I have a question for those who hate creationism

[M.D. Rawlings]

I don't see how one can equate the "non-proof" of Creationism vs The Big Bang. The latter has all sorts of empirical evidence to back it up, while the former has none, except the oblique reference to The Big Bang itself, "Let there be light"!!!

Im not I'm equating having faith in religion to having faith in science.

Sometimes in both there are things you can't prove but all the evidence tells you its probably true.

For example the origin of the universe. We can't really prove where it came from but creationists will tell you it was God and other people will tell you it was a big bang without being able to actually prove it with irrefutable evidence.

Some people will say that creationists are stupid or ignorant for believing how they do yet this same people solidly believe that the big bang is how our universe was created without proof......i find this mindset very interesting so I made this thread to see what would happen.

And some people will say that God is the cause of the Big Bang.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see how one can equate the "non-proof" of Creationism vs The Big Bang. The latter has all sorts of empirical evidence to back it up, while the former has none, except the oblique reference to The Big Bang itself, "Let there be light"!!!

Im not I'm equating having faith in religion to having faith in science.

Sometimes in both there are things you can't prove but all the evidence tells you its probably true.

For example the origin of the universe. We can't really prove where it came from but creationists will tell you it was God and other people will tell you it was a big bang without being able to actually prove it with irrefutable evidence.

Some people will say that creationists are stupid or ignorant for believing how they do yet this same people solidly believe that the big bang is how our universe was created without proof......i find this mindset very interesting so I made this thread to see what would happen.

And some people will say that God is the cause of the Big Bang.

Or, more accurately, that God being a factor in that is something that cannot be scientifically ruled out.

 

[hortysir]

Oh come on now!!!
That question has been answered for you in this thread and in others, and yet you still play dumb! You have simply closed the door of your mind to this proven fact: what existed before the Big Bang is the same thing that exists after the Big Bang and is the same thing that went bang at the Big Bang, ENERGY, which cannot be created nor destroyed. There was no "before energy existed" and there will be no "after energy stops existing."
Get it?

I don't. Honestly.
No trick, no trap....Please explain.
Are you saying that time, itself, is a circle and not a line with a start point?
How can you, so unequivocally, state it as fact?
Energy is eternal? What kind of energy, because I can think of examples where energy is spent?? There can be energy without a source???

 

[edthecynic]

Oh come on now!!!
That question has been answered for you in this thread and in others, and yet you still play dumb! You have simply closed the door of your mind to this proven fact: what existed before the Big Bang is the same thing that exists after the Big Bang and is the same thing that went bang at the Big Bang, ENERGY, which cannot be created nor destroyed. There was no "before energy existed" and there will be no "after energy stops existing."
Get it?

I don't. Honestly.
No trick, no trap....Please explain.
Are you saying that time, itself, is a circle and not a line with a start point?
How can you, so unequivocally, state it as fact?
Energy is eternal? What kind of energy, because I can think of examples where energy is spent?? There can be energy without a source???

No, time begins at the Big Bang, not energy. In physics time exists only in terms of motion.

And energy in all its forms always exists in the same total quantity. That's the FLoT. The sum total of all energy in all its forms can neither increase nor decrease, it can only change form. Energy therefore is a constant.

 

[hortysir]

Oh come on now!!!
That question has been answered for you in this thread and in others, and yet you still play dumb! You have simply closed the door of your mind to this proven fact: what existed before the Big Bang is the same thing that exists after the Big Bang and is the same thing that went bang at the Big Bang, ENERGY, which cannot be created nor destroyed. There was no "before energy existed" and there will be no "after energy stops existing."
Get it?

I don't. Honestly.
No trick, no trap....Please explain.
Are you saying that time, itself, is a circle and not a line with a start point?
How can you, so unequivocally, state it as fact?
Energy is eternal? What kind of energy, because I can think of examples where energy is spent?? There can be energy without a source???

No, time begins at the Big Bang, not energy. In physics time exists only in terms of motion.

And energy in all its forms always exists in the same total quantity. That's the FLoT. The sum total of all energy in all its forms can neither increase nor decrease, it can only change form. Energy therefore is a constant.

I like the last 2 sentences. Thanks.

