to theorize the universe coming from an impossible nothing is proposing to believe in an impossible miracle...:)
Click to expand...
Here, I'll help you out. Here is the pertinent part of the article. And, remember, a "scientific theory" (which inflation theory is) is a hypothesis that has been confirmed with repeated experimentation and observation.

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy. (https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/)
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
leibowde84 said:
Here, I'll help you out. Here is the pertinent part of the article. And, remember, a "scientific theory" (which inflation theory is) is a hypothesis that has been confirmed with repeated experimentation and observation.

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy. (https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/)
Click to expand...
What has any of that got to do with the 'nothing' from which the universe is supposed to have arisen...it is totally and absolutely irrelevant! Now address the issue of 'nothing' from which the universe is supposed to have arisen....how does something come from nothing?
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
ben d said:
What has any of that got to do with the 'nothing' from which the universe is supposed to have arisen...it is totally and absolutely irrelevant! Now address the issue of 'nothing' from which the universe is supposed to have arisen....how does something come from nothing?
Click to expand...
yet again you reveal that you either did not read the article or that if you did read it, you failed (or refused) to understand it.

Yes, you are quite entertaining.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Mestemia said:
yet again you reveal that you either did not read the article or that if you did read it, you failed (or refused) to understand it.

Yes, you are quite entertaining.
Click to expand...
Ok fine...you quote from the article that which you think relevant to the question of time and universal space arising from no time and space?

Waving your hands about and claiming it is relevant does not cut...I have shown you why it is not relevant...you prove me wrong be showing us where it deals with why and how time and space arose from nothing?

And if you disagree with anything I have said, please quote my precise words so as to prevent any misdirection on your part...
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
David M said:
Nah, you have simply shown that you don't understand the article.
Click to expand...
I quoted the precise words from the article that refer to the original point of contention....explain to me how you think that article proves the universe emerged from nothing?

Hand waving is not science or even a rational way to debate...engage me on the science itself..
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
ben d said:
What has any of that got to do with the 'nothing' from which the universe is supposed to have arisen...it is totally and absolutely irrelevant! Now address the issue of 'nothing' from which the universe is supposed to have arisen....how does something come from nothing?
Click to expand...
Alright, I'll try to lay it out for you, as my comment wasn't in regards to "something from nothing". You said the following:

ben d said:
I don't quite get how you conclude the universe has zero energy?
Click to expand...

I provided the article, which includes the following explanation:

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy. (https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/)
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
ben d said:
I quoted the precise words from the article that refer to the original point of contention....explain to me how you think that article proves the universe emerged from nothing?

Hand waving is not science or even a rational way to debate...engage me on the science itself..
Click to expand...
The subject was the net zero energy of the universe, not something from nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top