I recently converted from Christianity to atheism.

However I had a noob-atheist question and was wondering if someone who's studied a bit could explain:

The universe is formed by the repetitive expanding and collapsing of all matter in the universe (correct me if I'm wrong). My question is, where did the matter originate from? Matter as we know it cannot be created or destroyed, but it had to be created somehow, correct? So what is the origin of matter?

PS. Anyone who quotes Genesis 1:1 gets a fat thumbs down.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

So what is the origin of matter?

This is more of a Mad Scientists question, but I don't think they'll have an answer to give you that doesn't result in a "well if that created matter then where does that come from?" I think the latest Quantum Physics explanation says our universe is basically a collision between two, super-dimensional particles in slow-mo. The cop-out answer is that matter can be created from energy and vica-versa (E=MC^2).

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Matter as we know it cannot be created or destroyed, but it had to be created somehow, correct?

Incorrect, there is the possibility that the universe always existed, this I beleive. Being rasied a as a human you are led to believe there MUST be a beginning and ending for everything. But this may not be true. I cannot say because of lack of proof, we will never know for sure. But again, I just believe the universe has always been around. Take an open mind to the idea that maybe it wasn't created, its always been there in one shape or form.

quote:Originally posted by Sarter:

The cop-out answer is that matter can be created from energy and vica-versa (E=MC^2).

Yeah, that is what I believe is the answer to the question, so quoted for truth, I guess. Maybe in the near future we will be able to create materia from energy and make experiments to prove that.

quote:Originally posted by iSoape:



Incorrect, there is the possibility that the universe always existed, this I beleive.

Shit, you might as well just believe in god.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

I recently converted from Christianity to atheism.

However I had a noob-atheist question and was wondering if someone who's studied a bit could explain:

The universe is formed by the repetitive expanding and collapsing of all matter in the universe (correct me if I'm wrong). My question is, where did the matter originate from? Matter as we know it cannot be created or destroyed, but it had to be created somehow, correct? So what is the origin of matter?

PS. Anyone who quotes Genesis 1:1 gets a fat thumbs down.

That theory is nowhere near confirmed. Not insulting your physics noobness, I like the theory myself.

But that question is utterly irrelevant. During a "Big Crunch" a couple wierd things happen. As a Crunch is a Bang in reverse, I'll explain it this way so it should be easier to both explain and understand.

1. The four forces (gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong) will unify into one force.

2. As the size collapses, the heat increases. Eventually, we'll start losing dimensions.

Net effect of this from the Big Bang? It's impossible to aquire information from before it.

Of course, that might be all wrong, but I havn't seen anything disproving it yet.

If I wanted to, I could pull out a couple Physics books of mine and explain in great detail the current theories regarding the origin of the Big Bang (for which there is abundant empirical evidence for). However, I don't fully understand these theories, and, as far as I know, they're just theories. Science hasn't provided us with a complete understanding of the Big Bang yet. This shouldn't bother you. It certainly doesn't bother me. Filling Scientific gaps with religion, however, bothers the hell out of me.

Here's a great example of someone attempting to fill a Scientific gap with religion. I'm sure you're familiar with Isaac Newton. He did much work in kinematics, optics, gravitation, and formalized Calculus in the process. (He spent most of his time, however, studying Theology, oddly enough.) One of the things he did was use his discovery of the Law of Gravitation to derive the elliptical orbits of the planets. He then observed that all the planets were in the same plane. His conclusion? We live in a clockwork universe; God is the watchmaker.

Today we know far more about solar system formation. The planets are all in a plane because the nebula that formed our solar system started to spin and collapse. Using celestial mechanics (not my field) we can demonstrate mathematically that all the major planets should be in a plane. This new insight renders Newton's copout null and void.

It should be noted that this work isn't theoretical. We can observe nebulae and solar system formation using telescopes. Our calculations and theories are consistent with reality. Newton was wrong.

Going back to the original question, most of us want to know where we came from. We're curious beings by nature. I'm not going to say that your curiousity should be satisfied by the current theory of the Big Bang, because that's not true. If everyone were satisfied with the current theory of the Big Bang, we would no longer be researching or debating it. What I'm saying is that, as an Atheist, you no longer have an omniscient god with all the answers. Humanity is on it's own. If we want to know something, we need to figure it out, and we're more than capable of doing so! We can't simply can't ask a magical omniscient man in the sky to answer all of our questions. Embrace this. The Universe is teeming with mystery. That should be uplifting, not depressing. You're only human. You can't possibly know all there is to know, and if you could, what would be the point? It would take all the fun out of life, all the mystery. Life would be boring.

Where did the Big Bang come from? We don't really know. Maybe we'll find out tomorrow, or in a few months, or maybe it'll take decades until we can fully understand it. But right now we don't know, and that's perfectly ok.

Good point Jsaxton, very well said.

maybe there was no orgin and we live in the present always, so the matter was always there and always will be and all time is an allusion.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Matter as we know it cannot be created or destroyed, but it had to be created somehow, correct? So what is the origin of matter?



This phrase is something that creationists derive out of context to try and push their evil agenda. They take it from the first law of thermodynamics which states that the total energy content of a closed system (the sum of kinetic, potential, and thermal energy) is constant.

Anyway when the universe was created there was nothing; I mean no matter, no space, no time, nothing. The fact that nothing at all existed means that there were no laws regarding the universe; there was no E=MC2, no v=d/t or any of that stuff, even normal mathematics or logic couldn't apply as there was nothing for it to work by, nothing for it to be tied or related to.