I just can't fathom how a ball of energy, the one that goes "bang", could exist outside of time and without any motion (since you said time only exists in terms of motion).
And since the universe is constantly expanding what energy is it drawing from to do so?

I'm sorry if these questions sound stupid. Not within my field of study.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh come on now!!!
That question has been answered for you in this thread and in others, and yet you still play dumb! You have simply closed the door of your mind to this proven fact: what existed before the Big Bang is the same thing that exists after the Big Bang and is the same thing that went bang at the Big Bang, ENERGY, which cannot be created nor destroyed. There was no "before energy existed" and there will be no "after energy stops existing."
Get it?

I don't. Honestly.
No trick, no trap....Please explain.
Are you saying that time, itself, is a circle and not a line with a start point?
How can you, so unequivocally, state it as fact?
Energy is eternal? What kind of energy, because I can think of examples where energy is spent?? There can be energy without a source???

No, time begins at the Big Bang, not energy. In physics time exists only in terms of motion.

And energy in all its forms always exists in the same total quantity. That's the FLoT. The sum total of all energy in all its forms can neither increase nor decrease, it can only change form. Energy therefore is a constant.

The problem with your unwavering faith in FLoT that you have made your god of all science is that you have no way to test it outside our own solar system. You can suppose that the same rules and laws of chemistry and physics etc. will apply in another galaxy or in another part of the universe, but without any means to test that you have to operate on pure faith alone.

And to assume that energy has no beginning and no end is at the very least simplistic and naive. Science doesn't come up with a theory that fits what we want to believe. Science is what is. And the science we have cannot yet tell us what existed or in what form before the 'big bang'.

 

[edthecynic]

I don't. Honestly.
No trick, no trap....Please explain.
Are you saying that time, itself, is a circle and not a line with a start point?
How can you, so unequivocally, state it as fact?
Energy is eternal? What kind of energy, because I can think of examples where energy is spent?? There can be energy without a source???

No, time begins at the Big Bang, not energy. In physics time exists only in terms of motion.

And energy in all its forms always exists in the same total quantity. That's the FLoT. The sum total of all energy in all its forms can neither increase nor decrease, it can only change form. Energy therefore is a constant.

I like the last 2 sentences. Thanks.

I just can't fathom how a ball of energy, the one that goes "bang", could exist outside of time and without any motion (since you said time only exists in terms of motion).
And since the universe is constantly expanding what energy is it drawing from to do so?

I'm sorry if these questions sound stupid. Not within my field of study.

They are not stupid questions. Let me tackle the second, first.

Our part of the universe, the part closest to the point of the Big Bang is expanding and slowing down. But the whole universe is not expanding or slowing down. While our equipment does not allow us to see the entire universe yet, we are able to see far enough out into space to measure that there are bodies in deep space that are accelerating.

To visualize this do not think of space as a straight line. When you look "out" into space, you are actually looking "around" the curve of space/time.

Think of the universe as a spiraling vortex expanding outward as it spirals out from the singular point of the Big Bang. Try to visualize how a long streamer, with a flick of the wrist, will take an expanding vortex shape from the singular point where it connects to a stick. You may have seen gymnasts and cheerleaders do this. As the vortex expands outward and slows down it curves back over itself and after it reaches its widest point of expansion, it begins to contract and speed up curving back in on itself and accelerates toward the point of the Big Crunch. Viewed from above at its equator the universe looks like Feynman's sphere and viewed from the poles the universe looks like Hawking's conical warped space, with one expanding vortex at one pole and one contracting vortex at the other pole.

Now to equate this to time and motion in your first question, you need to visualize a ball tossed straight up into the air. As it rises it slows down and eventually reaches a point where it is no longer rising. There is one "singular" point where the ball for an instant is neither rising nor falling. This singularity is extremely unstable and in the next instant the ball begins falling and accelerating. This is like the singularity where the universe is neither expanding nor contracting at the moment before the Big Bang. For that one moment there is no motion and time does not exist.

That is about the best way I can explain it in layman's terms, and I hope it helps.

 

[edthecynic]

I don't. Honestly.
No trick, no trap....Please explain.
Are you saying that time, itself, is a circle and not a line with a start point?
How can you, so unequivocally, state it as fact?
Energy is eternal? What kind of energy, because I can think of examples where energy is spent?? There can be energy without a source???

