Genesis - Big Bang mash-up

[shunyadragon]

I accept all proven science but all I’m hearing from you is we don’t know yet.

Still remains over the top intentional ignorance of science based on a religious agenda. You only hear what you want to hear.

Back to the basics. Science does not prove anything. Do you vaguely understand how Methodological Naturalism works.

All of the theories you’ve listed, even if verified, still wouldn’t disprove God and in case you didn’t realize it this site is a religious forum not a a science forum so yes religion creeps into everything.

Again the misunderstanding of science. The foundation of science is Methodological Naturalism. The belief in Gpd and all subjective religious claims or beliefs cannot be falsified scientific methods. It is important that science remain neutral to religious beliefs and only falsifies hypothesis and theories concerning the physical nature of our existence.

I am a scientist and believe in God

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Still remains over the top intentional ignorance of science based on a religious agenda. You only hear what you want to hear.

Back to the basics. Science does not prove anything. Do you vaguely understand how Methodological Naturalism works.


Again the misunderstanding of science. The foundation of science is Methodological Naturalism. The belief in Gpd and all subjective religious claims or beliefs cannot be falsified scientific methods. It is important that science remain neutral to religious beliefs and only falsifies hypothesis and theories concerning the physical nature of our existence.

I am a scientist and believe in God

Science doesn’t prove anything huh?

Ok

 

[We Never Know]

Let poetic, of course, and I'm sure subject to debate but this appealed to me today:

1 In the beginning God created the universe in a BIg Bang
2 And the universe was without form, and filled with plasma; and darkness was upon the face of the plasma. And the Spirit of God moved upon the fog of the plasma.
3 And God said, Let the the universe cool and the cooling allow light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God's laws had divided the light from the darkness.

We Finally Know What Turned The Lights on at The Dawn of Time​

At the beginning of the Universe, within minutes of the Big Bang, space was filled with a hot, dense fog of ionized plasma. What little light there was wouldn't have penetrated this fog; photons would simply have scattered off the free electrons floating around, effectively making the Universe dark.

As the Universe cooled, after about 300,000 years, protons and electrons began to come together to form neutral hydrogen (and a little bit of helium) gas. Most wavelengths of light could penetrate this neutral medium, but there was very little in the way of light sources to produce it. But from this hydrogen and helium, the first stars were born.

Those first stars delivered radiation that was strong enough to peel electrons away from their nuclei and reionize the gas. By this point, however, the Universe had expanded so much that the gas was diffuse, and could not prevent light from shining out. By about 1 billion years after the Big Bang, the end of the period known as the cosmic dawn, the Universe was entirely reionized. Ta-da! The lights were on.

Bazinga!

 

[We Never Know]

Science doesn’t prove anything huh?

Ok

Actually....

Science neither proves nor disproves. It accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence

 

[gnostic]

So can we make matter out of helium and hydrogen?

of course.

it has already happened.

As @shunyadragon have already given you an example with Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

I would to point out that our sun has core that produce helium atom from at least 6 hydrogen nuclei. That’s what it will take to make helium. Stars with similar masses as our sun, will go through type of Stellar Nucleosynthesis, known as “proton-proton chain” Nucleosynthesis. There are other types of Nucleosynthesis, but these stars tends to be many times more massive than our yellow dwarf star.

The more massive the stars, the more hotter the stars, and something like red or supergiant stars, can cause nuclear fusion of hydrogen into cycle of carbon, nitrogen & oxygen, this nuclear chain reaction is known as CNO Cycle Nucleosynthesis.

Some stars run out of hydrogen to fuse, so if the star core is hot enough, it can begin to fuse helium nuclei into heavier elements, like carbon atom. This type of Nucleosynthesis is called a Triple-Alpha Process (note that in nuclear physics and astrophysics, the word “alpha” often referred to the atom helium. It takes 3 helium nuclei to fuse into a carbon nuclei (2 helium to fuse into beryllium, and another helium to fuse with beryllium into carbon).

Then there are Supernova Nucleosynthesis, where a exploding star fuse whole bunch of atoms heavier than hydrogen and helium, from lithium to all the way up to iron in the periodic table.

Supernova Nucleosynthesis is the reason why there are heavier elements in the universe, and the reasons why there are planets, moons, asteroids, etc.

We know nuclear fusion work, because they tested the hydrogen bomb (H-bomb or thermonuclear weapon) back in 1951. While scientists and engineers can produce weapon that use nuclear fusion, there have never been nuclear power plants to create electricity that used nuclear fusion.