Because of this it is quite acceptable, in fact plausable that out of nowhere a singularity bubbled up, this would contain all matter that is present in the universe and be about the size of an atom, and it would slowly expand until it reached about the size of an orange, when a catastrophic expansion phase that is described as the big bang began.

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God all over again, and put him to an open shame." -Hebrews 6:4-6

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Anyway when the universe was created there was nothing; I mean no matter, no space, no time, nothing. The fact that nothing at all existed means that there were no laws regarding the universe; there was no E=MC2, no v=d/t or any of that stuff, even normal mathematics or logic couldn't apply as there was nothing for it to work by, nothing for it to be tied or related to.

The fact that you sit here claiming some sort of pragmatic outlook, yet dogmatically maintain that nothing creates everything is the most pernicious theory I've ever heard. Never have the laws of thermodynamics been circumvented, yet we have you telling us what happened before the singularity based on nothing at all.

Because of this it is quite acceptable, in fact plausable that out of nowhere a singularity bubbled up, this would contain all matter that is present in the universe and be about the size of an atom, and it would slowly expand until it reached about the size of an orange, when a catastrophic expansion phase that is described as the big bang began.

Allow me to paraphrase what you are actually saying: "Nothing, the size of a space-speck began to heat up, for no good reason, and then the nothingness expanded until nothing exploded, and here we are."

If you are going to purport the plausibilty of the big bang, take Hawkings approach, which is, "We don't know what happened before the singularity. What's north of the North Pole?" If nothing existed prior to Planck's time, and there is no metaphysical force to create it, then there wasn't even room for the potentiality of the universe able to lain itself. If not even potential or kinetic energy existed, it seems inconceivable that the universe should have become actual, according to your theory.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Matter as we know it cannot be created or destroyed, but it had to be created somehow, correct?

thats not really true... i mean it is... btu there are aceptions.

Truth is, in science, if we don't know something for a fact yet...it doesn't mean we won't in the future (since we are always makign new advances in science).

But for now, the questions which we can not answer...we just say we don't know, or provide the current, most logical answer based on what evidence and studies have been done thus far.

However, just because we don't know something, doesn't mean we should attribute it's creation/operation to a mythical being (in this case God). But one day, we may know the answers to all these things. Likwise, we shouldn't pull bullshit 'scientific' answers out of our ass, when there is no merit for it. Fortunately, there are checks and balances, like many other groups of scientists who can verify and vouch for other scientist's work.

I think it's wrong to jump to conclusions by saying "Oh god created everything in 7 days, there is no doubt about it. It's true, because the Bible says so..."

I mean come on...how can someone just buy into everything spoon fed to them from a book written by some other men (12 old & dead men in this case).

Some people believe it may have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I am not so sure about that one yet.

[This message has been edited by Aeon (edited 04-01-2006).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aeon:

Truth is, in science, if we don't know something for a fact yet...it doesn't mean we won't in the future (since we are always makign new advances in science).

But for now, the questions which we can not answer...we just say we don't know, or provide the current, most logical answer based on what evidence and studies have been done thus far.

Tha would be wonderful if that's the way it actually were... Unfortunately, it comes down to a motivation for providing ANY reason why there couldn't be a Creator. Its like saying, "1 + 1 = something..... This much, we know." But they have made the number two a priori that is immmediately ruled out of bounds, that they could have used in which to solve the equation.

However, just because we don't know something, doesn't mean we should attribute it's creation/operation to a mythical being (in this case God).

I agree. Who does that though? Here's what creationists say: "There is alot of complexity to the universe. What is the mathematical probability that so many 'random' occurances just so happen to lead to all of this order? Perhaps there is a mind behind it all."

But one day, we may know the answers to all these things. Likwise, we shouldn't pull bullshit 'scientific' answers out of our ass, when there is no merit for it. Fortunately, there are checks and balances, like many other groups of scientists who can verify and vouch for other scientist's work.

I doubt you understand a lick about the creationist movement, just based on your post. Maybe you should investigate them a little further. The way you make it sound, its as if creationists sit around reading Genesis, while learning about 'fancy terminologies 'bout thinkin real, real hard.'

I think it's wrong to jump to conclusions by saying "Oh god created everything in 7 days, there is no doubt about it. It's true, because the Bible says so..."

I mean come on...how can someone just buy into everything spoon fed to them from a book written by some other men (12 old & dead men in this case).

Some people buy into the same way they believe that nothing exploded and created energy, that created a gas cloud, that created a rock. Then rain fell on a rock and all this life just started popping out of it. Then all these wonderful things started to happen to all organisms, and nothing bad ever happened in all of this time that would have lead to complete annihilation. And nowhere to be found is any evidence of any links in the chains of this happening.

I think people 'buy' into fanciful stories all the time because they are gullible and naive.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I agree. Who does that though? Here's what creationists say: "There is alot of complexity to the universe. What is the mathematical probability that so many 'random' occurances just so happen to lead to all of this order? Perhaps there is a mind behind it all."

I provided an example of just this. Newton observed all the planets were in a plane. He calculated the odds of all the planets just randomly ending up on the same plane and observed that it was incredibly unlikely. Thus, he proclaimed that the universe is like a clock and the Christian God must be the watchmaker who put it all in motion.