No, time begins at the Big Bang, not energy. In physics time exists only in terms of motion.

And energy in all its forms always exists in the same total quantity. That's the FLoT. The sum total of all energy in all its forms can neither increase nor decrease, it can only change form. Energy therefore is a constant.

The problem with your unwavering faith in FLoT that you have made your god of all science is that you have no way to test it outside our own solar system. You can suppose that the same rules and laws of chemistry and physics etc. will apply in another galaxy or in another part of the universe, but without any means to test that you have to operate on pure faith alone.

And to assume that energy has no beginning and no end is at the very least simplistic and naive. Science doesn't come up with a theory that fits what we want to believe. Science is what is. And the science we have cannot yet tell us what existed or in what form before the 'big bang'.

The Laws of thermodynamics are considered to be valid because the laws are not derived from the details of the system being studied, but from the reaction of the systems energy and matter transferring in response to change.

These laws of allow for scientists to test theories in the laboratory for validity and then construct from those theories new systems created by what was learned from the response. For example, thermodynamic experimentation on the reaction of certain types of metals and structures to the environment of space, done through an understanding of how matter and energy would behave in space, allowed for scientists to pursue the creation of materials that enabled us to explore space. The use of thermodynamics meant that they could do so without having to recreate the environment of space and test every idea within the environment of space to eliminate what did not work. The equations, guided by the laws of thermodynamics, were enough to allow the scientist to formulate working prototypes.

To assume that energy has no beginning and no end is a direct consequence of the proven FLoT. That may be a simple and obvious assumption, but it is far from naive!

 

[percysunshine]

"I have a question for those who hate creationism."

Hate?

What a silly question.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, time begins at the Big Bang, not energy. In physics time exists only in terms of motion.

And energy in all its forms always exists in the same total quantity. That's the FLoT. The sum total of all energy in all its forms can neither increase nor decrease, it can only change form. Energy therefore is a constant.

The problem with your unwavering faith in FLoT that you have made your god of all science is that you have no way to test it outside our own solar system. You can suppose that the same rules and laws of chemistry and physics etc. will apply in another galaxy or in another part of the universe, but without any means to test that you have to operate on pure faith alone.

And to assume that energy has no beginning and no end is at the very least simplistic and naive. Science doesn't come up with a theory that fits what we want to believe. Science is what is. And the science we have cannot yet tell us what existed or in what form before the 'big bang'.

The Laws of thermodynamics are considered to be valid because the laws are not derived from the details of the system being studied, but from the reaction of the systems energy and matter transferring in response to change.

These laws of allow for scientists to test theories in the laboratory for validity and then construct from those theories new systems created by what was learned from the response. For example, thermodynamic experimentation on the reaction of certain types of metals and structures to the environment of space, done through an understanding of how matter and energy would behave in space, allowed for scientists to pursue the creation of materials that enabled us to explore space. The use of thermodynamics meant that they could do so without having to recreate the environment of space and test every idea within the environment of space to eliminate what did not work. The equations, guided by the laws of thermodynamics, were enough to allow the scientist to formulate working prototypes.

To assume that energy has no beginning and no end is a direct consequence of the proven FLoT. That may be a simple and obvious assumption, but it is far from naive!

Again my experience with scientists, 'proof' and 'certainty' are very big words that I don't believe I've ever heard any of them use outside of a mathematical equation.

 

[Dr Grump]

The problem with your unwavering faith in FLoT that you have made your god of all science is that you have no way to test it outside our own solar system. You can suppose that the same rules and laws of chemistry and physics etc. will apply in another galaxy or in another part of the universe, but without any means to test that you have to operate on pure faith alone.

And to assume that energy has no beginning and no end is at the very least simplistic and naive. Science doesn't come up with a theory that fits what we want to believe. Science is what is. And the science we have cannot yet tell us what existed or in what form before the 'big bang'.

The Laws of thermodynamics are considered to be valid because the laws are not derived from the details of the system being studied, but from the reaction of the systems energy and matter transferring in response to change.

