TINNY Posted March 27, 2004 Report Share Posted March 27, 2004 How about this link: Documentary:http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1267 E-book:http://api.fmanager.net/api_v1/get_object_file.php?type=1&format=DOC&id=14377&file=http://api.fmanager.net/files/book/txt/en/t_miracles_of_the_quran.zip&domain=www.harunyahya.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendiane Posted March 27, 2004 Report Share Posted March 27, 2004 if a builder threw all the materials up in the air, what's the chances that it would all come down and form a house. houses need blueprints, so do universes. blueprints kinda imply a builder...the big bang theory doesn't explain the structure in the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendiane Posted March 27, 2004 Report Share Posted March 27, 2004 if a builder threw all the materials up in the air, what's the chances that it would all come down and form a house. houses need blueprints, so do universes. blueprints kinda imply a builder...the big bang theory doesn't explain the structure in the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted March 27, 2004 Report Share Posted March 27, 2004 Wendiane - what on earth are you talking about? How does your double post relate to this thread? Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deamonstar Posted March 27, 2004 Report Share Posted March 27, 2004 I am far from impressed by those types of arguments against the big bang theory. they lack thought, reasoning, evidence, observation and mathematical proofs. they remind me of the "Chewbacca Defense" from 'Southpark'.there is no known version (to me, at least) of the BB theory that claims to dismiss the influence of a divine creator. the BB theory only describes the processes of the universe, not tries to disprove the existence of any god. so it seems irrelevant to seperate the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted March 29, 2004 Report Share Posted March 29, 2004 The BB and other related SCIENTIFIC concepts of the beginning of oour physical existence are all based on Quantum Mechnaics and Uncertainty. As such they reject out of hand any supernatural involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 Quantum mechanics and uncertainty is just proof of God's design, creativity, and fairness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 Originally posted by: TINNYQuantum mechanics and uncertainty is just proof of God's design, creativity, and fairness. Nonsense like this is easy to post. But is never able to be validly supported. But here's your chance to change history. Please show us (including all leading Cosmological Physicists) how QM and Uncertainty not only don;t disallow a god, but actually PROVE one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rileyj Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 I was watching the science channel and they had a good show on talking about the end of the universe. one theory was that any life that might remain would have the ability to travel to white dwarfs and live in close orbit to it. over millions and millions of years they could possibly evolve in into an energy form, from living near the white dwarf, but one with intelligence. I think the universe does "recycle" itself, how is far beyond me. but what if the last time the universe was going around a life form did evolve to this state, if energy had intelligence we would certainly look at them or it as a god. If I life form ever did reach that level of evolution, than it would be immortal all knowing and all powerful, with out electric currents sending signals in our bodies life would not exist. This is however an unlikely explanation of god but I thought it was cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rileyj Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 Originally posted by: wendianeif a builder threw all the materials up in the air, what's the chances that it would all come down and form a house. houses need blueprints, so do universes. blueprints kinda imply a builder...the big bang theory doesn't explain the structure in the universe. the big bang theory may not explain it to you, but you may not understand it. we are after all still primitive. if god has the knowledge and power to create something as vast and beautiful as the universe. I grantee, that if he told us how he did it, no one would understand a word of. it would be like me talking to my dog, he understands sit, stay, give me your paw, but he's not going to do my math homework. at this time in out species life span all we can do is look and marvel at it, and with time and effort. slow try to understand how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rileyj Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 Originally posted by: FreethinkerThe BB and other related SCIENTIFIC concepts of the beginning of oour physical existence are all based on Quantum Mechnaics and Uncertainty. As such they reject out of hand any supernatural involvement. i you know what i always woundered, where did all this matter come from to make up our known universe? all this matter and energy contained in a pin point in space, explodes and the unvierse is there. ok, but how did the matter get there in the 1st place? even if the universe is a thing which falls into itself and explodes again. it still does't explain where it all came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 Originally posted by: rileyjOriginally posted by: FreethinkerThe BB and other related SCIENTIFIC concepts of the beginning of oour physical existence are all based on Quantum Mechnaics and Uncertainty. As such they reject out of hand any supernatural involvement. i you know what i always woundered, where did all this matter come from to make up our known universe? all this matter and energy contained in a pin point in space, explodes and the unvierse is there. ok, but how did the matter get there in the 1st place? even if the universe is a thing which falls into itself and explodes again. it still does't explain where it all came from. E=MC*2 Energy = MASS x the speed of light sq. Thus Mass (matter) is one of the states of energy. Further, at any one time, the total sum of mass/ energy in the universe is ZERO. There is ALWAYS an equal amount of particles/ anti-particles. Thus we are not concerned with where it "comes from" or goes to because any existence of matter in a localized area of space is offset elsewhere. Zero sum. No gain or loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 E=MC*2 mass/energy = C^(-2) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rileyj Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 I understand E=MC*2. the point is, is that there is an X factor. something had to put particles and anti-particles there, something had to cause the big bang. I’m not saying there is or is not a god. I’m saying that since both theories lack evidence to prove one way or the other, the only true scientific way of looking at it is that anything is possible, someone like you should know that the worst thing a scientist can do is be bias to one opinion over the other when both lack evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rileyj Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 "Like any form of knowledge, physics represents not the world, but our ideas of the world. The question arises whether our ideas converge with ultimate reality, or whether this convergence is an illusion." i feel this somewhat explains what i'm trying to say, science is a changing belief. the ideas of the world and of the universe will change over time as they always have. one idea that has endured is that of god. as i said before i don't know if there is a god or not. it is something that can niether be denied or proven. maybe our reality is an illusion. as far as we have come from our days of swinging in trees, i still don't think we have reached the point where we are all knowing of every possible reason for the universe being. except of course for you "free thinker". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 rileyj - string theory is in fact one direction in physics which may explain how our universe came to be without the need for a singularity from which everything has grown. Admittedly, that only pushes the time of creation further back. Richard J. Gott III wrote in his book "Time Travel in Einstein's Universe" that the Universe was actually created whan a time loop was broken...(an idea I think is extremely far fetched). But it goes to show there are many ways to explain the origins of the universe. I don't think anyone will ever know "every possible reason" for the universe's existence. In fact, I don't think it exists for any reason at all, so I don't look for any. Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Originally posted by: rileyjI understand E=MC*2. the point is, is that there is an X factor. something had to put particles and anti-particles there, something had to cause the big bang. Other than those unable to understand the concept, what proof do you have that there HAS to be "something () to put particles and anti-particles there," In fact, with QM, the very concept becomes antithetical. It is precisely because QM shows there CAN'T be an intellect behind quantum particle pair creation, that science shows that there is no need for a god. I’m not saying there is or is not a god. I’m saying that since both theories lack evidence to prove one way or the other, Where that true, perhaps. But as we find in QM, an intellectual god manipulating QM is a violation of the very concept. the only true scientific way of looking at it is that anything is possible, While a scientist needs to approach things with an open mind. It should not be so open his brains fall out! (paraphrased from Carl Sagan) someone like you should know that the worst thing a scientist can do is be bias to one opinion over the other when both lack evidence. So the "worst thing a scientist can do" is to follow established Scientific Methodology? Ockham's Razor is a well established part of the Scientific Method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts