science vs religion?

[Polymath257]

isn't it logical?

Yes, you make an illogical leap when you go from two things existing, to them having a common cause that was eternal. You gave no demonstration for that claim. Furthermore, you haven't shown there *is* a 'strongest force' or even a 'first cause' so the content so far is nil.

 

[syo]

Yes, you make an illogical leap when you go from two things existing, to them having a common cause that was eternal. You gave no demonstration for that claim. Furthermore, you haven't shown there *is* a 'strongest force' or even a 'first cause' so the content so far is nil.

honestly, I don't know what more to say :-/

 

[Polymath257]

honestly, I don't know what more to say :-/

Well, let's take it step by step.

If you have two things that are 'connected', must they have a common cause? Probably, and probably *many* common causes. Most things do not have a single cause, after all.

But must they have a common cause that is *eternal*? That is not at all clear: why not have a common cause that is temporary? That seems much more likely, given what we know.

OK, so suppose we have a bunch of things that are 'connected'. Must they all have a common cause? Maybe, but does that common cause have to be eternal, as opposed to temporary? I don't see why not.

Your claim that there *must* be an eternal cause has not been substantiated.

As for a 'strongest force': why is it impossible that for each force, there is a force that is stronger? That the strength of forces is unbounded? This is certainly a *logical* possibility. Why do you deny it?

And for a 'first cause': why is it impossible for there to be an infinite sequence of causes going backward? It is certainly a *logical* possibility. Why do you deny it?

 

[ChristineM]

(

A lot of talk about nothing.

Again, read my statement (Post #198) which began the atheist rant. Explain its meaning. You can't! You know nothing about the topic. What a joke, you tell me I don't know anything about cosmology when you know nothing. Out of ignorance and folly you and other atheists have jumped on the Ant-Believer bandwagon and have accomplish nothing but to irritate me. Have a nice day, ha. ha.

Post 198 is irrelevant and you squirming to get out of you EARLIER post is very telling of your character.

The meaning of post 198 is no meaning, it doesn't make sense, your concepts are confused.

Nothing to do with faith, this is to do with your dishonesty, dont hide behind your faith to cover your own cowardice

 

[Repox]

Post 198 is irrelevant and you squirming to get out of you EARLIER post is very telling of your character.

The meaning of post 198 is no meaning, it doesn't make sense, your concepts are confused.

Nothing to do with faith, this is to do with your dishonesty, dont hide behind your faith to cover your own cowardice

It is confusing because you know nothing about the topic. Name calling accomplishes nothing, it just make you look foolish. Keep it up to make clear what you are doing.

 

[ChristineM]

Name calling accomplishes nothing, it just make you look foolish. Keep it up to make it clear what you are doing. .

Then withdraw you abuses of my intelligence or prove that i was not name calling but stating fact

 

[Repox]

Then withdraw you abuses of my intelligence or prove that i was not name calling but stating fact

I needed a good distraction from mundane life. Thanks. Oh, I think your skeleton identity is very appropriate.

 

[ChristineM]

I needed a good distraction from mundane life. Thanks. Oh, I think your skeleton identity is very appropriate.

Does this mean you ate running away?

Only appropriate if you know what it is, you dont

 

[Repox]

No, this is a public forum that you do not control. The discussion is open to all.



OK, let's.


Already you show your ignorance of the subject. The decoupling of light and matter at 380,000 was NOT when the elements formed. The elements mostly formed in the first few *minutes*, when the temperatures and densities were high enough for fusion reactions to occur. What happened at about 380,000 years is that the universe had cooled enough to allow light to move freely.


OK, so once again you admit to complete ignorance of the subject. 'There must be some way of isolating key variables'???? What, precisely, do you think those key variables are? Which, specific subatomic particles? What sort of model are you looking for? Do you know any of the models that *are* used? What are their strengths and deficiencies for your program? Why would you think that *any* model would 'predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe'??? Exactly how would an 'interactive model' make such a prediction? Again, have you done *any* actual formulation of a model or are you just speaking out of your backside with no actual understanding of what is involved (rhetorical question)?



Ooooo, a matrix! That would solve *everything*!! I bet nobody has ever thought that matrices might be useful here.

And the task is to isolate key variables? Wow! That is *such* a HUGE insight! Put you in line for a Nobel Prize! Amazing!


I can only say you must be looking in a mirror. You *clearly* don't know the *first* thing about this subject. You have a few very vague ideas, but mostly they are nonsense.


