patrick.net

austrian_man says

The cyclical model is still popular among physicists.

See this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/oct/16/cycles-time-roger-penrose-review

Although the article mentions cycles, the article does not make Penrose's conjecture sound anything like the Big Crunch Theory. It does not mention the force of gravity causing the universe to contract. Then again, the article doesn't really say much about what Penrose is proposing.

Dan8267 says

Penrose's conjecture sound anything like the Big Crunch Theory

It's not like the Big Crunch, but it is a Conformal Cyclical Cosmology Model. Penrose is not a fan of String theory I gather. So his theory (speculative one so far) is conforming more to General theory of relativity.

This amazon review seems useful: http://www.amazon.com/review/RR89NMD7MILDP/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#RR89NMD7MILDP

wthrfrk80 says

If everything you assert is true

I wasn't aware that I asserted anything. I said we are made of atoms, but I consider that to be a pretty well accepted fact. Do I really need to prove the existence of atoms and that your body is made up of various carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc. atoms? Look, I firmly believe in the burden of proof, but you have to assume some level of common knowledge to have a productive conversation.

wthrfrk80 says

If everything you assert is true, than aren't your very assertions also just matter and energy?

The terms assertions , arguments, proofs, evidence, and facts are abstract concepts. Abstract concepts are physically manifested by energy an matter, yes, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. For example, when you read the word "dog" in a book, you aren't actually seeing a dog or even a word. You are seeing a splat of ink in a form that you recognize as the word "dog" in your language. That doesn't mean words don't exist or that words are splats of ink.

wthrfrk80 says

If everything you assert is true, than aren't your very assertions also just matter and energy? And aren't ChristianGuy's assertions also just matter and energy? So how can anyone say your argument is better than ChristianGuy's (or visa versa)? Both are just matter and energy, so how can one form of matter and energy be "better" than another?

Yes, ChristianGuy and I are both communicating using matter and energy. However, the contents of are arguments are not simply "equal" because they all reduce to matter and energy or words and sentences. Let's say Bob and Joe are arguing. Bob says the square root of two is rational and Joe says it's irrational. One of them is right and can be proven right. The arguments that Bob can make must be inferior to the best possible argument Joe can make because Joe is actually correct. Joe could present a proof of the irrationality of the square root of two. Bob cannot make any valid argument that the root is rational. The fact that they are both using chalk and a blackboard makes no difference.

wthrfrk80 says

I agree that a lot of religion is BS, but it seems that "radical" determinism/materialism is ultimately self-defeating. Truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and bad all become meaningless if there is nothing more than mass and energy behaving in absolutely pre-determined fashion, right?

Example: the debate over humans eating meat. In a radically deterministic/matericalistic universe, debate over the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the practice is meaningless: atoms and energy (in the form of a human) are predetermined to occaisonally interact with the atoms and energy (in the form of an animal) that results in the death of the animal. We call this interaction "killing and eating." This interation "just is."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but it seems that you are confusing the terms right/wrong with good/evil. By right, I mean correct; by wrong, I mean incorrect. Perhaps a bit confusing since English overloads the terms. The issues of correct/incorrect versus good/evil are completely different.

I do need to get around to writing about the nature of morality. I think you're asking the question, "If morality isn't absolute, can it even exist?". I don't want to give a short answer because it will be misinterpreted. Wait for my next tirade.

wthrfrk80 says

Is radical materialism even falsifiable? How could it be proven...or dis-proven?

It was proven on Monday, August 6, 1945 in Hiroshima, Japan. Atomic theory, or radical materialism as you prefer, could have been disproved by proving a number of alternative, incompatible theories.

Dan8267 says

The terms assertions , arguments, proofs, evidence, and facts are abstract concepts.

I find it very useful to distinguish b/w facts, opinions and beliefs because it brings a great deal of clarity to the discussion.

See this: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/co300man/pop12d.cfm

Facts are verifiable and indisputable: we are made of atoms. This is a fact. There is no way to dispute this and it is easily verifiable.