Anyway nuclear fusion reactions are not the same as chemical reaction.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Actually....

Science neither proves nor disproves. It accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence

So has science disproven God yet?

 

[We Never Know]

So has science disproven God yet?

Science doesn't disprove anything. It accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and/or refuting evidence.

 

[gnostic]

I accept all proven science but all I’m hearing from you is we don’t know yet.

All of the theories you’ve listed, even if verified, still wouldn’t disprove God and in case you didn’t realize it this site is a religious forum not a a science forum so yes religion creeps into everything.

Science doesn’t prove anything huh?

Ok

Tinkerpreach. I do really hope that you learn from this, and not repeat the same mistakes over and over again as many anti-science creationists do. The problem with most creationists is that they repeating the same mistakes, and refuse to learn from it.

i just hoped that you are not one of those creationists.

It is not just their inability of the creationists to understand science. It is also the language problem that creationists can’t seem to grasp.

People doing different works (jobs or careers in specific fields), will use language that can only be understood if you have education, training and experiences in this field or that.

For instance, judges, lawyers and anyone who would work in the legal field, would use certain terms and vocabulary that are not same as colloquial usages. The word “party” often means social gathering to celebrate something, like birthday or wedding, but in the legal field, it means at least 2 or more people or groups, coming into agreement or settlement, like a contract.

Do you at least understand that example?

Well - still in using the law example - to lawyers and judges, the terms EVIDENCE and PROOF are synonymous words that means the same thing…but to scientists and mathematicians, they are not same words, as they each have different meanings and different fields.

In the world of mathematics, the word PROOF means a logical model or logical statement, like a mathematical equation. They let people (eg mathematicians, theoretical scientists, statisticians, etc) to use maths as way of understanding the world, but instead of natural language, they relied on equations with number(s), constant(s), variable(s), coefficients, etc.

The words “prove” & “disprove“ - like word “proof” - are mathematical terminology, and like “proofs”, proving and disproving is either about formulating the equation or about equation solving.

I don’t know if you seen it or not, but mathematicians and theoretical physicists trying to “prove” their maths by breaking down set of equations into a single equation. Or reducing one very large and complex equation into multiple simplified equations. That’s what they mean by proving.

Isaac Newton is not only known for creating the theories on Law of Motion and on gravity (Law of Universal Gravitation), he was one of 2 founders of calculus. In the law of motion, he formulated the equation for velocity with this:

​

Newton then simplified the above equation into this form:

But by using calculus, almost precisely the 2nd derivative, he turn the velocity equation into an equation for acceleration:

.​

It is actually more complex than that in the velocity to acceleration, but I am showing the final equation.

That’s what it means by proving or disproving, solving equations or formulating new equations. But these equations are proofs, not evidence.

Proofs like mathematical equations are all abstract, and while they may provide solutions to the problems in physics (and therefore can be very useful in science), they don’t actually verify or refute a hypothesis or theory.

Evidence are something that are physical, that can be observed (or detected), something that can be quantified & measured.

Whereas proofs are something a mathematician make up using maths, which are abstract, evidence are physical specimens of nature that can be observed, measured & tested.

Another form of evidence, are one that can be achieved using experiments. While experiments are essential parts, sometimes it is impossible to do lab experiments. Like about recreating a star, for instance, while it is theoretically possible, it is improbable because of the density and level of heat for nuclear fusion to occur, it is extremely dangerous.

Anyway, scientists are required to test a hypothesis or existing scientific theory, and the only to objectively test them is with observations of evidence or through experiments. That’s what determines if hypothesis is scientifically supported or not.

And btw, mathematical equations (proofs) are never true and accepted by default…meaning the equations could be wrong, if the evidence or experiments refute the equations.

Usually the equations are part of the explanatory model in the hypothesis of a or theory, meaning the equations are part of explanation. So if evidence refute the explanation, then it would also refute the equations/proofs.

So if you really want to understand the difference between evidence and proof, or between testing and proving, then -

• testing, observations, evidence, experiments & data are required for science…and they are part of science vocabulary;
• proof, proving & disproving, are part of mathematics vocabulary.

I will have more respect for you, if you don’t repeat the same errors other creationists have.

edit

Damn, the equations are not displaying.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Tinkerpreach. I do really hope that you learn from this, and not repeat the same mistakes over and over again as many anti-science creationists do. The problem with most creationists is that they repeating the same mistakes, and refuse to learn from it.

i just hoped that you are not one of those creationists.

