Creationism and Darwin

[Gunny]

There is a finite amount of matter, so in that
sense the universe is not endless. It is endless
in that it exists in infinite space-time, which
is absorbing the expansion.

The universe is not endless and exists in infinite space-time? Ummm.... yeah .....sure.

We don't know where the universe begins nor ends, nor where the center of it is; yet, science can arbitrarily determine that it is expanding and exists in infinte space-time. That's about as good a theory as the "from nothing came something" (Big Bang) theory.

Geez ....and y'all call Christians gullible ...... :rotflmao:

 

[USViking]

why is there a finite ampunt of matter?

I am not sure this is a "why" which can ever
be answered. Some thing just "are", when
there is no apparent reason they might not
have been otherwise.

One might as well ask why the speed of light
is not more or less than it is.

to what certainty do you know this to be fact?

The rate of cosmic expansion is I suppose
the best evidence- if there were a greater
amount of matter, the universe would not
be expanding so fast, or would be collapsing.

The cosmic background radiation discovered
in the 1960s is also considered conclusive
evidence by most authorites against the
possibility of the constant creation of new
matter postulated by some cosmological theiries.

 

[manu1959]

if you can not tell me why there is a finite amount of matter and since you can not prove it i will not take it at face value that it is fact.

and since you can not give me the degree of certainty that you know this to be fact i must conclude that you are simply giving me an opinion

 

[USViking]

The universe is not endless and exists in infinite space-time? Ummm.... yeah .....sure.

I said only that the matter in the universe
is not endless.

We don't know where the universe begins nor ends, nor where the center of it is; yet, science can arbitrarily (emphasis added) determine that it is expanding and exists in infinte space-time.

There is nothing arbtrary about it. The expansion
of the universe is the result of observation, and
if we cannot trust our senses, or be permitted to
draw conclusions from what our senses tell us,
then we may as well give up the practise of science.

If you have evidence of a great wall at the ends
of the universe, beyond which the universe is
forbidden to pass, then I urge you to inform NASA,
and the Keck Obsevatory ASAP.

That's about as good a theory as the "from nothing came something" (Big Bang) theory.

Geez ....and y'all call Christians gullible ...... :rotflmao:

Big Bang theory does not, as far as I know,
forbid that God preceded it, and caused its
occurence. It seems to me to accord as
well as any other scientific theory, better
in fact than any, with the first sentence of the Bible.

 

[USViking]

if you can not tell me why there is a finite amount of matter and since you can not prove it i will not take it at face value that it is fact.

and since you can not give me the degree of certainty that you know this to be fact i must conclude that you are simply giving me an opinion

Suit yourself, I will continue to heed the
present state of scientific opinion where
it is not completely speculative, and what
I have drawn attention to is not speculative,
it is the result of the interplay of observation,
experiment, and theory.

Let me know if you can offer any real improvements.

 

[007]

This topic always intrigues me, that there are those who purport all this fact about the universe as if it were all so simple.

Well the only fact I know is when you speak of "infinite", you open up to an absolute of everything and anything is possible. If the universe is infinite, and we don't know that for sure either, only that we can't "see" an end, even though there may be one, but in this infinite universe, there would HAVE to be, someone sitting at his computer, just like me, typing the exact same thing as I am, about the same thing I am. He would be the same age, have the same career, same house, to make the point, he would be my exact double living an EXACT parallel. This would also be true for everyone and everything else. The possibilities inside infinite are... infinite.

I think at this point in time, for man to think he can explain it all is a little arrogant. What we have been able to explain I'm afraid isn't worth a mole on a fly's ass in the grand scheme of things. And unfortunately, I'm afraid that after you die, much is made known to you about it all. We just don't have the ability to talk with the dead... yet.

 

[Gunny]

I said only that the matter in the universe
is not endless.





There is nothing arbtrary about it. The expansion
of the universe is the result of observation, and
if we cannot trust our senses, or be permitted to
draw conclusions from what our senses tell us,
then we may as well give up the practise of science.

If you have evidence of a great wall at the ends
of the universe, beyond which the universe is
forbidden to pass, then I urge you to inform NASA,
and the Keck Obsevatory ASAP.

Let's see .... we do not know where the universe begins nor ends, nor where the center of it is, but its expansion is fact? Sorry, but without those parameters it isn't our senses telling us anything .... it's our imagination.


Big Bang theory does not, as far as I know,
forbid that God preceded it, and caused its
occurence. It seems to me to accord as
well as any other scientific theory, better
in fact than any, with the first sentence of the Bible.

Better hope your felow science buddies don't hear you see that.

 

[USViking]

I said only that the matter in the universe
is not endless.

There is nothing arbtrary about it. The expansion
of the universe is the result of observation, and
if we cannot trust our senses, or be permitted to
draw conclusions from what our senses tell us,
then we may as well give up the practise of science.

If you have evidence of a great wall at the ends
of the universe, beyond which the universe is
forbidden to pass, then I urge you to inform NASA,
and the Keck Obsevatory ASAP.

Let's see .... we do not know where the universe begins nor ends, nor where the center of it is, but its expansion is fact? Sorry, but without those parameters it isn't our senses telling us anything .... it's our imagination.

No it is not our imagination, it our senses: Our sense
of sight, enhanced by telescopes, tell us that the light
from most of the rest of the universe is red-shifted (look it up).
This means it is moving away from us, ie expanding
away from us.

Big Bang theory does not, as far as I know,
forbid that God preceded it, and caused its
occurence. It seems to me to accord as
well as any other scientific theory, better
in fact than any, with the first sentence of the Bible.

Better hope your felow science buddies don't hear you see that.

I think it is safe to say close to 100% of them would concur.

In fact, one of the scientists who first thought of the model
was a priest, Georges Lemaitre.

 

[Gunny]

No it is not our imagination, it our senses: Our sense
of sight, enhanced by telescopes, tell us that the light
from most of the rest of the universe is red-shifted (look it up).
This means it is moving away from us, ie expanding
away from us.

"Moving away from us" is evidence that the entire universe is expanding? What I see is evidence of man's arrogance and belief that he man can explain everything.

That light is moving away from us within the limits of Man's reach is evidence of nothing to me.


I think it is safe to say close to 100% of them would concur.

In fact, one of the scientists who first thought of the model
was a priest, Georges Lemaitre.

Couldn't be 100% because you are the only one I have run into on a message board who has stated it. The rest attempt to use it to refute ID, not include it.

 

[USViking]

"Moving away from us" is evidence that the entire universe is expanding? What I see is evidence of man's arrogance and belief that he man can explain everything.

That light is moving away from us within the limits of Man's reach is evidence of nothing to me.

If something is moving away from you,
then the distance between you and it is
increasing, yes? It gets no simpler than
that, and really requires no explanation.

Couldn't be 100% because you are the only one I have run into on a message board who has stated it. The rest attempt to use it to refute ID, not include it.

I used the phrase “not forbidden”, and I
do not think any scientist would argue
with that. What they would argue about
is what constitutes positive evidence.

 

[deaddude]

I will try to put this into analogy. There is a piece of paper, if you look at it it looks black, all observations data, experiments, tests etc say the damned thing is black. Yet some people say that it is white simply because the thing can not be proven to be black.

The request for proof is philisophicly insane. For instance if I want to be stuborn about any belief, then you cannot "prove" me wrong.

For instance I challenge anyone to prove to me that Pale Rider exists. For I firmly believe him to be nothing more than vacuous space.

 

[Mariner]

order cannot be created from disorder.

In fact, order arises spontaneously all the time.

As long as the overall entropy of the entire system does not increase, then the process is permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.

So when you build a car, or wash one, you've created local order, but you have also disordered the universe (through the output of heat, the mixing of soap with water when they were previously separate, etc.) to a greater extent than you ordered it.

As an example of spontaneous order, consider the snowflake.

As for the apparent contradictions in the ideas of an expanding universe and time "before" the Big Bang, physics addresses the apparent contradictions by thinking in higher dimensions. It's not easy math, but it is fully logically consistent. There are various different models, but one idea is that time itself begins with the Big Bang. Just because we currently experience a forward-moving time does not mean it must always be so. Current string theories postulate the universe having as many as 26 dimensions, with 10 of them curled up tiny.

Space itself ceases to have meaning at tiny distances. So another possibility is that the entire universe is simply a bubble of quantum foam. In a vacuum, particles are constantly being created and annihilated--something out of nothing--amazing. Our universe may have arisen just like this.

If you don't believe all this stuff, turn off your TV and CD player quickly. Both depend on 'crazy' physics that makes no common sense--but unlike religious beliefs, it can be rigorously tested and is assembled into an imposing intellectual structure.

Sounds like many people here would enjoy an intro physics or astrophysics class. I wish I were more knowledgeable about the subject so I could help even more, but I left physics for medical school many years ago...

Mariner.

 

[007]

I will try to put this into analogy. There is a piece of paper, if you look at it it looks black, all observations data, experiments, tests etc say the damned thing is black. Yet some people say that it is white simply because the thing can not be proven to be black.

The request for proof is philisophicly insane. For instance if I want to be stuborn about any belief, then you cannot "prove" me wrong.

For instance I challenge anyone to prove to me that Pale Rider exists. For I firmly believe him to be nothing more than vacuous space.

Come again....

 

[deaddude]

Prove that that is a picture of Pale Rider, prove that me typing on my computer, and in fact the world as I know it is not just a diluded figment of my imagination. You can't, philosophicly you cannot prove anything.

Nice bike btw, even if it is just some half assed halucination of mine, it is a damn cool half assed halucination.

 

[007]

Prove that that is a picture of Pale Rider, prove that me typing on my computer, and in fact the world as I know it is not just a diluded figment of my imagination. You can't, philosophicly you cannot prove anything.

Nice bike btw, even if it is just some half assed halucination of mine, it is a damn cool half assed halucination.

I get your point. But it appears to me that you're just saying that no matter what amount of tangible proof one may present to you, you'd just continue denying it.

 

[deaddude]

I get your point. But it appears to me that you're just saying that no matter what amount of tangible proof one may present to you, you'd just continue denying it.

Exactly, you cannot prove anything, because no matter how much information you have somebody can always point out the possiblity that even with all of the evidence your theory is incorrect. This is why innocence is given for a reasonable doubt, it is also why scientists ascribe to the theories that have the most evidence to back them up.

Even then science proves itself wrong all the time. For instance ether theory has now been debunked, but used to be the standard theory of how light tranversed through a vacume. According to the theory there was an omnipresent substance called ether that existed even in the vacume of space, light would travel through the ether to get from point a to point b. Than an experiment designed to detect the flow of the ether, actually provided significant data against its existance, the scientific oppinion changed. We now believe in the theory of relativity, which is currently being tested via satilite.

So it is quite possible that matter can be created and destroyed, but we cannot do it nor have we observed any natural phenomenon that could, until we do science will adhere to the law of conservation of mass.

 

[Powerman]

simple logic would tell you that it has always been there......or since it is constant.....were is the matter comming from that allows the earths popolation to increase at a greater rate than it is dying?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I see where you are coming from but no matter needs to be created or destroyed to populate the earth.

 

[Powerman]

Ummm....... I don't think so. Before the universe there was ......? Nothing? So nothing managed enough energy and matter, which is something, to have a "big bang"?

Nonsensical.

He never said that we had all the answers man.

 

[Powerman]

why is there a finite ampunt of matter?

to what certainty do you know this to be fact?

This is easy. There has to be some finite amount of matter. Otherwise everything would have to be infinitely dense which would make no sense.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

As the debate rages over Creationism and the theory of evolution, there is one question I have that no one seems to want to address on the evolution side of the equation.

One of science's basic laws is that "matter can neither be created or destroyed". Therefore, where did the matter come from that resulted in all that was, or all that is now? It had to come from somewhere, sometime. But if matter can not of itself be created then simple logic demands that someone had to create it out of nothing. As Bill O'Reilly would say, "What say you?"

First off - matter can be created or destroyed, provided an equivalent amount of energy is destroyed or created in its place.

2nd off - the laws of physics only apply within the boundaries of the universe. Whatever amount of matter-energy was present at the moment of the Big Bang is the amount of matter energy that will be present forever or until the universe ends, whichever comes first <G>


First the Universe was almost exclusively energy. As it cooled, some of the energy turned into matter.