Opinions are judgments based on facts. If they're reasonable, honest then we can listen to them and re-affirm or change our judgments. Being pro-choice or pro-life can be an opinion based on what you know factually about conception.

Beliefs are just convictions based on faith/religion etc. This is where it is mostly bullshit. For example, thinking that the Earth is very young based on some faith is clearly bullshit.

austrian_man says

I find it very useful to distinguish b/w facts, opinions and beliefs because it brings a great deal of clarity to the discussion.

Completely agree with one small change.

Opinions are judgments/convictions, but not necessarily based on facts. "I like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate ice cream." isn't really based on a fact. Neither is "I prefer sunrises to sunsets.".

Not sure if there is a difference between a judgment and a conviction. And I hate to use the word belief because it's so nebulous. Technically, I believe the world is round. It just happens that I based this belief on knowledge, not faith. But the word is often used in the context of faith.

Dan8267 says

It was proven on Monday, August 6, 1945 in Hiroshima, Japan. Atomic theory, or radical materialism as you prefer, could have been disproved by proving a number of alternative, incompatible theories

Dan,

I wasn't arguing about the nature of physical matter (whether or not matter is made up of atoms). I was arguing against the belief that physical matter (and energy) is ALL THERE IS. I was NOT arguing against atomic theory. I think that was pretty clear from my post.

wthrfrk80 says

I was arguing against the belief that physical matter (and energy) is ALL THERE IS.

Obviously, there is more in the universe than matter and energy. There is space and time, both of which are discreet. However, everything in the universe is, by definition, physical. What would it mean for a non-physical thing to exist?

Dan8267 says

There is space and time, both of which are discreet.

I would argue that space and time are mental constructs of the human mind; they are not proven to exist independent of matter and energy. Space is defined as the dimensions of the matter existence. Without matter, is there any need for the mental construct of space?

Time is much more intriguing. For the most part, laws of physics assume time to be reversible, except: the Second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy must increase over time (see Entropy); the cosmological arrow of time, which points away from the Big Bang, and the radiative arrow of time, caused by light only traveling forwards in time (see light cone). Those are MASSIVE exceptions to be sure, still the arrow of time could be an illusion. The jury is out on that. [See Sean Carroll's book on The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time for example].

If the Cyclical model (as proposed by Roger Penrose) is true, then Time is beginning-less and endless. Infinite cycles of time, more-like.

Dan8267 says

What would it mean for a non-physical thing to exist?

:) This much is very true.

austrian_man says

I would argue that space and time are mental constructs of the human mind; they are not proven to exist independent of matter and energy.

Clearly both space and time are not merely constructs of the human imagination. Where you are in space matters as far as the gravity and heat you feel from the sun. Length is not imaginary as there are gravitational tidal forces. Time clearly affects the matter in your body as well as the decay of radioactive particles. As to whether or not time and space could exist without matter, I don't know. Matter bends the space around it, but could "flat" space exist without the presence of matter and/or energy? Can space itself be viewed as a form of energy? Sorry, but that's beyond my current understanding of the subject matter.

austrian_man says

Time is much more intriguing. For the most part, laws of physics assume time to be reversible, except: the Second law of thermodynamics

Steven Hawkins wrote about this issue in his book A Brief History of Time. It's been years since I've read that text, but if I remember correctly, Hawkins proposed that the Second Law of Thermodynamics would be conserved by a shrinking universe reversing the direction of time. Glasses pieces would rise from the ground, reassemble themselves, and form a bowl that comes to rest on a table. Hawkins later rescinded this hypothesis stating that the direction of time would not reverse if the universe stopped expanding and started shrinking.

The thing is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a hell of an exception. It's arguably the most important law of nature in the universe.

austrian_man says

If the Cyclical model (as proposed by Roger Penrose) is true, then Time is beginning-less and endless. Infinite cycles of time, more-like.