It is not just their inability of the creationists to understand science. It is also the language problem that creationists can’t seem to grasp.

People doing different works (jobs or careers in specific fields), will use language that can only be understood if you have education, training and experiences in this field or that.

For instance, judges, lawyers and anyone who would work in the legal field, would use certain terms and vocabulary that are not same as colloquial usages. The word “party” often means social gathering to celebrate something, like birthday or wedding, but in the legal field, it means at least 2 or more people or groups, coming into agreement or settlement, like a contract.

Do you at least understand that example?

Well - still in using the law example - to lawyers and judges, the terms EVIDENCE and PROOF are synonymous words that means the same thing…but to scientists and mathematicians, they are not same words, as they each have different meanings and different fields.

In the world of mathematics, the word PROOF means a logical model or logical statement, like a mathematical equation. They let people (eg mathematicians, theoretical scientists, statisticians, etc) to use maths as way of understanding the world, but instead of natural language, they relied on equations with number(s), constant(s), variable(s), coefficients, etc.

The words “prove” & “disprove“ - like word “proof” - are mathematical terminology, and like “proofs”, proving and disproving is either about formulating the equation or about equation solving.

I don’t know if you seen it or not, but mathematicians and theoretical physicists trying to “prove” their maths by breaking down set of equations into a single equation. Or reducing one very large and complex equation into multiple simplified equations. That’s what they mean by proving.

Isaac Newton is not only known for creating the theories on Law of Motion and on gravity (Law of Universal Gravitation), he was one of 2 founders of calculus. In the law of motion, he formulated the equation for velocity with this:

​

Newton then simplified the above equation into this form:

But by using calculus, almost precisely the 2nd derivative, he turn the velocity equation into an equation for acceleration:

.​

It is actually more complex than that in the velocity to acceleration, but I am showing the final equation.

That’s what it means by proving or disproving, solving equations or formulating new equations. But these equations are proofs, not evidence.

Proofs like mathematical equations are all abstract, and while they may provide solutions to the problems in physics (and therefore can be very useful in science), they don’t actually verify or refute a hypothesis or theory.

Evidence are something that are physical, that can be observed (or detected), something that can be quantified & measured.

Whereas proofs are something a mathematician make up using maths, which are abstract, evidence are physical specimens of nature that can be observed, measured & tested.

Another form of evidence, are one that can be achieved using experiments. While experiments are essential parts, sometimes it is impossible to do lab experiments. Like about recreating a star, for instance, while it is theoretically possible, it is improbable because of the density and level of heat for nuclear fusion to occur, it is extremely dangerous.

Anyway, scientists are required to test a hypothesis or existing scientific theory, and the only to objectively test them is with observations of evidence or through experiments. That’s what determines if hypothesis is scientifically supported or not.

And btw, mathematical equations (proofs) are never true and accepted by default…meaning the equations could be wrong, if the evidence or experiments refute the equations.

Usually the equations are part of the explanatory model in the hypothesis of a or theory, meaning the equations are part of explanation. So if evidence refute the explanation, then it would also refute the equations/proofs.

So if you really want to understand the difference between evidence and proof, or between testing and proving, then -

• testing, observations, evidence, experiments & data are required for science…and they are part of science vocabulary;
• proof, proving & disproving, are part of mathematics vocabulary.

I will have more respect for you, if you don’t repeat the same errors other creationists have.

edit

Damn, the equations are not displaying.

So good, you’ve just explained that people who claim science can prove God doesn’t exist are wrong.

You could have saved a lot of typing by just replying “no” when I asked if science can disprove God.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Science doesn't disprove anything. It accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and/or refuting evidence.

Has science rejected the possibility of God creating the Big Bang based on the evidence then?

 

[Pogo]

Has science rejected the possibility of God creating the Big Bang based on the evidence then?

So good, you’ve just explained that people who claim science can prove God doesn’t exist are wrong.

You could have saved a lot of typing by just replying “no” when I asked if science can disprove God.

Yes, but now you have been given information to understand why they are wrong and you can explain to them why they are wrong and hopefully they can learn as well.

 

[Pogo]

Has science rejected the possibility of God creating the Big Bang based on the evidence then?

Your God would need to be sufficiently well defined as to capabilities for that to happen, so far there is no evidence one way or another.;

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Yes, but now you have been given information to understand why they are wrong and you can explain to them why they are wrong and hopefully they can learn as well.

