First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
The Universe, god can't have created it
139585 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Aboard the Hyperion
Offline
Posted 5/5/10
Caveats to Consider

1. The Old Testament was designed to distract the intended audience from the fact that they did not have air conditioning at that time.
- Don't take those words literally.

2. A tremendous amount of energy is required to shape the universe the way it is.
- If the rule states that God is infinitely powerful, the energy requirement is met easily.
- If the Universe continuously expands at a constant acceleration, the process can be supported by the continous output of energy coming from God assuming that the first rule is sustained.

3. The ordered bodies constructed from massive stars to minute particles is too complicated to leave to chance.
- The resulting design must have some intelligent input to make things work the way physics has explained them.

4. Not everything requires an explanation or a testable hypothesis.
- It is but food to satisfy curiosity
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/5/10 , edited 5/5/10
The size of the observable universe is said to be around 78 Billion light years.

1 light year is 5.878 * 10^12 miles = 5,878,499,810,000 miles

now multiply 5,878,499,810,000 * 78 billion.

so 5,878,499,810,000 * 78,000,000,000 = 458,522,985,180,000,000,409,600 miles. (or at least thats what my program outputs when I run it)


Thats fuckin huge lol. I can't think of any type of being that could create that.
1706 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 5/10/10 , edited 5/10/10
There is nothing proving God's existence, yes, but there is nothing disproving God's existence either.

The universe is ridiculously and unfathomably huge and it's creation, it's limits, it's potential end, are all mind-boggling concepts to think about, whether they were created by a God or by pure chance and some random atoms combining, it is something we will never fully comprehend. Playing devil's advocate, I think that there is not enough evidence and that the topic is too grand and complex to argue either side particularly well.
Posted 5/10/10
Guys, DOn't get to the galaxy part deeper than other natures on earth. God created the whole universe, earth, and all living kinds. PERIOD!
There is no other God than one God. That is one thing you should remember the rest of your life. If you are a Christian, you should remember all the 10 commandments...
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 5/11/10

CrashAriMP5N2O wrote:

Caveats to Consider

1. The Old Testament was designed to distract the intended audience from the fact that they did not have air conditioning at that time.
- Don't take those words literally.

2. A tremendous amount of energy is required to shape the universe the way it is.
- If the rule states that God is infinitely powerful, the energy requirement is met easily.
- If the Universe continuously expands at a constant acceleration, the process can be supported by the continous output of energy coming from God assuming that the first rule is sustained.

3. The ordered bodies constructed from massive stars to minute particles is too complicated to leave to chance.
- The resulting design must have some intelligent input to make things work the way physics has explained them.

4. Not everything requires an explanation or a testable hypothesis.
- It is but food to satisfy curiosity


please elaborate number 3.
139585 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Aboard the Hyperion
Offline
Posted 5/11/10

tweety_cool wrote:


CrashAriMP5N2O wrote:

3. The ordered bodies constructed from massive stars to minute particles are too complicated to leave to chance.
- The resulting design must have some intelligent input to make things work the way physics has explained them.

please elaborate number 3.


There must be a very strong selective agent behind the facts that are pointed out in one of digs' posts; http://creation.com/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life This can be subsituted as "God". What was meant by "intelligent input" comes from the condition that those facts are required to have the properties they posses for them to work. Thus, it must be known that they should have those properties. Known by who or what is another matter (Again could be substituted as God).
55205 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 5/11/10
Why care, what, how, who, why, where here and a lot of it is out there. Will never know until you get out there, and even then what are you really looking for? I have a mind, or somewhat of one, so I am here. You can call it faith you can the big bang, or thousands other hypotheses. Right now people are looking for answer to something it can happen tomorrow or never. People need to believe in themselves and others and many think a higher power is involved. As long as they do not shovel their belief at the point of a gun I do not care. Like all the other half baked ideals floating around out there, should be up to the parent and government schools are a big waste of money. The private sectors, churches, home are far better educational tool then some government school teacher that has 750 SAT score. With that needed a drink cheers.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 5/12/10

CrashAriMP5N2O wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:


CrashAriMP5N2O wrote:

3. The ordered bodies constructed from massive stars to minute particles are too complicated to leave to chance.
- The resulting design must have some intelligent input to make things work the way physics has explained them.

please elaborate number 3.