Alternatively, time could be finite but without any edges. Asking what happened a minute before the Big Bang could be like asking what is located one mile north of the North Pole. It might be a meaningless question.

However, the fact that there are many fringe questions about the weird nature of the universe, does not give me reason to answers questions with "because god wants it that way" instead of a more honest "I don't know".

Dan8267 says

Where you are in space matters as far as the gravity and heat you feel from the sun. Length is not imaginary as there are gravitational tidal forces.

See now you're talking about forces and energy within the matter. All of these are numerical representations of the concepts. Space in itself is a numerical representation. Sure it describes matter in a precise manner that is amenable to physics, but space as a concept exists because of matter + energy.

Dan8267 says

Time clearly affects the matter in your body as well as the decay of radioactive particles. As to whether or not time and space could exist without matter, I don't know

Nothing exists without matter & energy. Matter pervades everywhere and energy is a property of the matter. It can be just potential, like the massive singularity containing all potential energy just prior to the big bang and it can be kinetic, as the universe is expanding.

Dan8267 says

Hawkins later rescinded this hypothesis stating that the direction of time would not reverse if the universe stopped expanding and started shrinking.

The direction of the time doesn't have to reverse, but you can get back to where you started if it is circular.

Dan8267 says

However, the fact that there are many fringe questions about the weird nature of the universe, does not give me reason to answers questions with "because god wants it that way" instead of a more honest "I don't know".

Good point. Hope Ok and ChristianGuy see this.

Ok says

How is them saying that they don't accept that the universe was created over billions of years make them unqualified to practice medicine?

Funny, did you know medicine as a science was created by muslim and "creationist" doctors?

Dan8267 says

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

Nope, in science you can't have such a thing. If it's a theory it is not a fact. Newtons mechanics was a theory, we know now it was not a fact. There are possible revisions to Einstein's theory, exactly because it's a scientific theory.

Theory of Evolution constantly claims it's a fact, which exactly makes it a religious belief, not a scientific theory. What's worse, evolution classes are structures like typical cultists indoctrinations. Vulgar Darwinism they preach ignores facts or gives them extremely improbable exlpanations. It has nothing with trying to discover any truth.

So, someone belonging to a different cult has a resonable cause to avoid Evolution worshiping sessions.

Danaseb says

Advocating that God directly created the universe instantly is rejecting basic science.

How come?

What do you mean by "instantly", it makes no sense for God, since He created time the same way He created space, matter, and energy.

His existense simply is not within time.

michaelsch says

Nope, in science you can't have such a thing. If it's a theory it is not a fact

I can't believe after all I've written on this site, I still have to correct scientifically illiterate people about the most basic things, even definitions. These are things you should have learned in high school if not elementary school. But to recap…

When scientist and mathematicians use the word "theory", they don't mean the same thing that Joe Schmo illiterate means. The word theory does not mean "guess" like Joe Schmo uses it. That is a corruption of the word that is not the way it's used in the scientific or mathematical communities. Set Theory is not a guess.

But let's listen to a scientist explain the term. Stephen J. Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory; Discover, May 1981

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

There you have it. Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. Straight from the scientist and science historian's mouth. I hope this once and for all puts to bed the false belief that a scientific theory is just an unproven guess.

If it doesn't, then read the following:
Talk Origins
Not Just a Theory
Is evolution a fact or a theory?
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories

michaelsch says

So, someone belonging to a different cult has a resonable cause to avoid Evolution worshiping sessions.

Pray tell, how old is the Earth.

michaelsch says

Funny, did you know medicine as a science was created by muslim and "creationist" doctors?

The oldest known Egyptian remedies go back to 3000 BC. As far back as 2750 BC the Egyptians had performed rudimentary forms of surgery. The Edwin Smith papyrus states the Egyptians dealt with illnesses by examination and doing prognosis. Who Invented Medicine?

Slightly older than Islam. Please get your facts right.

In any case, no one "invented" medicine as medicinal practices predate our species. Even chimps practice herbal medicine. I guess they have souls then.