Unfortunately I am not a scientist.

 

[shunyadragon]

Has science rejected the possibility of God creating the Big Bang based on the evidence then?

No, because science cannot falsify the existence of God,or the belief in Divine Creation.

I believe in God and I am a scientist. Based on the knowledge of science and the evidence God Created our physical existence beyond our our universe and all possible universes. Our universe is ~13,7 billion years old, Our sun and earth is ~4,5 billion years, and the evolution of life began ~3,7+ billion years, Humans have been around for about 300,000 yers.

 

[shunyadragon]

Unfortunately I am not a scientist.

I believe you can be better educated at the layman level concerning science with a positive attitude toward science.

 

[wellwisher]

Unfortunately the sciences of Physics and Cosmology "Do not finally know" anything. There are various theories on th eorigins of our universe including what misnamed as the "Big Bang." It is not Bang of any sort, but one theory that our universe began as a singularity. Most of the current proposals include a prior Quantum existence that is "boundless" and no known beginning or end. The current theories include various cyclic models and, of course, a likely multiverse. There is at present no reason to believe our universe is unique.

Rewording ancient tribal texts without science to justify an agenda does not work. There is at present no objective evidence or reasons to conclude a Theological explanation of the origins of our universe or the greater physical existence.

We live in space-time, which is imposed by the mass of the universe. Space-time, as a function of mass, is modeled with Einstein's theory of General Relativity. If the modern universe suddenly had no mass, only energy and charge, space-time would expand super fast. On the other hand, because of mass and gravity, we can get sustainable pockets of regulated space-time, like the our sun and earth, that can sustain localized steady space-time, even within an expanding universe, where the overall mass density is decreasing as universal space-time expands. The universe expands relative to the galaxies, which are able to sustain their local space-time, via their mass.

Say for the sake of argument, space-time could be divided, into separated space and separated time, where each variable could act as independent variables. In space-time, which is imposed by mass, space and time are tethered like two people in a three legged race. Like the two people in a three legged race, this tether imposes limitations; laws of physics.

If we could move in time, apart from space, and/or move in space, apart from time, the limits of the three legged race of space-time, open up. If I could move in space, independent of time, I could be omnipresent, since I am not tethered to time, slowing me down to the speed of light. Electron orbital probability functions, appear to be semi-omnipresent in their little orbital worlds. I would call that extra, distance potential. We would need infinite distance potential, to be fully omnipresent. In the case of the tethers of space-time, mass appears to be the rope.

Say we had space-time; d-t, and also independent space; d* and independent time; t* all in the same room. I will differentiate independent space and time as d* and t*. In the case of an electron in an orbital, which shows both a particle and a wave nature, d-t and d* and t* interact. The particle nature is more about the space-time limitations; distinct particle, while the wave nature expresses the impact of independent space and time on space-time. Waves can add or even cancel, while particles so not double in size; mass/energy or even disappear, but can both appear on display, due to the added effects of d* and t*.

From matter to mind

I would like to change directions, from matter to mind. Consider a sci fiction story. The advanced technology are not part of space-time, in the sense of having tangible connections, to the laws of physics, that current science can prove. The writers use creative liberty, beyond the tethers of space-time, and the known laws of physics.

In essence, the brain can generation informational output, that can described as the action of independent space and independent time; warp speed. Warp speed would be like a using distance potential boost, so we can move in space with less time. This will not work with space-time alone, since the speed of light is the limit. However, in the imagination, we can accept the premises of warp speed travel, since the brain can process d* and t* data. This processing is quite old and connected to the brain. D* and t* data are how the gods of old were able to exceed the laws of space-time; informational analogies. D* and t* are connected to consciousness and the space-time brain.

God, by definition would be an informational analogy for infinite distance potential; d* , and infinite time potential; t*. If we factor out mass and space-time, and just use these two variables, there are infinite information analogies; from zero to infinity. We can also include d*--t*, kisses that do not stick This is zero point energy. And some that stick much longer, such as our universe.

 

[Audie]

How can something not have a beginning?

This is what science tells us:

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

Do you realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

Where did the energy come from in the first place?

How was matter formed out of exploding energy?

What made all that energy Consolidate in one point?

For ridiculous there was the idea that
light things fall as fast as heavy ones.
Lots of things like your phone that nobody
would have believed.

Your versions of physics are kinda ridiculous.