Yes, I am sure you were hoping for some ego strokes and didn't get them, so you want to leave with some shred of dignity.

Too late.

No, this is a public forum that you do not control. The discussion is open to all.



OK, let's.


Already you show your ignorance of the subject. The decoupling of light and matter at 380,000 was NOT when the elements formed. The elements mostly formed in the first few *minutes*, when the temperatures and densities were high enough for fusion reactions to occur. What happened at about 380,000 years is that the universe had cooled enough to allow light to move freely.


OK, so once again you admit to complete ignorance of the subject. 'There must be some way of isolating key variables'???? What, precisely, do you think those key variables are? Which, specific subatomic particles? What sort of model are you looking for? Do you know any of the models that *are* used? What are their strengths and deficiencies for your program? Why would you think that *any* model would 'predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe'??? Exactly how would an 'interactive model' make such a prediction? Again, have you done *any* actual formulation of a model or are you just speaking out of your backside with no actual understanding of what is involved (rhetorical question)?



Ooooo, a matrix! That would solve *everything*!! I bet nobody has ever thought that matrices might be useful here.

And the task is to isolate key variables? Wow! That is *such* a HUGE insight! Put you in line for a Nobel Prize! Amazing!


I can only say you must be looking in a mirror. You *clearly* don't know the *first* thing about this subject. You have a few very vague ideas, but mostly they are nonsense.


Yes, I am sure you were hoping for some ego strokes and didn't get them, so you want to leave with some shred of dignity.

Too late.

Sorry, you got it wrong. During the formation of the universe some 14 billion years ago in the BB only the lightest elements were formed – hydrogen and helium along with trace amounts of lithium and beryllium. As the cloud of cosmic dust and gases from the Big Bang cooled, stars formed, and these then grouped together to form galaxies.

The other 86 elements found in nature were created in nuclear reactions in these stars and in huge stellar explosions known as supernovae.

I suggest you learn more about the subject. Your smart remarks gain you nothing. It would be different if you knew something about the subject.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry, you know little about the subject. Elements didn't form in the first few minutes. In the first few minutes proton and

Sorry, you got it wrong. During the formation of the universe some 14 billion years ago in the BB only the lightest elements were formed – hydrogen and helium along with trace amounts of lithium and beryllium. As the cloud of cosmic dust and gases from the Big Bang cooled, stars formed, and these then grouped together to form galaxies.

The other 86 elements found in nature were created in nuclear reactions in these stars and in huge stellar explosions known as supernovae.

OK, if that was your intention, then you should have been more explicit. Most cosmologists would say the period of element formation was the earlier stage when the light elements formed.

The problem with the larger elements is that there are many different processes involved, including the merger of neutron stars (recent evidence!).

 

[ChristineM]

OK, if that was your intention, then you should have been more explicit. Most cosmologists would say the period of element formation was the earlier stage when the light elements formed.

The problem with the larger elements is that there are many different processes involved, including the merger of neutron stars (recent evidence!).

Also some of the heavier elements can't form in 1st and 2nd generation stars.

 

[Polymath257]

Also some of the heavier elements can't form in 1st and 2nd generation stars.

Or even in standard supernovas.

 

[Repox]

Or even in standard supernovas.

OK, if that was your intention, then you should have been more explicit. Most cosmologists would say the period of element formation was the earlier stage when the light elements formed.

The problem with the larger elements is that there are many different processes involved, including the merger of neutron stars (recent evidence!).

Sorry, you got it wrong. During the formation of the universe2 some 14 billion years ago in the BB only the lightest elements were formed – hydrogen4 and helium5 along with trace amounts of lithium and beryllium. As the cloud of cosmic dust6 and gases7 from the Big Bang cooled, stars formed, and these then grouped together to form galaxies.

The other 86 elements found in nature were created in nuclear reactions in these stars and in huge stellar explosions known as supernovae.

OK, if that was your intention, then you should have been more explicit. Most cosmologists would say the period of element formation was the earlier stage when the light elements formed.

The problem with the larger elements is that there are many different processes involved, including the merger of neutron stars (recent evidence!).

Sorry, you got it wrong. During the formation of the universe2 some 14 billion years ago in the BB only the lightest elements were formed – hydrogen4 and helium5 along with trace amounts of lithium and beryllium. As the cloud of cosmic dust6 and gases7 from the Big Bang cooled, stars formed, and these then grouped together to form galaxies.

The other 86 elements found in nature were created in nuclear reactions in these stars and in huge stellar explosions known as supernovae.