These laws of allow for scientists to test theories in the laboratory for validity and then construct from those theories new systems created by what was learned from the response. For example, thermodynamic experimentation on the reaction of certain types of metals and structures to the environment of space, done through an understanding of how matter and energy would behave in space, allowed for scientists to pursue the creation of materials that enabled us to explore space. The use of thermodynamics meant that they could do so without having to recreate the environment of space and test every idea within the environment of space to eliminate what did not work. The equations, guided by the laws of thermodynamics, were enough to allow the scientist to formulate working prototypes.

To assume that energy has no beginning and no end is a direct consequence of the proven FLoT. That may be a simple and obvious assumption, but it is far from naive!

Again my experience with scientists, 'proof' and 'certainty' are very big words that I don't believe I've ever heard any of them use outside of a mathematical equation.

Really. Do you think you can survive underwater without breathing? I think science and whole lot of drowned people have proved that.

Do you think you can jump out of a plane at 20,000 feet and survive? Science has proven this little thing called gravity.

Scientists and proven with certainly many, many things. Do the names Fleming, Curie and Isaac Newton mean anything to you?

 

[elvis]

The Laws of thermodynamics are considered to be valid because the laws are not derived from the details of the system being studied, but from the reaction of the systems energy and matter transferring in response to change.

These laws of allow for scientists to test theories in the laboratory for validity and then construct from those theories new systems created by what was learned from the response. For example, thermodynamic experimentation on the reaction of certain types of metals and structures to the environment of space, done through an understanding of how matter and energy would behave in space, allowed for scientists to pursue the creation of materials that enabled us to explore space. The use of thermodynamics meant that they could do so without having to recreate the environment of space and test every idea within the environment of space to eliminate what did not work. The equations, guided by the laws of thermodynamics, were enough to allow the scientist to formulate working prototypes.

To assume that energy has no beginning and no end is a direct consequence of the proven FLoT. That may be a simple and obvious assumption, but it is far from naive!

Again my experience with scientists, 'proof' and 'certainty' are very big words that I don't believe I've ever heard any of them use outside of a mathematical equation.

Really. Do you think you can survive underwater without breathing? I think science and whole lot of drowned people have proved that.

Do you think you can jump out of a plane at 20,000 feet and survive? Science has proven this little thing called gravity.

Scientists and proven with certainly many, many things. Do the names Fleming, Curie and Isaac Newton mean anything to you?

scientists once believed the Earth was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe and that one's intelligence was directly related to the size of his head.

 

[edthecynic]

The problem with your unwavering faith in FLoT that you have made your god of all science is that you have no way to test it outside our own solar system. You can suppose that the same rules and laws of chemistry and physics etc. will apply in another galaxy or in another part of the universe, but without any means to test that you have to operate on pure faith alone.

And to assume that energy has no beginning and no end is at the very least simplistic and naive. Science doesn't come up with a theory that fits what we want to believe. Science is what is. And the science we have cannot yet tell us what existed or in what form before the 'big bang'.

The Laws of thermodynamics are considered to be valid because the laws are not derived from the details of the system being studied, but from the reaction of the systems energy and matter transferring in response to change.

These laws of allow for scientists to test theories in the laboratory for validity and then construct from those theories new systems created by what was learned from the response. For example, thermodynamic experimentation on the reaction of certain types of metals and structures to the environment of space, done through an understanding of how matter and energy would behave in space, allowed for scientists to pursue the creation of materials that enabled us to explore space. The use of thermodynamics meant that they could do so without having to recreate the environment of space and test every idea within the environment of space to eliminate what did not work. The equations, guided by the laws of thermodynamics, were enough to allow the scientist to formulate working prototypes.

To assume that energy has no beginning and no end is a direct consequence of the proven FLoT. That may be a simple and obvious assumption, but it is far from naive!

Again my experience with scientists, 'proof' and 'certainty' are very big words that I don't believe I've ever heard any of them use outside of a mathematical equation.

"I don't believe," of course, is a disclaimer that allows the user to say anything!!!
Real scientists also consider REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS as proof.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Laws of thermodynamics are considered to be valid because the laws are not derived from the details of the system being studied, but from the reaction of the systems energy and matter transferring in response to change.

