The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.

[Photonic]

You are right. If I say "something cannot be the origin of itself" one time and that one time isn't enough, if i say it 20 more times it really wont make a difference.



What kind of question is this?? No the matter is not alive. Wow

So you do understand that something that is not alive can produce something that is.

 

[outhouse]

if i say it 20 more times it really wont make a difference

Nope

because you will be wrong 20 more times, just like the last 20.

Its called ibiogenesis, its not a mystery to those with a education in chemistry

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

[sigh!]
You are the one who keep saying that the universe will expand forever.
You use the background radiation as "proof"for this.

No, i used the background radiation as proof that the universe is EXPANDING, not that it is expanding FOREVER. Geez, you people are doing a good job of misrepresenting what I say. What i did say was the mass density was insuffient enough to STOP THE EXPANSION, so therefore the universe will expand forever.

I am just telling you that the background radiation does NOT say the universe will expand forever.

Never said that it did.

What determines if the universe will expand forever is not the density parameret, aka Ω. If it is larger than one the universe will collapse. Otherwise it will expand forever.
The value of Ω is not determined at the present time.
Most guesses are somwhere around 1, but the best guess of the number keeps changing.

So I say again [sigh!] You do not know that the universe will expand forever.

Um, if the mass density of the universe was large enough to stop the expansion, then it wouldn't be expanding as we speak. We know that the current density of the universe, whatever it is, is not sufficient enough to stop it. Whatever number it is, it isn't getting the job done

 

[Photonic]

No, i used the background radiation as proof that the universe is EXPANDING, not that it is expanding FOREVER. Geez, you people are doing a good job of misrepresenting what I say. What i did say was the mass density was insuffient enough to STOP THE EXPANSION, so therefore the universe will expand forever.



Never said that it did.



Um, if the mass density of the universe was large enough to stop the expansion, then it wouldn't be expanding as we speak. We know that the current density of the universe, whatever it is, is not sufficient enough to stop it. Whatever number it is, it isn't getting the job done

It is not simply "expanding."

It is accelerating.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Mhh, if time cannot be infinite how can the universe expand forever?

As I said in the same quote you just quoted me on, don't confuse POTENTIAL infinity with ACTUAL infinity. The universe is expanding to an unreachable limit, but it is still finite in the sense that it had a beginning.

 

[Koldo]

Um Koldo....allow me to let you in on a big secret...a personal explanation requires an effect from a conscious entity. That is why it is called a PERSONal explanation. PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON.

Personal = Of, affecting, or belonging to a particular person rather than to anyone else.

In this case, the person would be you.
So with you being the person, your personal explanation to the creation of the universe could very well be an impersonal entity. There is nothing wrong with this.

God is neither one. I kind of forgot which analogy I used lol. If it was the chandelier falling, I was using that analogy as a way to show how something can exist in a timeless state and be the cause of time.

It was the chandelier analogy.
But if your analogy doesn't represent God AND the big bang singularity then it becomes meaningless to our discussion.

Yeah but which one is more logical??? Intelligence is the ability to think and learn. How can you recieve the ability to think and learn from a entity that doesn't have the ability to think and learn??? My argument is the source of all intelligence can only come from an entity that is intelligent. On a naturalistic view, from the very beginning there was no thinking, there was no learning, there was no study, there was no logic and reasoning. You cant get get these things from something that doesn't haven these things. Which would be more logical, to ask a monkey to teach you how to play chess, or to ask a grandmaster of chess how to play chess? You cant learn the game of chess from something or someone that doesn't know how to play it. The fact that we are even entertaining this is showing me what people will believe just because they dont want to believe in God.

The most logical? None.
Also, learning chess is completely different from learning intelligence (as if it was even possible to learn intelligence itself).

Oh yeah, on the ball/cushion view i was only trying to show simulatenous causation. That is because God creating the universe occurred simulatenously with the beginning of time.

I knew that was your intent. What i don't understand is what exactly is going on in your analogy. On the first moment, you said the scenario was in a timeless state, and then you mentioned a moment the ball dropped in the cushion. Some contradictions going on here.