Simply because it seems as if something could not happen by chance doesn't mean that God is the only possible explanation. There are countless examples of this. The argument of "irreducible complexity" holds no water.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Shit, you might as well just believe in god.

Never.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Originally posted by Aeon:



However, just because we don't know something, doesn't mean we should attribute it's creation/operation to a mythical being (in this case God).

I agree. Who does that though? Here's what creationists say: "There is alot of complexity to the universe. What is the mathematical probability that so many 'random' occurances just so happen to lead to all of this order? Perhaps there is a mind behind it all."

Hmmm, I wonder...for some reason, Genesis keeps coming to mind.

quote:But one day, we may know the answers to all these things. Likwise, we shouldn't pull bullshit 'scientific' answers out of our ass, when there is no merit for it. Fortunately, there are checks and balances, like many other groups of scientists who can verify and vouch for other scientist's work.

I doubt you understand a lick about the creationist movement, just based on your post. Maybe you should investigate them a little further. The way you make it sound, its as if creationists sit around reading Genesis, while learning about 'fancy terminologies 'bout thinkin real, real hard.'



I do understand the creationist movement. What the hell you talking about? I was not even talking about creationism here, I was talking about science, and some of the theories they have. I do not believe their explanations either. Though they are more convincing than Bible version, I still don't truly believe it. Like I said, nobody really knows, including myself, and I am fine with that. Just cause I don't know, doesn't mean I should buy into Genesis, creationism, or the big bang (even though big bang is more convincing).

quote:I think it's wrong to jump to conclusions by saying "Oh god created everything in 7 days, there is no doubt about it. It's true, because the Bible says so..."

I mean come on...how can someone just buy into everything spoon fed to them from a book written by some other men (12 old & dead men in this case).

Some people buy into the same way they believe that nothing exploded and created energy, that created a gas cloud, that created a rock. Then rain fell on a rock and all this life just started popping out of it. Then all these wonderful things started to happen to all organisms, and nothing bad ever happened in all of this time that would have lead to complete annihilation. And nowhere to be found is any evidence of any links in the chains of this happening.



Yes, and what I am saying is that it is stupid. Big bang theory included.

quote:I think people 'buy' into fanciful stories all the time because they are gullible and naive.



I think it is that, and they also feel like they need to be at piece with an answer to these age old question, before they die. It is like they can't live a good like, without convinving themselves they have answered these fundamental questions. I don't believe any of the theories, because none are proven beyond a doubt.





[This message has been edited by Aeon (edited 04-05-2006).]

This is a flaky argument, all sides have various fallacies in their arguments.

I win.

Hahahahahaha!

quote:Tha would be wonderful if that's the way it actually were... Unfortunately, it comes down to a motivation for providing ANY reason why there couldn't be a Creator. Its like saying, "1 + 1 = something..... This much, we know." But they have made the number two a priori that is immmediately ruled out of bounds, that they could have used in which to solve the equation.

Not true. Science does not support the biblical version of creation simply because there is no evidence for it. For long periods of time science did assume creation happened as described in the bible. This was refuted by experiment and observation.

quote:I agree. Who does that though? Here's what creationists say: "There is alot of complexity to the universe. What is the mathematical probability that so many 'random' occurances just so happen to lead to all of this order? Perhaps there is a mind behind it all."

Such reasoning is not scientific unless it makes testable predictions. Creationists apply that faulty reasoning to evolution and life, except evolution is not random, so the entire premise of their objection is false.

quote:I doubt you understand a lick about the creationist movement, just based on your post. Maybe you should investigate them a little further. The way you make it sound, its as if creationists sit around reading Genesis, while learning about 'fancy terminologies 'bout thinkin real, real hard.'

Creationists object to a huge amount of accepted scientific theory (cosmology, geology, physics, and biology) to support their beliefs. It's not just that they have an alternative theory to the Big Bang or just that they believe "intelligence" created the universe. That in itself is not stupid, what's stupid is rejecting the foundations of modern science to cling to biblical philosophy.

quote:Some people buy into the same way they believe that nothing exploded and created energy, that created a gas cloud, that created a rock. Then rain fell on a rock and all this life just started popping out of it. Then all these wonderful things started to happen to all organisms, and nothing bad ever happened in all of this time that would have lead to complete annihilation. And nowhere to be found is any evidence of any links in the chains of this happening.

I think people 'buy' into fanciful stories all the time because they are gullible and naive.



Except the scientists who believe in the BBT will accept an alternative if sufficient evidence is provided, creationists will not.

Not true. Science does not support the biblical version of creation simply because there is no evidence for it. For long periods of time science did assume creation happened as described in the bible. This was refuted by experiment and observation.

What refutations are there?

Such reasoning is not scientific unless it makes testable predictions. Creationists apply that faulty reasoning to evolution and life, except evolution is not random, so the entire premise of their objection is false.

First of all, the Bible, including Genesis, is not a science textbook nor was it ever intended to be one. All that Genesis has done is speak of God has done in brevity and not in plenary. It does not mention the 'hows' or 'why's'. If God told us every minute detail about how He does what He does, the Bible would be so voluminous that it would never end.

Creationists object to a huge amount of accepted scientific theory (cosmology, geology, physics, and biology) to support their beliefs. It's not just that they have an alternative theory to the Big Bang or just that they believe "intelligence" created the universe. That in itself is not stupid, what's stupid is rejecting the foundations of modern science to cling to biblical philosophy.