As for science, the term and the practice in the modern sense didn't come about until the time of Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626) and Descartes (1596 – 1650).

michaelsch says

His existense simply is not within time.

Yeah, that's meaningful. And you base that statement on?

michaelsch says

Nope, in science you can't have such a thing. If it's a theory it is not a fact. Newtons mechanics was a theory, we know now it was not a fact.

What do you mean Newtons mechanics is not a fact? All classical mechanics equations developed by Newton still apply on the scale he was observing. His laws are valid with an inertial frame of reference (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_reference_frame)

Newton's second law requires modification if the effects of special relativity are to be taken into account, because at high speeds the approximation that momentum is the product of rest mass and velocity is not accurate. Still, his law is applicable and works very well at low/normal speeds.

Newton's laws were verified by experiment and observation for over 200 years, and they are excellent approximations at the scales and speeds of everyday life. To say his laws are not facts is disingenuous.

michaelsch says

There are possible revisions to Einstein's theory, exactly because it's a scientific theory.

Same with Einstein's relativity theory. There is never a perfect theory in science, which is why there is always a quest for knowledge. Doesn't mean Newton and Einstein have to be treated any less than modern physicists. In fact, without their foundational body of work, modern physics as we know today cannot exist.

michaelsch says

Theory of Evolution constantly claims it's a fact, which exactly makes it a religious belief, not a scientific theory.

In a similar vein, there are still open questions on evolution theory. It doesn't mean that the whole body of work is based on belief. There's overwhelming scientific evidence based on fossils, radiometric dating of fossils and such. Evolution is based on scientific evidence. Dan's original statement that it is both a theory and a fact is correct. Open questions remain on finer questions of evolution, but the underlying premise is true.

michaelsch says

Vulgar Darwinism they preach ignores facts or gives them extremely improbable exlpanations. It has nothing with trying to discover any truth.

Rather than superficially spouting nonsense, I would recommend you understand the meaning of disingenuous, because that's exactly what your statements indicate. And study the subject more deeply before critiquing it. Bring finer points, rather than broad brush attacks that have no substance whatsoever.

Dan8267 says

In any case, no one "invented" medicine as medicinal practices predate our species. Even chimps practice herbal medicine. I guess they have souls then.

I would add Vedic medicine to the ancient list.

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

There's a whole body of work in Susruta Samhita and Charaka Samhita (think of them like encyclopaedia of medicine with various authors) related to ancient medicine. This is about 3 centuries older than Birth of Christ.

michaelsch says

What do you mean by "instantly", it makes no sense for God, since He created time the same way He created space, matter, and energy.

LOL. How do you create "time"? If God is the prima causa for everything in the universe (which is a very lofty claim to begin with), the burden of the proof lies with the person who presents it. Where is the proof?

austrian_man says

LOL.

Does anything these religious people say make sense? Seriously, I wonder what goes on in their minds. I think it's a lot like someone who's high.

Dan8267 says

I kind of suspect that OK is Bap33 under a new account. It was registered today and has only replied to this one thread. Sounds a lot like Bap33.

negative. I had not clicked this topic until this very instant. Patrick may be able to verify, if interested.

When the age of the Earth is listed as 4.6B, at what point in the Earth's evolution did the clock begin?? How long would you say the Earth has been able to support life??

As far as my personal view of Dartwin guesses, as he presented them, .... I say nay. Not a chance.

But, do I suggest to know what God did, how, and why ... nope.

austrian_man says

How do you create "time"?

Both time and space derive from the existence of light. This is shared by modern physics. The prevailing theories of Big Bang and expanding Universe assume they all came to being practically momentarily.

Orthodox Christianity and Islam believe in God the Creator of all, therefore, the Creator of time as well. (and Judaism up to certain extend, even though these things are somehow watered down in modern Judaism.)

Bring finer points, rather than broad brush attacks

- it's a bit boring, since apparently you have very little idea about the evolution of species. I will give you one example only.