 

[Photonic]

As I said in the same quote you just quoted me on, don't confuse POTENTIAL infinity with ACTUAL infinity. The universe is expanding to an unreachable limit, but it is still finite in the sense that it had a beginning.

You can't use infinite like that. It isn't a number.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It is not simply "expanding."

It is accelerating.

So instead of calling it the "Hubble expansion", they should call it the "Hubble accelerant"? Wow

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You can't use infinite like that. It isn't a number.

IM NOT USING IT AS A NUMBER. You people are doing a hell of a job of attacking straw men. I am being quoted out of contex, I am being attacked on positions Ive never taken. Is that the best you have??

 

[Photonic]

IM NOT USING IT AS A NUMBER. You people are doing a hell of a job of attacking straw men. I am being quoted out of contex, I am being attacked on positions Ive never taken. Is that the best you have??

Depends, are your irrational positions the best you have?

After all,

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Personal = Of, affecting, or belonging to a particular person rather than to anyone else. In this case, the person would be you.
So with you being the person, your personal explanation to the creation of the universe could very well be an impersonal entity. There is nothing wrong with this.

I dont understand this one

It was the chandelier analogy.
But if your analogy doesn't represent God AND the big bang singularity then it becomes meaningless to our discussion.

Yes it does. It shows how a timeless entity can be the origin of time and enter the temporal realm. The chandelier was timeless, and at the moment of motion it entered the temporal realm. God was timeless (without the universe), created time with the big bang and the universe, and therefore his relationship with that entity became temporal.

The most logical? None.
Also, learning chess is completely different from learning intelligence (as if it was even possible to learn intelligence itself).

Intelligence is the ability to think and learn. No one is born intelligent. It is a process. My point is simply that you cant get something from something that doesn't have it.

I knew that was your intent. What i don't understand is what exactly is going on in your analogy. On the first moment, you said the scenario was in a timeless state, and then you mentioned a moment the ball dropped in the cushion. Some contradictions going on here.

Huh?? If a chandelier has been hanging from a ceiling for all eternity, there was no "first" moment before it. It was only after the chandelier began to fall that the first moment occurred. From the moment it began to fall you can count "1,2,3,4". But before it began to fall, from what point would you start the count? So the chandelier went from atemporal to temporal from the moment of motion. The ball on the cushion example is just to show how simultaneous causation could occur. This is relevant because the creation of the universe and the beginning of time was a simulatenous event.

 

[gnostic]

First of all, I never said evolution was about the origin of life. I said biology is about the origin of life, which is it, and evolution shortly follows after life begins.

You don't know how stupid this sound.

Biology comprise a range of fields.

When I was studying biology, we straight to study of animal life (including human) and plant life that currently exist today. With regards to animal life (including human) we were taught the theories about organs, tissues, circulation system, reproduction system, cells and genes, hereditary genetics, etc. We even cover the basic of bacteria.

NOT ONCE did the teachers/lecturers even bother to mention the origin of life, we jump to the current life. NOT ONCE.

Not once did we touch on the subject of evolution too, or about extinct animals (like dinosaurs). The reason being we need to learn the basic biology, quickly and what is relevant today. Had I took on more advanced subjects on biology, one of them may have covered evolution or they may not.

I doubt every much that any of the biology subjects in the course would have covered the origin of life, because that more specialised subject.

My bad if I assume incorrectly that you was referring to evolution to the origin of life. For that I am :sorry1:

However, when I mention one of the "study of nature" to evolutionary biology...

In regard with study of nature (eg evolutionary biology) and scientific cosmology (like the Big Bang), theories can be explain without the need for some supposed divine or transcendent being(s).

...you quickly repsonded in post 272, how you don't believe in evolution and that it is lie.

And, you did mention the origin of the life and evolution, on the same line, if not in the same sentence.

You can't use biology as a way to explain the absolute origins of life. I don't believe in evolution, btw. I think it is the biggest lie to ever hit our text books.