If a creationists object to anything, they object to science falsely-so-called. They don't reject cosmology or biology or geology. How could you honestly say that when they employ it all the time?

Except the scientists who believe in the BBT will accept an alternative if sufficient evidence is provided, creationists will not.

There are many creationists that do believe in the BBT and that the age of the earth, and by extension, the universe, is very old. Furthermore, there are many secular scientists who don't agree with evolution or the BBT. They in no way believe in the Bible. Their deductions are based soley on observation and the inferences they pose. Its important that scientists try and find ways to make the Bible fit the criteria. I don't think that is an acceptable practice. As well, I don't appreciate an evolutionist who does the same things to fit a preconceived notion instead of simply reporting the observations. Hugh Ross is a creationist who is an 'old-ager.'

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#young_earth_vs_old_earth

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



What refutations are there?



Among them, the speed of light - which has been determined mathematically.

quote:What refutations are there?

Anything young-earth related, anything about evolution.

quote:First of all, the Bible, including Genesis, is not a science textbook nor was it ever intended to be one. All that Genesis has done is speak of God has done in brevity and not in plenary. It does not mention the 'hows' or 'why's'. If God told us every minute detail about how He does what He does, the Bible would be so voluminous that it would never end.

So what? Why do these people belive God wrote a book? Where is the evidence that this is God's word?

quote:If a creationists object to anything, they object to science falsely-so-called. They don't reject cosmology or biology or geology. How could you honestly say that when they employ it all the time?

Evolution (biology) is not scientific? Platetectonics (geology)? Age of universe (cosmology)? This is laughable.

quote:There are many creationists that do believe in the BBT and that the age of the earth, and by extension, the universe, is very old. Furthermore, there are many secular scientists who don't agree with evolution or the BBT. They in no way believe in the Bible. Their deductions are based soley on observation and the inferences they pose. Its important that scientists try and find ways to make the Bible fit the criteria. I don't think that is an acceptable practice. As well, I don't appreciate an evolutionist who does the same things to fit a preconceived notion instead of simply reporting the observations. Hugh Ross is a creationist who is an 'old-ager.'

http:/ /www.reaso ns.org/res ources/apo logetics/i ndex.shtml #young_ear th_vs_old_earth

VERY few scientists doubt evolution. It is the foundation of modern biology. It was doubted for a long time but ALL the evidence supports the theory so now it is accepted as fact. There is not ONE piece of evidence that refutes evolution (lack of evidence is not evidence, even though evidence for evolution is certainly not lacking).

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Among them, the speed of light - which has been determined mathematically.

http://theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/07/1028157961167.html

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

This is has some staggering implications in the fields of Einstein's physics.

Anything young-earth related, anything about evolution.

Oh.... Okay......... Thanks for the thourough analysis.

So what? Why do these people belive God wrote a book? Where is the evidence that this is God's word?

The reason why people believe in it is because it keeps proving itself over and over again. There is no 'direct' evidence that it comes from God. I understand that. However, thigs keep coming to pass that the Bible said would come to pass and archeology keeps backing up its claims. Therefore, by odds alone, it seems inconceiavble that it should be right so often. The logical deduction, then, is that it really is what it claims to be.... The divine authorship of God. That's why people believe it.

Evolution (biology) is not scientific? Platetectonics (geology)? Age of universe (cosmology)? This is laughable.

I didn't say it wasn't scientific. You said that creationists are against science when it so obviously isn't true. You may be able to say that their interpretations are incorrect, but you can't say that they impugn science.

VERY few scientists doubt evolution. It is the foundation of modern biology. It was doubted for a long time but ALL the evidence supports the theory so now it is accepted as fact. There is not ONE piece of evidence that refutes evolution (lack of evidence is not evidence, even though evidence for evolution is certainly not lacking).

http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



http://theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/07/1028157961167.html

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

This is has some staggering implications in the fields of Einstein's physics.



Niegher of those articles show that the speed of light has been fast enough to have travelled the distant universe in a time that could be reconciled with the alleged young creation of our universe.

You're going to have to try again; next time though, please read your own article, and/or understand what burden you have to fulfill.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-07-2006).]

Among them, the speed of light - which has been determined mathematically.

Were you, or were you not saying that the speed of light is a constant?

I was just as surprised as you might have been. I found out about this a few months ago.

No, I was not.

1. I was well aware of those experiments, they are somewhat old in fact.

2. The speed of light has always depended entirely on the medium in which is traveling; we have just taken its "normal" speed as the one we measure in a vacuum.

The point still stands. The speed of light does in fact refute the young creation of our universe.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

No, I was not.

You sure about that?

1. I was well aware of those experiments, they are somewhat old in fact.

Then what was your reasoning for mentioning it as being a mathematical constant?

2. The speed of light has always depended entirely on the medium in which is traveling; we have just taken its "normal" speed as the one we measure in a vacuum.

If humans can speed up light, then what's to say that nature couldn't depending on these variables?

The point still stands. The speed of light does in fact refute the young creation of our universe.

No, it doesn't directly say that. But we know that its possible, whereas its always been a way to empirically prove young-earth creationists wrong. Now no one can say that the possibility doesn't exist.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

You sure about that?

Well, now that you mention it, I'm not sure!

Can you help me understand what I said? You obviously have a more knowledgeable grasp on what I mean when I say things.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Then what was your reasoning for mentioning it as being a mathematical constant?