These laws of allow for scientists to test theories in the laboratory for validity and then construct from those theories new systems created by what was learned from the response. For example, thermodynamic experimentation on the reaction of certain types of metals and structures to the environment of space, done through an understanding of how matter and energy would behave in space, allowed for scientists to pursue the creation of materials that enabled us to explore space. The use of thermodynamics meant that they could do so without having to recreate the environment of space and test every idea within the environment of space to eliminate what did not work. The equations, guided by the laws of thermodynamics, were enough to allow the scientist to formulate working prototypes.

To assume that energy has no beginning and no end is a direct consequence of the proven FLoT. That may be a simple and obvious assumption, but it is far from naive!

Again my experience with scientists, 'proof' and 'certainty' are very big words that I don't believe I've ever heard any of them use outside of a mathematical equation.

"I don't believe," of course, is a disclaimer that allows the user to say anything!!!
Real scientists also consider REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS as proof.

We know how a lot of thngs work on Planet Earth yes. But that and the moon is pretty much all the experience we have and ithat is practically no experience at all when we consider how small Planet Earth is within the entire universe that we know of. Or even our solar system within the entire universe. And science is only capable of supposing how big that is or if or whether there is any end and what that end might be.

To asssume that all the scientific laws and principles that work on Planet Earth will be the same anywhere in the universe is simplistic and unrealistic enough to be naive.

 

[hortysir]

< major snippage here >
the moment before the Big Bang. For that one moment there is no motion and time does not exist.
<snip>

Wow, dude!
Thanks for the time and "energy" it took to type all that.

The part I snipped was, truly, my only point of contention.
Using your tossed ball analogy, I can't help but ponder how we would describe what occurred prior to that "one moment".
Would it be a sort of 'negative time'?
Does that make sense?
I mean, somehow, it had to arrive at that moment. Somehow the energy had to build to that banging point.


Hell, it's late and I'm almost through with Green Hornet. I'll check back tomorrow.

Singed,
Not-So-Closed-Minded Christian




I still say God did it

 

[edthecynic]

Again my experience with scientists, 'proof' and 'certainty' are very big words that I don't believe I've ever heard any of them use outside of a mathematical equation.

"I don't believe," of course, is a disclaimer that allows the user to say anything!!!
Real scientists also consider REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS as proof.

We know how a lot of thngs work on Planet Earth yes. But that and the moon is pretty much all the experience we have and ithat is practically no experience at all when we consider how small Planet Earth is within the entire universe that we know of. Or even our solar system within the entire universe. And science is only capable of supposing how big that is or if or whether there is any end and what that end might be.

To asssume that all the scientific laws and principles that work on Planet Earth will be the same anywhere in the universe is simplistic and unrealistic enough to be naive.

We've landed probes on Mars and sent satellites to some of the farthest points in our galaxy, so we know a lot more than just the Earth and the Moon. And we are not talking about all laws, just the FLoT, but even assuming the FLoT is not universal, that would in no way require the existence of the supernatural. Assuming the supernatural is truly simplistic and naive.

 

[edthecynic]

< major snippage here >
the moment before the Big Bang. For that one moment there is no motion and time does not exist.
<snip>

Wow, dude!
Thanks for the time and "energy" it took to type all that.

The part I snipped was, truly, my only point of contention.
Using your tossed ball analogy, I can't help but ponder how we would describe what occurred prior to that "one moment".
Would it be a sort of 'negative time'?
Does that make sense?
I mean, somehow, it had to arrive at that moment. Somehow the energy had to build to that banging point.

I guess I didn't make it very clear. What leads up to the point before the Big Bang is generally called the "Big Crunch." The Big Crunch would be a universal black hole. Contrary to popular belief, falling into a black hole would not be fatal. Again, the universe not being linear, you don't fall straight in but you fall AROUND the curvature of the black hole. If you've ever watched something caught in the whirlpool vortex of an emptying bathtub, you would have observed that the object circles around the vortex going faster and faster as it goes deeper into the vortex.

The Big Crunch is the moment before and the Big Bang is moment after the singularity where the universe is neither expanding nor contracting.
I hope that helps.

 

[Foxfyre]

"I don't believe," of course, is a disclaimer that allows the user to say anything!!!
Real scientists also consider REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS as proof.