So naturally, I had assume that you are linking origin of life with evolution. And you also evolution a lie. So can you really blame me for seeing that whole line referring to evolution?

Now here is stupid statement on your part which I'll re-quote:

You can't use biology as a way to explain the absolute origins of life.

All life on earth is about biology. If you can't use biology to explain about life's origin, then what can you use?

A motor engine? A rock? A plastic cup? What can you use, if you can't use biology?


BTW

When I was speaking of theories (which you've quoted from me in post #263), I was speaking of (scientific) theories in general, not just talking about "origin of life".

Theories on geology, neurosurgery, computer science, all of which make no mention of God, Creator, Designer or any other Transcendent Being that you could think of. Mathematics (from simple arithmetic to advanced calculus) does require some intelligence, but it doesn't require any transcendent cause or divine being.

 

[shawn001]

I understand that it is speeding up but we don't know enough to say why let alone what that means in the distant future. They ruled out big crunch because of the gravity calculation but it's more than just gravity being an issue. What do we know about this dark energy thats speeding up the expansion? The other question is the nature of space and whether it has a threshold of expansion or if it would expand to the point of ripping apart. Like if I try to expand a rubberband and either the rubberband or my strength will win out. Do we know which will win out as far as space and this dark matter?

BTW been learning lots from those hour long vids you post. The fabric of the cosmos was interesting. That was the one where it seemed the future of the cosmos wasn't all answered yet.

'


Iva, glad you liked the vids.

We know more about dark energy and dark matters then we did when this was written. The wmap satellite wasn't even up yet and we have learned more about dark energy and dark matter, then we knew before, but there are a lot of unanswered questions on it all.

The End - TIME

However that has been what they think the fate of the universe will be since about 98' to now.

Again it is possible another bang could happen in this universe, while were in it. And as you say the universe is way stranger then we ever imagined.

There is also the issue if its speeding up faster then light we won't be able to see out beyond that ever.

Most cosmologists nowadays believe there is more then one universe really.

Einstein's "biggest Blunder" might turn out to be a key issue in it all.

 

[McBell]

Really? Prove it.{/quote]
:biglaugh:

My "wishful thinking" is the thought that biology cannot be used to explain the origins of the biological domain. And if you think otherwise, then you are not only wishful thinking but you are sadly mistaken.

Yet you claim that life was magically poofed into existence?

You believe that life can come from nonlife, so you are also free to believe whatever nonsense you like.

The problem here is that you now need to show what life produced god.
Cause see, if life HAS to come from life, then god has to be life.
And since life HAS to come from life, that means that god had to come from another life.

So what do you call the life that god comes from?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Evidence for evolution? We have never observed an animal produce anything other than its own kind.

What is "kind"...? Do you mean "Species"..?

Evolution is a lie. It is a faith based system.

Don't tell your doctor that the next time you need that flu shot.

Let me ask you this.....Do you agree with (descent with modification)..?

I believe in microevolution, because this has been proven.

I agree completely.

But macroevolution is a lie and it should not be in any science text books.

Where is "macroevolution" in science text books? Before you answer I want to inform you that I work for a local public school system and have never seen macroevolution in a text book....so I need a reference from you.

Kent Hovind is a genius, btw.

Criminal, Yes....Genius.....NO!...:no:

Remember, he believes man existed with dinosaurs regardless of the consensus of scientist who disagrees with him or the overwhelming amount of evidences that support an old Earth and the fact that we never walked with dinosaurs....and don't forget....wait for it....wait for it.....we share a common ancestor with other primates.....

 

[Photonic]

I dont understand this one




Yes it does. It shows how a timeless entity can be the origin of time and enter the temporal realm. The chandelier was timeless, and at the moment of motion it entered the temporal realm. God was timeless (without the universe), created time with the big bang and the universe, and therefore his relationship with that entity became temporal.



Intelligence is the ability to think and learn. No one is born intelligent. It is a process. My point is simply that you cant get something from something that doesn't have it.