I didn't mention it as a mathematical constant. Please read what I said carefully and do not jump to ignorant conclusions.

quote:If humans can speed up light, then what's to say that nature couldn't depending on these variables?

The 'humans' in the article you provided didn't "speed up light", they slowed it down. Your unsubstantiated hypothesis requires a faster speed for light, not a slower one; as such, you're not supporting it by posting that particular article.

The other article deals with a possible diminutive increase in the speed of light.

Neither of those articles supports the baseless assertion that light was so fast in the past that it allows for the idea of a young creation.

quote:No, it doesn't directly say that. But we know that its possible, whereas its always been a way to empirically prove young-earth creationists wrong. Now no one can say that the possibility doesn't exist.

We can't say that the possibility of a giant green troll controlling the speed of light doesn't exist either. What we do say is that the belief is refuted by what we do observe, and that it remains unsubstantiated bullshit unless proven otherwise.

Well, now that you mention it, I'm not sure!

Can you help me understand what I said? You obviously have a more knowledgeable grasp on what I mean when I say things.

Its obvious what you meant, therefore I don't actually need your clarification.

The 'humans' in the article you provided didn't "speed up light", they slowed it down. Your unsubstantiated hypothesis requires a faster speed for light, not a slower one; as such, you're not supporting it by posting that particular article.

One article speaks of slowing light, which has never been done before because it was thought to be a constant. The other article speaks of speeding up, which has never been done before it was thought to be a constant. Therefore, it is more than applicable. I'd give you mad props if you could slow and/or speed up light.

We can't say that the possibility of a giant green troll controlling the speed of light doesn't exist either. What we do say is that the belief is refuted by what we do observe, and that it remains unsubstantiated bullshit unless proven otherwise.

We can argue on what the Creator is. In a scientific setting theological suppositions don't have there place. But if there is overwhelming order in the universe then it kind of puts a damper on farts in the wind. And again, the slowing or accelerating of light doesn't mean that God did it in the past. Once again, it shows that it is not impossible. Therefore, you can't rule it out anymore.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Its obvious what you meant, therefore I don't actually need your clarification.

Great. Then since I never once stated that it was constant - only that we have arrived at its value mathematically, which is a fact - then it is obvious that I never meant to say that it was constant.

To say otherwise is to lack elementary reading abilities - and to maintain such an ignorant position in the face of corrections is either to be amazingly stupid, or disgustingly dishonest.

quote:

One article speaks of slowing light, which has never been done before because it was thought to be a constant. The other article speaks of speeding up, which has never been done before it was thought to be a constant. Therefore, it is more than applicable. I'd give you mad props if you could slow and/or speed up light.

You ignored what I said. I'll repeat myself for your sake:

"Your unsubstantiated hypothesis requires a faster speed for light, not a slower one; as such, you're not supporting it by posting that particular article."

Whether those old discoveries show something that was long ago thought to be impossible is irrelevant. We're here to discuss the blatant lack of anything supporting your bullshit claims. Neither of those articles supports your bullshit claim, hence, they are irrelevant.

quote:

We can argue on what the Creator is. In a scientific setting theological suppositions don't have there place. But if there is overwhelming order in the universe then it kind of puts a damper on farts in the wind. And again, the slowing or accelerating of light doesn't mean that God did it in the past. Once again, it shows that it is not impossible. Therefore, you can't rule it out anymore.



You, again, ignored what I said. I'll repeat myself, again, for your sake:

"We can't say that the possibility of a giant green troll controlling the speed of light doesn't exist either. What we do say is that the belief is refuted by what we do observe, and that it remains unsubstantiated bullshit unless proven otherwise."

The young creation of the universe is refuted, and until you provide something saying otherwise, it remains unsubstantiated, unscientific, uncorroborated, bullshit.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-07-2006).]

Great. Then since I never once stated that it was constant - only that we have arrived at its value mathematically, which is a fact - then it is obvious that I never meant to say that it was constant.

Its obvious what you meant, therefore I don't actually need your clarification.

Whether those old discoveries show something that was long ago thought to be impossible is irrelevant. We're here to discuss the blatant lack of anything supporting your bullshit claims. Neither of those articles supports your bullshit claim, hence, they are irrelevant.

I don't think any of us can say that something challenging Special and General Relativity is irrelevant . Given the fact that you challenged it only solidifies that time isn't as abstract as previously believes. and there are indicators that it did travel faster in the past. You just didn't know about it because TalkOrigins doesn't speak about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo%C3%A3o_Magueijo

The young creation of the universe is refuted, and until you provide something saying otherwise, it remains unsubstantiated, unscientific, uncorroborated, bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

Yeah, its totally unreasonable to even consider its possibilities.

You need a thorough analysis of the the evidence that refutes the young earth theory? You need a thorough analysis of the evidence that supports evolution?

quote:The reason why people believe in it is because it keeps proving itself over and over again. There is no 'direct' evidence that it comes from God. I understand that. However, thigs keep coming to pass that the Bible said would come to pass and archeology keeps backing up its claims. Therefore, by odds alone, it seems inconceiavble that it should be right so often. The logical deduction, then, is that it really is what it claims to be.... The divine authorship of God. That's why people believe it.

What has come to pass that the bible said would pass? What supernatural claims has it made that have been backed up by archaeology?

quote:I didn't say it wasn't scientific. You said that creationists are against science when it so obviously isn't true. You may be able to say that their interpretations are incorrect, but you can't say that they impugn science.

Science makes predictions and is reproducible. Creationists do not look for evidence to support their theories they look for ways to dismiss legit science. How many scientists believe the earth is only thousands of years old?

quote:http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html

That is a very NON scientific paper.

"Natural selection does explain how organisms adapt to minor changes in their environment. Natural selection allows organisms to do what God commanded them to do. That is to be fruitful and multiply. Natural selection does not, however, explain the crucial question of how complex adaptations arose in the first place." This statement means nothing, it provides nothing, and is 100% wrong. Go see the link I posted in mad scientists it shows an example of a complex adaptation.

"origin of Life" This isn't really important to get into here because abiogenesis != evolution. Still the essay provides no evidence that abiogenesis cannot not occur, only that we dont have proof yet.

"But all of these difficulties together, as staggering as they are, are not the real problem. The major difficulty in chemical evolution scenarios is how to account for the informational code of DNA without intelligence being a part of the equation. DNA carries the genetic code: the genetic blueprint for constructing and maintaining a biological organism. We often use the terms of language to describe DNA's activity: DNA is "transcribed" into RNA; RNA is "translated" into protein; geneticists speak of the "genetic code." All these words imply intelligence, and the DNA informational code requires intelligent preprogramming, yet a purely naturalistic beginning does not provide such input. Chemical experiments may be able to construct small sequences of nucleotides to form small molecules of DNA, but this doesn't make them mean anything. There is no source for the informational code in a strictly naturalistic origin of life." This quote shows that the quthor does not know what he's talking about. No one belives the first living systems contained DNA... But ignorance aside, his argument doesn't apply because there is no need for information to be encoded in the first living systems, all they needed to be was a molecule that could catalyze its own replication... ie there was no GENES, there was no transcription or translation in the first living systems.

"The Inability to Account for Complex Adaptations" Just plain false. Complex adaptations ARE accounted for. We have specific mechanisms that can produce complex systems.

I could go on... In short though, the author provides no EVIDENCE that refutes evolution. He simply says XYZ cannot account for ABC, this is not evidence.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Shit, you might as well just believe in god.



No no no. Believing the universe always existed is more logical then believing in God. Christians will agree that the universe is not perfect, conscious, omnipotent, and otherwise less complicated then God (because he made it).

This means that the Christians somehow think it is more logical for a more complicated being to 'just create himself' or to just have 'always existed' then for a less complicated thing to 'just come into existence' or to have 'always existed.' Their other argument is that we just can't understand how God is perfect and has always been. No shit- we can't understand how the universe has always been either.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Its obvious what you meant, therefore I don't actually need your clarification.

Great. Then since I never once stated that it was constant - only that we have arrived at its value mathematically, which is a fact - then it is obvious that I never meant to say that it was constant.

To say otherwise is to lack elementary reading abilities - and to maintain such an ignorant position in the face of corrections is either to be amazingly stupid, or disgustingly dishonest.

quote:



I don't think any of us can say that something challenging Special and General Relativity is irrelevant . Given the fact that you challenged it only solidifies that time isn't as abstract as previously believes. and there are indicators that it did travel faster in the past. You just didn't know about it because TalkOrigins doesn't speak about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo%C3%A3o_Magueijo[/URL]



I'm well aware of those physics models. I also aware (unlike you it seems) that those physics models apply only to times immediately after the Big Bang, so as to serve as alternatives to inflationary models.

I'm also aware that those models haven't been verified at all.

Again, please read the things you post here because it's obvious you're just posting anything you get in your hastily done google searches. None of the links you have posted support a young age of the universe; your assertion still remains unsubstantiated bullshit.



quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light/URL]

Yeah, its totally unreasonable to even consider its possibilities.

It is if by "considering" them you mean to ignore the total lack of any evidence supporting that assertion, and the contradiction of everything we know.

Again, until you show some evidence supporting a faster speed of light in the past, your assertion remains unsubstantiated and baseless.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-08-2006).]

You need a thorough analysis of the the evidence that refutes the young earth theory? You need a thorough analysis of the evidence that supports evolution?

I'll make my sarcasm more blatant next time. he-he.

What has come to pass that the bible said would pass? What supernatural claims has it made that have been backed up by archaeology?

I was referring to prophecy, specifically. Archeology simply corroborates the Biblical account as a reliable and trustworthy source which so many have tried to denounce.

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/

Science makes predictions and is reproducible.

Uh huh... So either reproduce evolution or stop calling it a scientific fact until you can. Its a theory. Creationism, is a theory too. Neither of us should lose sight of that. Agreed?

Creationists do not look for evidence to support their theories they look for ways to dismiss legit science. How many scientists believe the earth is only thousands of years old?

The ones that do look for ways of corroborating the Bible clearly have a motive, and that motive is suspect. However, we could easily the say the same thing about many biologists who are so addicted to Darwinism that they'll stoop so low to invent whatever they want in order to propel the theory further.

That is a very NON scientific paper.

Fair enough. I thought you would appreciate the abstract. There are so many different sub-theories within the Darwinian model. Which one do you want me to single out?

"origin of Life" This isn't really important to get into here because abiogenesis != evolution. Still the essay provides no evidence that abiogenesis cannot not occur, only that we dont have proof yet.

If it weren't important, then why does sites like TalkOrigins bring it up? Of course its important. You can't have one without the other.

"The Inability to Account for Complex Adaptations" Just plain false. Complex adaptations ARE accounted for. We have specific mechanisms that can produce complex systems.