One of the problems of Evolution worship is that it supposed to be based on Darwins natural selection. It is based on two principles assumed to work 100% of the time:
1. Constant mutations, some of which are beneficial;
2. Individual that have such a mutation, survive better and over time their descendants completely replace all others. (Survival of the fittest.)

Yet, there are many examples of combinations of independant mutations, which were necessary for a given event in evolution. One such example is the development of speach. There are two changes considered necessary for this development: 1. Brain changes (too long to describe); 2. Anatomic changes of jaws, necessary for handling the variety of sounds in languages, but making human jaws much weaker than of any beast.

The carriers of that second mutation have a huge disadvantage and according to Darwin had to quickly die out. In order to give any advantages these two mutations had to happen not only simultaneously but also to multiple individuals, (because you need more than one to use a language.)

All Evolutionist expalanations of such issues are unlikely and unwarranted phantasies.

Of course, that's not a problem for one who believes in Creator, but that is not my point. My point is that Evolution classes given from kindergarten to colledge all carefully avoid discussing such issues.

In a similar vein, there are still open questions on evolution theory. It doesn't mean that the whole body of work is based on belief.

It would not, would they be openly discussed in these evolution classes. The problem is that they are designed as indoctrination session, rather than science classes.

austrian_man says

michaelsch says

What do you mean by "instantly", it makes no sense for God, since He created time the same way He created space, matter, and energy.

LOL. How do you create "time"? If God is the prima causa for everything in the universe (which is a very lofty claim to begin with), the burden of the proof lies with the person who presents it. Where is the proof?

"TIME" just like everything else, in this case a dimension, had to be created. God created time first, "IN THE BEGINING". THen God created "DISTANCE" and "MATTER" second, "God created the Heavens and Earth". That makes the three dimensions required to have "energy". Accelerating matter over a distance in a measured amount of time creates energy. God accelerates matter, hangs the electrons of each atom in perfect orbit with super gravity, and energy results.

Dan8267 says

Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

One must be a Protestant fundamentalist (or similar fanatic) to argue against this. However, one must be an Evolutionist fundamentalist to claim that this creation of humans from ape-like ancestors can't be a part of Creator's plan.

Problems with those Evolution classes is that this is exactly what they teach, while existance on non-existance of the Creator belongs to completely different discussions.

Frankly, I don't like fundamentalism in any form or shape, be it Atheist, Christian, or Evolutionist, but it is far more dangerous in science than in churches.

Sure in Physics you have Quants theory and Waves theory. They seam to contradict one another, but coexist. Each one provides a model useful within its own range of problems, likewise there is a theory of Evolution useful within its own range, but Evolution in mass religion the way you confess it is nothing like this.

Dan8267 says

michaelsch says

So, someone belonging to a different cult has a resonable cause to avoid Evolution worshiping sessions.

Pray tell, how old is the Earth.

why?
I think estimates keep changing like between 3 and 6 billions years, don't remember what is the most common today.

michaelsch says

One of the problems of Evolution worship is

One of the problems of Evolution worship is that it does not exist. Nobody, and I mean nobody, worships evolution. We don't even capitalize it unless it's the first word of a sentence.

We do, however, heavily exploit evolution for commercial gain. It's hard to exploit something that does not exist unless you're in the financial industry.

Bap33 says

When the age of the Earth is listed as 4.6B, at what point in the Earth's evolution did the clock begin??

What clock?

Bap33 says

How long would you say the Earth has been able to support life??

3.8 billion years

By the way, it's not important that I say this. It's important that the scientific community considers this the best estimate for the origins of life. And this figure has been accepted, more or less unchanged, for the past 20-some years.

michaelsch says

one must be an Evolutionist fundamentalist

What the hell is an evolutionist fundamentalist? I accept the Theory of Evolution because

1. The plethora of evidence supporting it from genetics to fossils to carbon dating.

2. The real-time observations of evolution in bacteria, viruses, and other life forms with very short generations.

3. The commercial manipulation of the evolution to great new, useful organisms like bacteria that can act as batteries or clean pollution such as oil spills.