But for truly, transcendantly, unutterably
ridiculous trying to explain everything by
concocting a thing, infinitely intelligent,
able to do anything, knows EVERYTHING
past present and future ( incl position
of every electron) who set everything up
so someday he'd have to kill himself
so it can forgive people for breaking
his rules. Like eating the wrong kind of
bird.

Ever wonder why we in China are
not rushing to convert?

 

[Audie]

I accept all proven science but all I’m hearing from you is we don’t know yet.

All of the theories you’ve listed, even if verified, still wouldn’t disprove God and in case you didn’t realize it this site is a religious forum not a a science forum so yes religion creeps into everything.

No you don't. There is no proven
science.

And nobody offers to disprove "god ",
whatever that is.

Science tho is a whiz at disproving lots of
wacky ideas about what some god may have done.

Flood, for one. The Noah's Ark bit. Can't get much
more ( utterly) absurd than that.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So can we make matter out of helium and hydrogen?

The nuclear energy ratio of hydrogen and helium atoms drives the material processes which animate the universe. Gravity draws clouds of hydrogen atoms together, eventually causing them to ignite under pressure.

Nuclear fusion in stars converts mass into energy, and as main-sequence stars burn off hydrogen, helium atoms begin to accumulate in the core. Via what is known as the Triple Alpha process, the nuclei of helium atoms fuse with highly unstable beryllium 8, allowing carbon and oxygen - the building blocks of life - to form.

I’m no astronomer btw. But the more I learn about the subject, the more miraculous I find the whole complex web of processes by which the universe unfolds.

 

[shunyadragon]

We live in space-time, which is imposed by the mass of the universe. Space-time, as a function of mass, is modeled with Einstein's theory of General Relativity. If the modern universe suddenly had no mass, only energy and charge, space-time would expand super fast. On the other hand, because of mass and gravity, we can get sustainable pockets of regulated space-time, like the our sun and earth, that can sustain localized steady space-time, even within an expanding universe, where the overall mass density is decreasing as universal space-time expands. The universe expands relative to the galaxies, which are able to sustain their local space-time, via their mass.

Say for the sake of argument, space-time could be divided, into separated space and separated time, where each variable could act as independent variables. In space-time, which is imposed by mass, space and time are tethered like two people in a three legged race. Like the two people in a three legged race, this tether imposes limitations; laws of physics.

If we could move in time, apart from space, and/or move in space, apart from time, the limits of the three legged race of space-time, open up. If I could move in space, independent of time, I could be omnipresent, since I am not tethered to time, slowing me down to the speed of light. Electron orbital probability functions, appear to be semi-omnipresent in their little orbital worlds. I would call that extra, distance potential. We would need infinite distance potential, to be fully omnipresent. In the case of the tethers of space-time, mass appears to be the rope.

Say we had space-time; d-t, and also independent space; d* and independent time; t* all in the same room. I will differentiate independent space and time as d* and t*. In the case of an electron in an orbital, which shows both a particle and a wave nature, d-t and d* and t* interact. The particle nature is more about the space-time limitations; distinct particle, while the wave nature expresses the impact of independent space and time on space-time. Waves can add or even cancel, while particles so not double in size; mass/energy or even disappear, but can both appear on display, due to the added effects of d* and t*.

It is not reasonable to attempt to separate space and time. Based on our current knowledge of Physics and Cosmology. Lets not base our discussion on hypotheticals.

From matter to mind

I would like to change directions, from matter to mind. Consider a sci fiction story. The advanced technology are not part of space-time, in the sense of having tangible connections, to the laws of physics, that current science can prove. The writers use creative liberty, beyond the tethers of space-time, and the known laws of physics.

In essence, the brain can generation informational output, that can described as the action of independent space and independent time; warp speed. Warp speed would be like a using distance potential boost, so we can move in space with less time. This will not work with space-time alone, since the speed of light is the limit. However, in the imagination, we can accept the premises of warp speed travel, since the brain can process d* and t* data. This processing is quite old and connected to the brain. D* and t* data are how the gods of old were able to exceed the laws of space-time; informational analogies. D* and t* are connected to consciousness and the space-time brain.

Let's stop talking science in terms of proof, Again hypotheticals are weak especially science fiction,

God, by definition would be an informational analogy for infinite distance potential; d* , and infinite time potential; t*. If we factor out mass and space-time, and just use these two variables, there are infinite information analogies; from zero to infinity. We can also include d*--t*, kisses that do not stick This is zero point energy. And some that stick much longer, such as our universe.

I prefer to address this in terms of Quantum Mechanics,