On Evolution & Creation

[icant]

Cosmologists and physicists have numerous hypotheses, but it probably is unlikely we will never know for certain what caused the BB.

I don't think there ever was a BB to begin with. I believe a book that I read in 1949 at 9 years of age, I believed it then and I haven't changed my mind since then.

Quote: Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning created God the Heavens and the Earth" That is the proper translation of the Hebrew as the verb is before the subject of the verb.

When was the beginning? No one knows. But I believe it was a very long time ago although is had only one period of light that ended when the dark period that is found at Genesis 1:2 began to exist as it was also created by God.

Enjoy,

 

[The Hammer]

Enjoy,

Meh

 

[icant]

Essentially my opinion.


They haven't?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't mean the opinion is correct.

Cern has spent over 10 Billion dollars looking for the God particle.

Enjoy,

 

[The Hammer]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't mean the opinion is correct.

At least you can admit it.

Cern has spent over 10 Billion dollars looking for the God particle.

Misnomer. Calling it a God particle does not mean they are looking for God.

Enjoy,

Meh

 

[The Hammer]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't mean the opinion is correct.

Cern has spent over 10 Billion dollars looking for the God particle.

Enjoy,

"The nickname comes from the 1993 book The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? by Nobel physicist Leon Lederman. Lederman originally intended to call the book The Goddamn Particle, but his publisher didn't like the name. "

 

[Subduction Zone]

So because I don't believe in the BBT, are you saying I am anti-science.

Do you realize that the reason the universe had to have a beginning to exist is that if it had reached equilibrium there would be no movement and the universe would have been frozen trillions of years ago if it was eternal in existence. A zero-energy universe is nothing but a hypothesis, it is not even a theory.

There is no scientific evidence for life being produced from non-life. Until you get that evidence you got no evolution.

Enjoy,

It is your reasoning that tells us that you are anti-science. If you want to reject a concept you really should have some understanding of it.

And you are quite incorrect about there being no scientific evidence for abiogenesis. The problem is that you do not understand the concept. Are you willing to learn? It is very easy to understand. And to be pro-science you need to at least understand the basics of science. One of the basics is the concept of scientific evidence. So lesson one.

Scientific evidence consists of observations that support or oppose a scientific hypothesis or theory.

That is it. It may seem a rather low bar, but it really is not. What makes it difficult to qualify is that one needs to have at the very least a scientific hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is an explanation of at least one aspect of nature. And there are quite a few hypotheses of abiogenesis dealing with different parts of the problem. Many of them have been tested and confirmed. That means that by definition there is scientific evidence for abiogenesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't mean the opinion is correct.

Cern has spent over 10 Billion dollars looking for the God particle.

Enjoy,

They found the "God particle". That was just a nickname for it. I hope that you do understand that.

 

[icant]

Misnomer. Calling it a God particle does not mean they are looking for God.

I didn't name it the God particle.
The term “God Particle” was named by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman.

Enjoy,

 

[The Hammer]

I didn't name it the God particle.
The term “God Particle” was named by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman.

Enjoy,

Yeah... I quoted that to you in post #45. Thanks for reminding me of what I told you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't name it the God particle.
The term “God Particle” was named by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman.

Enjoy,

Did you know that unlike people that make the error of interpreting the Bible literally that some folks have a sense of humor?

The proper scientific name for the God particle is the Higgs Boson. And they found it at CERN:

Higgs boson: The 'God Particle' explained

The existence of the Higgs boson completes the standard model of particle physics.

www.space.com

 

[Argentbear]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't mean the opinion is correct.

Cern has spent over 10 Billion dollars looking for the God particle.

Enjoy,

you mean the Higgs Boson particle discovered in 2012

 

[Argentbear]

I didn't name it the God particle.
The term “God Particle” was named by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman.

Enjoy,

false. It was dubbed that by popular media, after the 1993 book The God Particle by Nobel Laureate Leon Lederman. Lederman has criticized the name

 

[shunyadragon]

Hi shunny,

I for one am not anti-science. I am a walking wonder at 85 due to science.

That would be due to medical science and maybe genetics or a good lifestyle not the sciences of evolution, cosmology and physics that you butcher with a dull

I am not anti-creation of the universe as we know it today. I am anti-BBT.

That is anti-science, whether BBT is valid theory or not. I do not believe you are qualified to make that judgement other than expressing an opinion.

When someone produces the source of the energy that is supposed to begin to expand 1 billionth of a second after T=0 where there was nonexistence I will have to reconsider my position.