Which ones?

I could go on... In short though, the author provides no EVIDENCE that refutes evolution. He simply says XYZ cannot account for ABC, this is not evidence.

Okay, fair enough. But you are going to have to give me something specific if an abstarct won't suffice for you.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IanBoyd3:



No no no. Believing the universe always existed is more logical then believing in God.

I could agree with that. It would seem to make the most sense. However, both creationists and evolutionists know that time had a finite beginning.

Christians will agree that the universe is not perfect, conscious, omnipotent, and otherwise less complicated then God (because he made it).

I guess we'd have to define perfection. To me, the fact that the universe is so disordered, yet has not suffered some irreparable cataclysm seems quite remarkable to me if there was not some intangible force that continues to sustain it.

quote:Originally posted by iSoape:

Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Matter as we know it cannot be created or destroyed, but it had to be created somehow, correct?

Incorrect, there is the possibility that the universe always existed, this I beleive. Being rasied a as a human you are led to believe there MUST be a beginning and ending for everything. But this may not be true. I cannot say because of lack of proof, we will never know for sure. But again, I just believe the universe has always been around. Take an open mind to the idea that maybe it wasn't created, its always been there in one shape or form.

The Universe is... a bubble. This I believe.

I like your theory though. Beginnings and ends have way too much emphasis on them these days.

The question should include, I think, a qualifer as to which universe. Perhaps the matter and energy migrated slowly from a different universe.

My personal theory is complex and mostly pulled out of my ass because it sounds nice (ask me and I'll delve into it sometime) but at the moment reads that the universe exists because it created itself, continuing to exist in a paradoxical loop of time until something disrupts it, in which case it will cease to be. Preferably taking time with it.

When you start out with the basic premise that everything is born out of the error of an impossibility, the trifling matter of the weird stuff we've already observed becomes much easier to swallow.

quote:Uh huh... So either reproduce evolution or stop calling it a scientific fact until you can. Its a theory. Creationism, is a theory too. Neither of us should lose sight of that. Agreed?

Evolution is a scientific theory. It is supported by experiment and observation (evidence). Creationism is not a scientific theory because it doesn't make any testable predictions. There is no way to gather evidence to directly support or refute the "theory." Do you see the difference? If we found skeletons of birds older than dinosaurs then evolution would have a serious problem. Yet, there is no possible observation that could disprove creationism outright... Only the evidence that supports the alternative, Evolution, can refute creationism. This is why creationists must always attack evolution. Do you see any creationist research (real reearch, not reading the scripture) that is independent of evolution? Certainly, there is evolutionary research independent of creationism. For example, take the enitre field of phylogenetics. Phylogenetics had made many amazing predictions, yet the entire field is based on the "fact" that evolution did happen.



quote:The ones that do look for ways of corroborating the Bible clearly have a motive, and that motive is suspect. However, we could easily the say the same thing about many biologists who are so addicted to Darwinism that they'll stoop so low to invent whatever they want in order to propel the theory further.

That's why science has this thing called peer-review. It weeds out the frauds quite nicely. How many creationist articles are published in the major peer reviewed journals? How many in all the peer reviewed journals?

quote:Fair enough. I thought you would appreciate the abstract. There are so many different sub-theories within the Darwinian model. Which one do you want me to single out?

"origin of Life" This isn't really important to get into here because abiogenesis != evolution. Still the essay provides no evidence that abiogenesis cannot not occur, only that we dont have proof yet.

If it weren't important, then why does sites like TalkOrigins bring it up? Of course its important. You can't have one without the other.

Oh it IS important to origins, just not to the discussion of evolution. You *could* have evolution without abiogenesis. The Flying Spaghetti Monster *might* have zapped a primitive cell onto earth and had it evolve into what we see today. So you are wrong, you CAN have evolution without abiogenesis.

quote:"The Inability to Account for Complex Adaptations" Just plain false. Complex adaptations ARE accounted for. We have specific mechanisms that can produce complex systems.

Which ones?

Gene duplication, mutation, recombination, plasmids, "molecular exploitation", and more. You see a specific example Mad Scientists.

quote:Okay, fair enough. But you are going to have to give me something specific if an abstarct won't suffice for you.

Provide one piece of evidence that refutes evolution. IE show some observation or experiment where the results do not come out as predicted by evolutionary theory.

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 04-08-2006).]

I think that the big bang is jsut some science experiment that some smart as mother fucking aliens came up with. or maybe this science experiment is as lame as our clay volcano with baking powder and vinegar. could you imagine.... how many universe are made, these aliens equvialnt to our 4th grade classes. thats what its is..... maybe jsut as resonable as any of your answers

How can something eternal have a beginning? I cannot think that there is any plausible argument against an eternal univers,with eternal space ,and thusly it is permeated with an infinte amount of energy which is in turn potentially an infinte amount of matter.



The Words of the Universe? "Shit Happens".

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I think people 'buy' into fanciful stories all the time because they are gullible and naive.

Yeah.It's called the bible.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

I recently converted from Christianity to atheism.

However I had a noob-atheist question and was wondering if someone who's studied a bit could explain:

The universe is formed by the repetitive expanding and collapsing of all matter in the universe (correct me if I'm wrong). My question is, where did the matter originate from? Matter as we know it cannot be created or destroyed, but it had to be created somehow, correct? So what is the origin of matter?