4. The observed evolution of humans in things like resistance to AIDs and the production of high density cholesterol, which prevents heart attacks and extends life. Google these things -- I'm tired of doing everyone's research.

5. The fact that genetic code mathematically mandates the process we call evolution. And genetic code is legally accepted evidence in every court of law in the United States and most, if not all, other western nations.

So does that make me an evolution fundamentalist? Am I a round-world fundamentalist too because I believe in all those pictures of a round Earth and the existence of GPS satellites in geostationary orbits?

Bap33 says

"TIME" just like everything else, in this case a dimension, had to be created.

The word "create" implies the a prior existence of time. In order for entity A to create entity B, entity A has to exist at some time before B exists and then cause B to exist later. As such, it is meaningless to say something created time.

There comes a point in advance physics where you have to stop talking in English and start talking in mathematics. You have passed that point.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

When the age of the Earth is listed as 4.6B, at what point in the Earth's evolution did the clock begin??

What clock?

Bap33 says

How long would you say the Earth has been able to support life??

3.8 billion years

The Earth age you give, of 4.6B, when in the Earth's evolution of coming into being does the clock start? Like, when the first two iron molecules began to rotate the Sun, or after the mantel was done froming, or whatever. How done was the Earth on day 1, 4.6B years ago? Was it cooled off yet?

When you say life showed up 1B years later, was the Earth cool yet? Was there atmosphere and water vapor and oceans and photosenthisis ... or what? Serious question.

michaelsch says

Both time and space derive from the existence of light. This is shared by modern physics.

Where is the proof for that statement? Light is simply a form of energy, electromagnetic radiation. Energy pervades the entire universe, so if you say time and space are derived from energy, why should it just be energy?. There's matter too.

michaelsch says

The prevailing theories of Big Bang and expanding Universe assume they all came to being practically momentarily.

Orthodox Christianity and Islam believe in God the Creator of all, therefore, the Creator of time as well.

The prevailing theories of Big Bang state nothing about what happened prior to the Big Bang. No momentary assumptions, it is an unanswered question. The quest is still on to answer it. M-theory is a possibility, there's the Cyclical model proposed by Roger Penrose. Contrast that to blind faith.

Orthodox Christianity and Islam is pretty ridiculous then, right? There is no proof, just blind belief. This is the complete opposite of science.

michaelsch says

1. Brain changes (too long to describe); 2. Anatomic changes of jaws, necessary for handling the variety of sounds in languages, but making human jaws much weaker than of any beast.

The carriers of that second mutation have a huge disadvantage and according to Darwin had to quickly die out. In order to give any advantages these two mutations had to happen not only simultaneously but also to multiple individuals, (because you need more than one to use a language.)

To consider what you just said, you say that human jaws becoming weaker means that humans had to die out. That is again disingenuous because you have to consider the totality of changes in any species that leads to its strength/weakness. Humans have the most advanced brains of all species, which means that we're smarter than any other animal on earth. We can outsmart the predators with our brain-power and the usage/building of tools that can help us.

So to sum it up, I really don't see how Evolution is a worship here. You're making lofty claims such as "Jesus created time" for which there is no proof whatsoever and the fact is -- you can never prove it. You can only ask me to blindly believe it. But Evolution doesn't ask you to blindly accept anything. It is a theory, well established with a body of scientific evidence of which there is no doubt. The scientific evidence are all factual, gathered meticulously by analyzing fossil samples, geological structures etc. Evolution does not claim to explain everything.

Why do you religious fanatics need everything explained out of every theory emerging from science? Science does not blindly believe anything, whereas you do. That's a mountain of a difference.

michaelsch says

It would not, would they be openly discussed in these evolution classes. The problem is that they are designed as indoctrination session, rather than science classes.

You simply have a problem accepting the body of evidence because Evolution doesn't explain "everything under the sun". It doesn't and the portion of biological evolution that it does explain, there's evidence to support it.

michaelsch says

Of course, that's not a problem for one who believes in Creator, but that is not my point.

That has been your point all along and that is PRETTY MUCH THE PROBLEM with religion. You can explain away anything with just blind belief. There's no need for any proof.

Bap33 says

"TIME" just like everything else, in this case a dimension, had to be created. God created time first, "IN THE BEGINING". THen God created "DISTANCE" and "MATTER" second, "God created the Heavens and Earth". That makes the three dimensions required to have "energy". Accelerating matter over a distance in a measured amount of time creates energy. God accelerates matter, hangs the electrons of each atom in perfect orbit with super gravity, and energy results.

These statements are so ridiculous, pulled out of thin air with no proof that I don't even know where to begin. God created time, distance and matter and then energy. He mixed it up and then gave us the earth. Brilliant. Where is the proof?

Why should there be an existence of God for all these? Why can't matter and energy simply just exist? Why should there be a Creator?

Oh why bother - when you won't even ask these basic questions? Continue your blind faith.

Bap33 says

when in the Earth's evolution of coming into being does the clock start?

What clock? You can trace all the way to Big Bang. Our Milky Way Galaxy is one among billions of galaxies that are there in the universe.

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field

It is the deepest image taken of our universe.

Earth is not all that big or special, you know?

Here's a great scientist, explaining about the Pale Blue Dot.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/wupToqz1e2g

Bap33 says

How done was the Earth on day 1, 4.6B years ago? Was it cooled off yet?

When you say life showed up 1B years later, was the Earth cool yet? Was there atmosphere and water vapor and oceans and photosenthisis ... or what? Serious question.

There are lots of theories, such as primordial soup theory wherein the organic compounds (proteins, amino acids) that are required for basic life to sustain, formed first.

then, prokaryotes (simple cells) and so on.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

There are questions asked about origin of water as well.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Earth

In either case, none of these require some external Creator to perform these things. Anybody claiming there is an external Creator gets the burden of proof. Not the one who claims "I don't know". Science's answer to the questions it cannot adequately answer is "I don't know".

hey hey, smart guy, I asked questions. Go check. See, I asked questions, I didn't give you God as the only answer.

So, lets recap. I asked how far along Earth was in it's own evolution at 4.6B years ago.

ANd then I asked when did life first show up.

ANd then I asked what the state of Earth was at that exact time.

I just don't see much God in my questions. You seem a bit jumpy about that part, huh?

The only part you are really wrong about is that whole "burden of proof". You have the burden of proving how something comes from nothing, and how nothing in the middle of nowhere made everything all at once, with no reason or purpose or plan, exploding in mass chaos, resulting in perfect balance.... yea ... that'll happen. I am not thusly burdened, as I know God did it.

You are just as blind to grasp a science book and "know" that all there is to know about anything is in there. Science gets to use the word "theroy". Believers in God use the word "faith". You may be well served to realize that much of science is "best guess". Always has been. The good scientists made sure to shape their words to leave an out.

THe one part that really is cool is how everthing is laid out in a flat plane in our solor system and galaxy ... rotating ... around nothing. That flat plane design was key to many things, huh? Gravity ... the kind that hold electrons in orbit .... where did that come from? You can't get that from chaos, even in science, can you?

Bap33 says

The Earth age you give, of 4.6B, when in the Earth's evolution of coming into being does the clock start? Like, when the first two iron molecules began to rotate the Sun, or after the mantel was done froming, or whatever. How done was the Earth on day 1, 4.6B years ago? Was it cooled off yet?

There were not simply a first or first two "iron molecules". A massive amount of iron atoms and other heavy elements were blow off into interstellar space by a supernova. When this supernova exploded we don't know as that star has long since moved away from us.

Some of the ejected material coalesced into a slowly spinning disc. As the disc condensed and became more well-formed, the angular momentum was preserved by increasing the spin like an ice-skater spinning faster as she draws in her arms.