There must be a very strong selective agent behind the facts that are pointed out in one of digs' posts; http://creation.com/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life This can be subsituted as "God". What was meant by "intelligent input" comes from the condition that those facts are required to have the properties they posses for them to work. Thus, it must be known that they should have those properties. Known by who or what is another matter (Again could be substituted as God).


imho
As far as my understanding most of the argument made in that link is converse argument, not good. The rest are something that is outside the study of my field ( at least not yet)

example: photosynthesis is adapted from the sun, not the converse. distance from sun to earth is not fine tuned, life is fine tuned to the distance of earth and sun. mass of the sun is not fine tuned, as all stars do not. The earth’s gravity, axial tilt, rotation period, magnetic field, crust thickness, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone levels are not "right", we just adapt from that. etc.

again, this is imho from what I have learned. And yeah I am too lazy to quote anything, so if you are interested, do research on them.

But no, I am generally not against intelligent design argument. To be more precisely I don't really care, as I haven't found any agreement on the definition of "intelligent designer" (and so we could not start) and the experimental method that can measure or detect "intelligent designer." Besides, the fact that simple physical chemistry is enough to to make me cry, made me realize that I shouldn't move on to larger topic without good understanding of the trivial ones.
:)
139585 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Aboard the Hyperion
Offline
Posted 5/12/10

tweety_cool wrote:
imho
As far as my understanding most of the argument made in that link is converse argument, not good. The rest are something that is outside the study of my field ( at least not yet)

example: photosynthesis is adapted from the sun, not the converse. distance from sun to earth is not fine tuned, life is fine tuned to the distance of earth and sun. mass of the sun is not fine tuned, as all stars do not. The earth’s gravity, axial tilt, rotation period, magnetic field, crust thickness, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone levels are not "right", we just adapt from that. etc.

again, this is imho from what I have learned. And yeah I am too lazy to quote anything, so if you are interested, do research on them.

But no, I am generally not against intelligent design argument. To be more precisely I don't really care, as I haven't found any agreement on the definition of "intelligent designer" (and so we could not start) and the experimental method that can measure or detect "intelligent designer." Besides, the fact that simple physical chemistry is enough to to make me cry, made me realize that I shouldn't move on to larger topic without good understanding of the trivial ones.
:)


Yes you also make a strong point. Adaptiveness is, afterall, a basis of evolution. Still, it boggles my mind why matter is constructed in such a way. It could be some other "weird" design that may be difficult to comprehend for us. It's like not knowing what's really like to live in a place bounded by 5 or more dimensions.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 5/12/10
difficulty is subjective. We call it difficult because we are not exposed to it directly. Maybe those stuff can even be called the simplest
340 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Somewhere In the...
Offline
Posted 5/18/10
this universe was developed from a kinker event commonly called the big bang. All other universe started that way also keep to the basic laws of science. "Energy can not be created or destroyed".

also consider Einstein theories.

2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 5/18/10

Daniel9878 wrote:




who created the universe then? the queen of England?

and who told you God created the edge of the world before the inner part?

who told you, God created Earth first before the sun? (according to creationist, the sun was first before life)

do you think God has the same attention span like humans? in short, is God human too or just a God?

your life doesn't mean to your parents, love ones, family or friends? (poor you)

That is why is he called God because he is the beginning with no beginning. You are looking at the side of infinity, where mathematically, it doesn't make sense if you apply it in this subject.

and that "one of the planet" is called earth. If men have the numerical data, your point may have the basis but since no man have reached the edge of the galaxy, all we can do is imagine (just like you) and assume we are right.
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 5/18/10 , edited 5/18/10

alupihan45 wrote:


Daniel9878 wrote:




who created the universe then? the queen of England?

and who told you God created the edge of the world before the inner part?

who told you, God created Earth first before the sun? (according to creationist, the sun was first before life)

do you think God has the same attention span like humans? in short, is God human too or just a God?

your life doesn't mean to your parents, love ones, family or friends? (poor you)

That is why is he called God because he is the beginning with no beginning. You are looking at the side of infinity, where mathematically, it doesn't make sense if you apply it in this subject.

and that "one of the planet" is called earth. If men have the numerical data, your point may have the basis but since no man have reached the edge of the galaxy, all we can do is imagine (just like you) and assume we are right.