OK, if that was your intention, then you should have been more explicit. Most cosmologists would say the period of element formation was the earlier stage when the light elements formed.

The problem with the larger elements is that there are many different processes involved, including the merger of neutron stars (recent evidence!).

In my statement, I said, "elements began to form." I admit to not being an expert, and I never said anything more than to propose a theory about something I have been working on for a long time. I never said I had the complete idea in a formal statement. It is unfortunate that I have became a target. Now, I know what a wounded dear feels like on hunting day. I understand the long arduous task of formulating a scientific theory. In the process, I have learned a lot.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry, you got it wrong. During the formation of the universe2 some 14 billion years ago in the BB only the lightest elements were formed – hydrogen4 and helium5 along with trace amounts of lithium and beryllium. As the cloud of cosmic dust6 and gases7 from the Big Bang cooled, stars formed, and these then grouped together to form galaxies.

Helium-5 is unstable. What is seen from that stage is Hydrogen-1 (protons), Hydrogen-2 (Deuterium), Helium-3, Helium-4, Litium-6, Lithium-7, and very small amount of Berylium-9.
The current evide

The other 86 elements found in nature were created in nuclear reactions in these stars and in huge stellar explosions known as supernovae.[/QUOTE]
And in even larger explosions produced by merging neutron stars,now called kilonova.

In my statement, I said, "elements began to form." I admit to not being an expert, and I never said anything more than to propose a theory about something I have been working on for a long time. I never said I had the complete idea in a formal statement. It is unfortunate that I have became a target. Now, I know what a wounded dear feels like on hunting day. I understand the long arduous task of formulating a scientific theory. In the process, I have learned a lot.

What proposal? That maybe someone could look at the relevant variables and subatomic particles? Really?

 

[ChristineM]

It is confusing because you know nothing about the topic. Name calling accomplishes nothing, it just make you look foolish. Keep it up to make clear what you are doing.

Interesting that you edited the posts after I relied in order to attempt to insult my intelligence again. Seems you are not averse to hypocrisy either.

 

[ChristineM]

Or even in standard supernovas.

No iron.

 

[syo]

Well, let's take it step by step.

If you have two things that are 'connected', must they have a common cause? Probably, and probably *many* common causes. Most things do not have a single cause, after all.

But must they have a common cause that is *eternal*? That is not at all clear: why not have a common cause that is temporary? That seems much more likely, given what we know.

OK, so suppose we have a bunch of things that are 'connected'. Must they all have a common cause? Maybe, but does that common cause have to be eternal, as opposed to temporary? I don't see why not.

Your claim that there *must* be an eternal cause has not been substantiated.

As for a 'strongest force': why is it impossible that for each force, there is a force that is stronger? That the strength of forces is unbounded? This is certainly a *logical* possibility. Why do you deny it?

And for a 'first cause': why is it impossible for there to be an infinite sequence of causes going backward? It is certainly a *logical* possibility. Why do you deny it?

about ''eternal'' and ''first cause'' and ''strong force''. let me give you an example. suppose we have a rock. how was it created? by some Other rock. that other rock how was it created? by some other rock. and that rock? by another. we have a long line of rocks. which rock is the first? the correct answer is the eternal rock aka god. and the first, eternal god has the great force to create a line of rocks.

 

[Polymath257]

about ''eternal'' and ''first cause'' and ''strong force''. let me give you an example. suppose we have a rock. how was it created? by some Other rock. that other rock how was it created? by some other rock. and that rock? by another. we have a long line of rocks. which rock is the first? the correct answer is the eternal rock aka god. and the first, eternal god has the great force to create a line of rocks.

And why do you think there was a first rock? Why not simply a long line of rocks going back?

 

[ChristineM]

about ''eternal'' and ''first cause'' and ''strong force''. let me give you an example. suppose we have a rock. how was it created? by some Other rock. that other rock how was it created? by some other rock. and that rock? by another. we have a long line of rocks. which rock is the first? the correct answer is the eternal rock aka god. and the first, eternal god has the great force to create a line of rocks.

Nope its the answer you prefer to hear, not the correct answer.

You begin with a false premise, your history of rocks wrong. Some are formed from lava, (molten rock) . Others from compressed earth, dust, organ matter, other detritus.

But no matter how the rock was formed, the elements were all formed beginning with hydrogen

 

[syo]

And why do you think there was a first rock? Why not simply a long line of rocks going back?

it must have a start