PS. Anyone who quotes Genesis 1:1 gets a fat thumbs down.



You started the subject all wrong...

oh, wow, your a convert.

Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

The universe is formed by the repetitive expanding and collapsing of all matter in the universe (correct me if I'm wrong).

Well, in that case why would the universe have shape explained by:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_distance



...the point being that the universe, due to study of star movements and the behaviour of magnetism, is DEFINETLY on its way outwards but in a very awkward shape, and cannot be circular

apllied BY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Applications_of_quantum_theory

Every mechanical work is "forced" - the best word i can think of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_work

...and momentum due to force causes, in a general way of thinking, in specalitive reality, momentum:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

...however, no force can be stablised except by that which is greater...



i'm sure there is someone who can explain what i just said better but if you have a question ask!



The bible says that for the Lord,

a thousand years may be one

and one may be a thousand.

I believe God created the universe but it was surely a combination of electromagnetivy and displacement which

came from God that caused what you have perceived.



[This message has been edited by Lou Reed (edited 04-10-2006).]

http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

I'm not a physics major. Can anyone explain in layman's terms?

damnit Rust don't feed the troll.

The beginning of the universe or the origin suggest relations in time. But as we understand it now, time is the interaction of matter and energy and the way our senses and tools interpret it. Without matter and energy their is no time. How time might exist in other dimensions or unverses is simply unknowable at this point.

[edit] so no matter doesn't have to have been created. also Steven hawkins had a hypothesis that the universe expanded and collapsed which he later proved wrong.

[This message has been edited by Kune (edited 04-11-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Allow me to paraphrase what you are actually saying: "Nothing, the size of a space-speck began to heat up, for no good reason, and then the nothingness expanded until nothing exploded, and here we are."

If you are going to purport the plausibilty of the big bang, take Hawkings approach, which is, "We don't know what happened before the singularity. What's north of the North Pole?" If nothing existed prior to Planck's time, and there is no metaphysical force to create it, then there wasn't even room for the potentiality of the universe able to lain itself. If not even potential or kinetic energy existed, it seems inconceivable that the universe should have become actual, according to your theory.



That is quite frankly a load of rubbish. You've once again succeeded in taking the Fundamentalist's tried and tested tactic of refusing to try and understand something and instead restating it in a belittling manner, the fact that nothing existed doesn't mean that the potential for something to exist didn't, there were no governing laws, therefore there didn't need to be some sort of magical first cause. The universe could have quite simply, and quite plausably bubbled into existence as something in the midst of nothing.

[This message has been edited by jb_mcbean (edited 07-05-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

The universe could have quite simply, and quite plausably bubbled into existence as something in the midst of nothing.



Sincerly http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) please enlighten me, how can something come from nothing? how can it be said that nothing existed or could exist? Nothing, as in the absolute nothing you allude to, is by definition void, has no existence? How then does something 'bubble' into existence in a void. Even to speak of it as a void is misleading, nothing is nothing and cannot lead to something.

Is it not more logical that something has always existed?

This something would be infinite because in the absence of any opposite(what is the opposite of something/existence?) the something would have to be infinite and eternal without beginning and without end. 70 billion galaxies in the observable universe, 400 billion stars in our own galaxy and science sees evidence there are galaxies moving away from us at the speed of light - therefore the universe/reality/existence is both eternal and infinite and needs no cause. It simply exists because there is no alternative, there cannot be nothing.

That is: absolute nothing. If you are thinking in terms of matter obviously there are places there is no matter. But what is matter composed of? Is there a place where there is no energy?

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Sincerly http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) please enlighten me, how can something come from nothing?

Because the fact that there was nothing meant that there were no universal constants or laws to say that something couldn't suddenly appear out of nothing, even in the midst of nothing, there is always a potential for something, in this universe anyway, but because before the big bang there was no constants like that, so who's to say that it was the same?

So in other words, my theory cannot be proven or refuted, somewhat like the existence of god, but I still take my viewpoint as more plausable.

The universe didn't come from nothing, there was nothing from where the universe came from. Stephen Hawking. Since matter can't be created or destroyed, its more plausible that matter and therefore the universe is just is.

Matter can in fact be created and destroyed, the destruction happens all the time in a nuclear reactor, the creation in a particle accelerator

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

Matter can in fact be created and destroyed, the destruction happens all the time in a nuclear reactor, the creation in a particle accelerator

The law of conservation of matter breaks down for nuclear processes, where the equivalence of matter and energy, and hence conservation of energy, applies.

conservation of matter and energy are linked. when an unstable particle converts to a stable particle(through the weak nuclear force or radiation) there is an anmoaly. some of that matter is changed into energy.

nothing is created in a particle accelerator. the particles break down into their smaller components, such as quarks. the law conservation of matter only breaks down on the quantum level. most laws for conventional physics do because conventional physics is based on an exagerated form of the quantum world thus creating the illusion of consistency. at the quantum level everything is chaotic.

an example of exageration would be lets say a particle duplicates every two second on the quantum level. if we exagerated space and time(make it bigger/longer) then two seconds could easily become two hours or even two eternities until we notice it.

the equation E=mc^2 can derive the equation m=E/c^2 in which case will how much matter you can get from a certain amount of energy. it is all theroetical because we don't know how to change the energy to matter. even if we could it would be highly inefficient as it would take an enourmous amount of energy to make a small amount of matter.

[This message has been edited by Graemy (edited 07-23-2006).]