At the center of the disc, the sun began to form. At other parts further from the center, various small planetoids began to form. This happened approximately 4.6 billion years ago. While the sun began fusing hydrogen atoms together to form helium and releasing photons (light) as a result, the various small planetoids were crashing into each other forming larger structures which eventually became the familiar eight planets. [Pluto is still undergoing this process in the Kuiper Belt, which is why it is no longer considered a planet.]

The earliest known life on Earth appeared about 3.8 billion years ago. Life may have existed earlier than that, but we don't have any evidence yet. Even so, the Earth had about half a billion years to cool and form oceans and continents before life even began. And that life all existed in the ocean. Land was only conquered much later.

If you are interested in learning more about this subject, which I personally find fascinating, I suggest viewing a television series called The Universe. Strangely, this program is on The History Channel rather than The Science Channel, but it is nonetheless an excellent series that is easily understood by someone not familiar with physics or astronomy. It is also visually breathtaking. The series has been going on for years, and season one went over the formation of our solar system in great detail. I believe you can watch episodes online at the above website.

This

Bap33 says

See, I asked questions, I didn't give you God as the only answer.

completely, blatantly, contradicts with this.

Bap33 says

I am not thusly burdened, as I know God did it.

you have made an implicit assumption based on nothing but BLIND FAITH that God did it. Religion is an awesome way of ignoring the burden of proof, through blind faith. You are ignoring the burden, not removing it.

Bap33 says

with no reason or purpose or plan, exploding in mass chaos, resulting in perfect balance.... yea ... that'll happen

Yeah of course that could happen. For you, it is just all too much to not have a Father figure. For most of the scientists, not so much.

Bap33 says

THe one part that really is cool is how everthing is laid out in a flat plane in our solor system and galaxy ... rotating ... around nothing.

What flat plane? Where did that come from? Do you think the Earth is a flat disc? LOL.

According to M-theory, there could be up to 11 dimensions (10 space + 1 time). Space-time curvature is the basis of theory of relativity. LOL, what's the point when you have "faith" to answer all questions!

Bap33 says

You can't get that from chaos, even in science, can you?

let's see here. Science has massive evidence up to a very short duration after the Big Bang.

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

COBE mission actually proved that the Big Bang Theory is the closest we can get to the truth about the earliest stage of the universe.

Science does not know the answer to the state of universe prior to the Big Bang. So the best answer is there are speculations, but no definitive answer. On the other hand, blindly believing that a Father figure just waved a wand and started the Big Bang makes perfect sense - except that can never be proved. Nice.

um, yea, reduce caffine intake, pal. You are going to throw a rod at that RPM. By "flat plane", I mean the system is all on the same plane ... flat ,,, the orbits of each planet are not all over the place on different planes around the sun .... like, electrons around an atom are commonly shown in art, going around on different planes. Geeeze, you took extra arguement powder today I see.

@Dan,
I enjoy the subject alot too. Neil DeGrasse(sp) has some really good programs I watch on youtube.

Bap33 says

pal. You are going to throw a rod at that RPM. By "flat plane", I mean the system is all on the same plane ... flat ,,, the orbits of each planet are not all over the place on different planes around the sun ....

makes no sense whatsoever. Gravity actually curves space and time.

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

All planets are not in the same plane, they all revolve around the sun but definitely not on the same plane.

Orbits are geodesics.

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

No problem for you, there's always faith to answer all questions!

austrian_man says

Science does not know the answer to the state of universe prior to the Big Bang.

Science is a process, so we really shouldn't make statements like "science does not know" when what we really mean is "mankind does not know, at least yet".

As a process, science is the best idea that mankind has ever, ever had. Period. There is absolutely no disputing this. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that unites all of mankind. A physicist from Kenya can talk to a physicist from California using the same equations. That's beautiful in itself.

Furthermore, science has accomplish things that religion quite frankly never could both in terms of explaining the nature of the universe and allowing us to create technologies that enhances our quality of life and our lifespans. And that is why one should respect science.