Huh?? If a chandelier has been hanging from a ceiling for all eternity, there was no "first" moment before it. It was only after the chandelier began to fall that the first moment occurred. From the moment it began to fall you can count "1,2,3,4". But before it began to fall, from what point would you start the count? So the chandelier went from atemporal to temporal from the moment of motion. The ball on the cushion example is just to show how simultaneous causation could occur. This is relevant because the creation of the universe and the beginning of time was a simulatenous event.

People can be born intelligent but lack wisdom.

One cannot learn to be intelligent, one can learn to be wise though.

I also want to make it clear that Kent Hovind is the supreme epitome of a dishonest character. With no subject knowledge and the absolute willingness to con whatever crowd he is speaking to. He is a criminal and an idiot who's only skill is to scam fools.

 

[shawn001]

Not to mention

There have been five mass extinction events throughout Earth's history:

1. The first great mass extinction event took place at the end of the Ordovician, when according to the fossil record, 60% of all genera of both terrestrial and marine life worldwide were exterminated.
2. 360 million years ago in the Late Devonian period, the environment that had clearly nurtured reefs for at least 13 million years turned hostile and the world plunged into the second mass extinction event.
3. The fossil record of the end Permian mass extinction reveals a staggering loss of life: perhaps 80–95% of all marine species went extinct. Reefs didn't reappear for about 10 million years, the greatest hiatus in reef building in all of Earth history.
4. The end Triassic mass extinction is estimated to have claimed about half of all marine invertebrates. Around 80% of all land quadrupeds also went extinct.
5. The end Cretaceous mass extinction 65 million years ago is famously associated with the demise of the dinosaurs. Virtually no large land animals survived. Plants were also greatly affected while tropical marine life was decimated. Global temperature was 6 to 14°C warmer than present with sea levels over 300 metres higher than current levels. At this time, the oceans flooded up to 40% of the continents.

and life evolved back from these events.

 

[Koldo]

I dont understand this one

A personal explanation is an explanation that belongs to a person.
Your personal explanation for the creation of the universe is a personal entity, but it could very well be an impersonal entity. There is no contradiction.

Yes it does. It shows how a timeless entity can be the origin of time and enter the temporal realm. The chandelier was timeless, and at the moment of motion it entered the temporal realm. God was timeless (without the universe), created time with the big bang and the universe, and therefore his relationship with that entity became temporal.

If God is being represented by the chandelier, what is representing the singularity? If you want to describe the scenario where the time began, then it is important to pinpoint where exactly the singularity would be in this picture, and how the chandelier is interacting with it. If your analogy can't do this, then it is meaningless to our discussion.

Intelligence is the ability to think and learn. No one is born intelligent. It is a process. My point is simply that you cant get something from something that doesn't have it.

Actually, everyone is born intelligent ( not to be confused with 'smart' ). And we develop our intelligence as we live. Also, if abiogenesis is accurate, intelligence did come from something that didn't have it ( unless you think inorganic matter possesses intelligence ).

Huh?? If a chandelier has been hanging from a ceiling for all eternity, there was no "first" moment before it. It was only after the chandelier began to fall that the first moment occurred. From the moment it began to fall you can count "1,2,3,4". But before it began to fall, from what point would you start the count? So the chandelier went from atemporal to temporal from the moment of motion. The ball on the cushion example is just to show how simultaneous causation could occur. This is relevant because the creation of the universe and the beginning of time was a simulatenous event.

How is the simultaneous causation happening in the cushion analogy ( considering the change from 'timeless to time' in your answer )?

 

[lunakilo]

Evidence for evolution? We have never observed an animal produce anything other than its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Evolution is a lie. It is a faith based system. I believe in microevolution, because this has been proven. But macroevolution is a lie and it should not be in any science text books. Kent Hovind is a genius, btw.

Oh no. not again...

 

[lunakilo]

Evidence for evolution? We have never observed an animal produce anything other than its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Evolution is a lie. It is a faith based system. I believe in microevolution, because this has been proven. But macroevolution is a lie and it should not be in any science text books. Kent Hovind is a genius, btw.

hint: microevolution = evolution