riley2112
Active Member
I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing that out. I at times get ahead of myself and seem to forget simply facts. It is a fault I am struggling with.
-
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!
Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?
- Thread starter Matthew78
- Start date
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
No problem, it's an easy fact to forget sometimes.I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing that out. I at times get ahead of myself and seem to forget simply facts. It is a fault I am struggling with.
wa:do
No. You forgot to add a very important part: Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. The last part is very important in science.
No, I dont at all. The Big bang indicates the opposite. The Big Bang Theory states that the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. Thats it. Your interpretation of the Big Bang Theory is thus inaccurate and the rest of your post is the same (Did you get your inaccuracies from a creation "science" website, perhaps?)
riley2112
Active Member
:thud:no I did not get my inaccuracies from a creation science website. I just screwed up in the facts that I did not know what I was talking about. This does happen from time to time. However I will try to keep it at a minimal. Please forgive my lack of knowledge and know that I will check my facts before I throw them out there for others to believe. Again, I see I was wrong on my interpretation. So I am outta here.:run:for the time being. But I will be around , seems I have alot to learn.
Photonic
Ad astra!
As you have been told in posts above mine, the Big Bang Theory says nothing on the subject of there being "nothing" before the big bang. In fact, it says very implicitly that there had to BE something there.
I can respect that.
I can respect that.
I've been wrong plenty of times, too. The best way to learn is through mistakes, unfortunately.
I wish it was different. If only I could learn through other people's mistakes, it would have been so much easier!
Just remember in future: normally scientists are not as stupid as you were told they are by creationists. Whether those scientists are religious or atheist. The only really crazy "scientists" are creationists. But they stopped doing science a long time ago, even though they pretend to do "science".
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
From wikipedia:
"Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debatedcertainly no closer than the end of the Planck Epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang", but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself, which can be considered the "birth" of our Universe"
So .. I reckon people are being a bit dishonest here .. if 'general relativity breaks down' on extrapolation, one could easily interpret "infinite density" as, well .. nothing
How do you get from "infinite density" to "nothing"?From wikipedia:
"Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debatedcertainly no closer than the end of the Planck Epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang", but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself, which can be considered the "birth" of our Universe"
So .. I reckon people are being a bit dishonest here .. if 'general relativity breaks down' on extrapolation, one could easily interpret "infinite density" as, well .. nothing
riley2112
Active Member
We can define the universe as everything there is, so in that case there is nothing outside of it. We also say that space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it.(curious about astromony) http://http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=364
This is where I came upon the information I used, Just in case you wanted to know
This is where I came upon the information I used, Just in case you wanted to know
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Space and time are measurements that wouldn't apply to something infinitely dense. That doesn't make it nothing... it makes it an unmeasurable quanta.
Nothing implies nothingness and this would have been a definite "something"... just not a something that we can measure with space and time.
wa:do
Nothing implies nothingness and this would have been a definite "something"... just not a something that we can measure with space and time.
wa:do
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I agree!
Krok said:
I think you'll find that theoretically, something with infinite density has no volume!? :bounce
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Ah! Something "outside of space and time"
ie. not physical
Well .. I don't think I can argue with that :trampo:
riley2112
Active Member
If it is not physical. then what is it?
One cannot say something exists outside of time and space and have it carry any real meaning, because there is simply no frame of reference for that in our universe!
We might try to imagine what it would be like, but at that point it lies strictly in the realm of the imagination. Just because we can imagine something does not mean that it has any basis in fact or reality. I can imagine purple flying elephants, but that doesn't mean they exist.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Not really "outside"... just before. And it would still be "physical" just not a physicality like ourselves.
Once the Big Bang happened it (the universe) has space and time.
wa:do
Once the Big Bang happened it (the universe) has space and time.
wa:do
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Yes .. and who is the Lord & Creator of time & space?
None other than Almighty God :candle:
God is not physical .. that's the whole point ..
riley2112 said:
Of course not! If that were the only 'pointer' / evidence in modern theology for God's existence, it wouldn't suffice .. yet there is reams of such thoughts that fit together with scientific belief/theory and mankind's experiences in life..
Coincidence? Not on your life!
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Yes, but how does that invalidate Big Bang.
Ok, but the quantum "something" that was the universe before the big bang was physical.
wa:do
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
It doesn't..
Whoooa! Be careful .. you are now "extrapolating" into uncharted territory .. that's NOT a conclusion based on the big-bang theory! We simply can't make conclusions about what was BEFORE! :no:
Our intellect serves very well to see that something physical that is expanding from an infintely dense 'something' means that the universe is coming from an infinitely small 'something' .. and as delta-x/delta-y --> 0, leads us to believe that "there was nothing there before"
Our proposed answer is just as valid as your claim about "quantums", which is actually quite meaningless to the majority of us .. and also meaningless in a scientific context, as 'general relativity' has broken down, don't forget
True .. but that might include "you and I", as well :yes:
I think we should be more specific .. if you want to say that you are not an ape, for example, I would agree with you
However, claiming that we have no genetic similarities would NOT be true! Atheists who wish to divert people from the truth of Almighty God's existence, can only do this if you wish to take Scriptures in a completely literal way.
eg. God created Eve from Adam's 'rib' .. did God cut it out with a hacksaw?
No .. how Almighty God created Adam & Eve doesn't alter the fact that He did!
"Almighty God is the Evolver, the Shaper from Nought!"
Why would it be difficult to believe that God made Eve from one of Adam's ribs? Surgeons routinely use the rib bone in reconstructive surgery, since this bone can regrow itself. The account says that "Jehovah God had a deep sleep fall upon the man and while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and then closed up the flesh over its place. And Jehovah God proceeded to build the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman and to bring her to the man. (Genesis 2:21-22)
The grand Creator of all life could surely easily accomplish this first surgery.
Jesus Christ believed and taught that Adam and Eve were real people that God created. (Matthew 19:3-6) Adam is included in geneologies in the Holy Scriptures.
I never claimed there are no genetic similarities between species or even kinds. God is the one Creator and it is reasonable that he would use the same DNA 'building blocks' in creating various creatures.
If you have not seen any serious debate against evolution, it is because you have blinders on.