We know how a lot of thngs work on Planet Earth yes. But that and the moon is pretty much all the experience we have and ithat is practically no experience at all when we consider how small Planet Earth is within the entire universe that we know of. Or even our solar system within the entire universe. And science is only capable of supposing how big that is or if or whether there is any end and what that end might be.

To asssume that all the scientific laws and principles that work on Planet Earth will be the same anywhere in the universe is simplistic and unrealistic enough to be naive.

We've landed probes on Mars and sent satellites to some of the farthest points in our galaxy, so we know a lot more than just the Earth and the Moon. And we are not talking about all laws, just the FLoT, but even assuming the FLoT is not universal, that would in no way require the existence of the supernatural. Assuming the supernatural is truly simplistic and naive.

I have not at any time brought anything 'supernatural' into my argument that we have only a tiny amount of the science that there is to know.

 

[edthecynic]

Im not I'm equating having faith in religion to having faith in science.

Sometimes in both there are things you can't prove but all the evidence tells you its probably true.

For example the origin of the universe. We can't really prove where it came from but creationists will tell you it was God and other people will tell you it was a big bang without being able to actually prove it with irrefutable evidence.

Some people will say that creationists are stupid or ignorant for believing how they do yet this same people solidly believe that the big bang is how our universe was created without proof......i find this mindset very interesting so I made this thread to see what would happen.

And some people will say that God is the cause of the Big Bang.

Or, more accurately, that God being a factor in that is something that cannot be scientifically ruled out.

We know how a lot of thngs work on Planet Earth yes. But that and the moon is pretty much all the experience we have and ithat is practically no experience at all when we consider how small Planet Earth is within the entire universe that we know of. Or even our solar system within the entire universe. And science is only capable of supposing how big that is or if or whether there is any end and what that end might be.

To asssume that all the scientific laws and principles that work on Planet Earth will be the same anywhere in the universe is simplistic and unrealistic enough to be naive.

We've landed probes on Mars and sent satellites to some of the farthest points in our galaxy, so we know a lot more than just the Earth and the Moon. And we are not talking about all laws, just the FLoT, but even assuming the FLoT is not universal, that would in no way require the existence of the supernatural. Assuming the supernatural is truly simplistic and naive.

I have not at any time brought anything 'supernatural' into my argument that we have only a tiny amount of the science that there is to know.

You have already stated the the supernatural cannot be ruled out, unless you are trying to say God is not supernatural.

And I have merely pointed out we know more than you give us credit for, no matter how small that knowledge might be, and that some of that knowledge is based on a firm foundation that has been proven by repeatable experiments.

 

[Foxfyre]

And some people will say that God is the cause of the Big Bang.

Or, more accurately, that God being a factor in that is something that cannot be scientifically ruled out.

We've landed probes on Mars and sent satellites to some of the farthest points in our galaxy, so we know a lot more than just the Earth and the Moon. And we are not talking about all laws, just the FLoT, but even assuming the FLoT is not universal, that would in no way require the existence of the supernatural. Assuming the supernatural is truly simplistic and naive.

I have not at any time brought anything 'supernatural' into my argument that we have only a tiny amount of the science that there is to know.

You have already stated the the supernatural cannot be ruled out, unless you are trying to say God is not supernatural.

And I have merely pointed out we know more than you give us credit for, no matter how small that knowledge might be, and that some of that knowledge is based on a firm foundation that has been proven by repeatable experiments.

But God has not been part of my argument. It was simply a statement of fact in rebuttal to you folks who insist on dragging God into it. But even a tunnel visioned anti-religious fanatic has to admit that there is no science that can falsify God in any way or even cast question re His involvement. Therefore my statement stands as 100% accurate.

And I haven't given you (whomever you include in 'us') credit for anything nor denied you credit for anything. If you want to believe you've got it all figured out, well bless your little heart. That must be a really comfortable place to be.

Me? I prefer to go with science that keeps an open mind on ALL scientific concepts and allows for the possibility of new understandings and insights in everything. And I respect science that admits that huge holes remain in the body of knowledge of the universe and all that is in it. Such open mindedness allows us to move ever closer to the truth of all things however long and far that journey might be.