Actually this may not be the case if we are in a cyclic universe, Again you lack the qualifications to make such an "opinion." The physics and cosmology of the origins or cyclic nature and energy of our universe is in the realm of Quantum Mechanics. You lack the knowledge to 'argue from ignorance'. Unanswered questions in physics and cosmology is not a basis of an argument especially since you are coming from the perspective of a religious agenda.

Basically in the BBT the energy needed is in the singularity. I prefer a cyclic universe.

I am not anti-evolution as I was born and raised on a farm where we did marvelous things with selective breeding animals and pollination of plants. I am anti-evolution of life coming from non-life. When someone succeeds in doing that in a lab I will have to reconsider my position.

Your religious anti-science agenda for anti evolution is a product of intentional ignorance of real science and the information of Chaos Theory, and what is randomness, ehich you frequently make antiquated false statements.

But at 85 I don't think I will live long enough to see either one of those happen. they have spent billions of dollars in my lifetime to figure out those two problems.

Now if you or anyone else on this site have the answers to my objection to either problem lay it on me.

Enjoy,

You will never find any real objective answers to your question with your religious agenda and intentional ignorance of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't think there ever was a BB to begin with. I believe a book that I read in 1949 at 9 years of age, I believed it then and I haven't changed my mind since then.

It is very possible there wa never a BB if the current view of a cycle universe is likely the dominant view.

Quote: Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning created God the Heavens and the Earth" That is the proper translation of the Hebrew as the verb is before the subject of the verb.

Quoting scripture does not help you concerning science.

When was the beginning? No one knows.

True, in reality the current scientific view is there never was a true beginning.

But I believe it was a very long time ago although is had only one period of light that ended when the dark period that is found at Genesis 1:2 began to exist as it was also created by God.

OK, this is your "Belief."

Enjoy,

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not pushing a religious agenda,

Yes you are!!!!!!

but pushing for a better model of evolution. If you read my last two posts, it was all about water, hydrogen bonding and entropy. That is not religion. That was bio-physical chemistry for the layman.

You lack the qualification, because of your intentional ignorance in real science to achieve this.

Where religion came in was connected to my choice of conceptual foundation decades ago. The story of Genesis, where God makes the universe, is a deterministic approach, which implies a rational universe of cause and effect. The Genesis story does not have God throwing dice, with a dozen prototypes universes, before he settles on one, that is partially there with margin of error.

This more than adequately confirms that ta religious agenda is the foundation of your argument not real science.

The rest was too long and wordy as usual and not meaningful.

 

[shunyadragon]

In other words, the universe was created out of itself. If that is the case, why have science spent billions of dollars trying to find the outside source.

Enjoy,

Science does not propose that the universe was created out of itself. This is a rather bizarre confusing statement.

 

[shunyadragon]

I didn't name it the God particle.
The term “God Particle” was named by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman.

Enjoy,

It was an anecdotal name and not meaningful concerning science, The purpose of the Cern was not just to find one primary particle,

 

[shunyadragon]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't mean the opinion is correct.

Meaningless concerning questions of science, You are expressing an opinion based on a religious agenda not science

Cern has spent over 10 Billion dollars looking for the God particle.

Enjoy,

The purpose of the Cern was not just to find one primary particle,

 

[ratiocinator]

Do you realize that the reason the universe had to have a beginning to exist is that if it had reached equilibrium there would be no movement and the universe would have been frozen trillions of years ago if it was eternal in existence.

Never ceases to amaze me how people who clearly know very little of a subject, can confidently say that they are sure of the answers to open questions that the most educated and informed minds in the world cannot answer.

There is so much of this that is simplistic and wrong about what you said but, for starters, no movement is physically impossible.

 

[Audie]

That would be due to medical science and maybe genetics or a good lifestyle not the sciences of evolution, cosmology and physics that you butcher with a dull

That is anti-science, whether BBT is valid theory or not. I do not believe you are qualified to make that judgement other than expressing an opinion.

Actually this may not be the case if we are in a cyclic universe, Again you lack the qualifications to make such an "opinion." The physics and cosmology of the origins or cyclic nature and energy of our universe is in the realm of Quantum Mechanics. You lack the knowledge to 'argue from ignorance'. Unanswered questions in physics and cosmology is not a basis of an argument especially since you are coming from the perspective of a religious agenda.

Basically in the BBT the energy needed is in the singularity. I prefer a cyclic universe.



Your religious anti-science agenda for anti evolution is a product of intentional ignorance of real science and the information of Chaos Theory, and what is randomness, ehich you frequently make antiquated false statements.

You will never find any real objective answers to your question with your religious agenda and intentional ignorance of science.

If I werevthe kind to pray it might be for a well educated
person to come along and pose even one real issue
with evolution,

The clueless have less than nothing to offer.