'Their is much lacking in your opinion.
First evidence for your outlandish claims.
Wile we have evidence on how stars are made, and how planets are made from that, we even know how life can get started with no need of a creator, and we have evidence + a mountain of facts to back it up. We even have evidence for the big bang, but then you know that if your school was half-way decent.
The fact of the matter is ( their is no need for a god, for us or the galaxy to exist.)
<Bronze Age man made god's in order to explain things they did not understand, now that we do understand such things, the need for the delusions from the bronze age to go away because it does not aid man kind, only slows are development down.>

That is all.
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 5/19/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:


Daniel9878 wrote:




who created the universe then? the queen of England?

and who told you God created the edge of the world before the inner part?

who told you, God created Earth first before the sun? (according to creationist, the sun was first before life)

do you think God has the same attention span like humans? in short, is God human too or just a God?

your life doesn't mean to your parents, love ones, family or friends? (poor you)

That is why is he called God because he is the beginning with no beginning. You are looking at the side of infinity, where mathematically, it doesn't make sense if you apply it in this subject.

and that "one of the planet" is called earth. If men have the numerical data, your point may have the basis but since no man have reached the edge of the galaxy, all we can do is imagine (just like you) and assume we are right.


'Their is much lacking in your opinion.
First evidence for your outlandish claims.
Wile we have evidence on how stars are made, and how planets are made from that, we even know how life can get started with no need of a creator, and we have evidence + a mountain of facts to back it up. We even have evidence for the big bang, but then you know that if your school was half-way decent.
The fact of the matter is ( their is no need for a god, for us or the galaxy to exist.)
<Bronze Age man made god's in order to explain things they did not understand, now that we do understand such things, the need for the delusions from the bronze age to go away because it does not aid man kind, only slows are development down.>

That is all.


what does my opinion lack?

and i want to know this evidences you are talking about. A lot has been presented here but all are weak "theories" which they call facts.

What is the evidence of you Big Bang Theory? Pretty much, I'm curious at the cause of this explosion.

It seems you already rejected all the plausibility of the "Creator with No Creator" idea so you stick and assume all those ideas as evidences.

I want to exclude religion but when we talk about God, we have to use it because religion is the manifestation that God exist. Surprisingly, the people from the bronze age (dunno if they were from bronze age) didn't created God. God revealed himself and people, just recognize him.

to end my reply, show me a person or a thing who/that can create life out of nothing/void and I will take your claim " Wile we have evidence on how stars are made, and how planets are made from that, we even know how life can get started with no need of a creator, and we have evidence + a mountain of facts to back it up. We even have evidence for the big bang, but then you know that if your school was half-way decent. " valid. If none, you better review your stand.
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 5/19/10 , edited 5/19/10

alupihan45 wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:


Daniel9878 wrote:




who created the universe then? the queen of England?

and who told you God created the edge of the world before the inner part?

who told you, God created Earth first before the sun? (according to creationist, the sun was first before life)

do you think God has the same attention span like humans? in short, is God human too or just a God?

your life doesn't mean to your parents, love ones, family or friends? (poor you)

That is why is he called God because he is the beginning with no beginning. You are looking at the side of infinity, where mathematically, it doesn't make sense if you apply it in this subject.

and that "one of the planet" is called earth. If men have the numerical data, your point may have the basis but since no man have reached the edge of the galaxy, all we can do is imagine (just like you) and assume we are right.


'Their is much lacking in your opinion.
First evidence for your outlandish claims.
Wile we have evidence on how stars are made, and how planets are made from that, we even know how life can get started with no need of a creator, and we have evidence + a mountain of facts to back it up. We even have evidence for the big bang, but then you know that if your school was half-way decent.
The fact of the matter is ( their is no need for a god, for us or the galaxy to exist.)
<Bronze Age man made god's in order to explain things they did not understand, now that we do understand such things, the need for the delusions from the bronze age to go away because it does not aid man kind, only slows are development down.>

That is all.


what does my opinion lack?

and i want to know this evidences you are talking about. A lot has been presented here but all are weak "theories" which they call facts.

What is the evidence of you Big Bang Theory? Pretty much, I'm curious at the cause of this explosion.

It seems you already rejected all the plausibility of the "Creator with No Creator" idea so you stick and assume all those ideas as evidences.

I want to exclude religion but when we talk about God, we have to use it because religion is the manifestation that God exist. Surprisingly, the people from the bronze age (dunno if they were from bronze age) didn't created God. God revealed himself and people, just recognize him.

to end my reply, show me a person or a thing who/that can create life out of nothing/void and I will take your claim " Wile we have evidence on how stars are made, and how planets are made from that, we even know how life can get started with no need of a creator, and we have evidence + a mountain of facts to back it up. We even have evidence for the big bang, but then you know that if your school was half-way decent. " valid. If none, you better review your stand.



OK... Let us start..

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Singularities are zones, they are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, "something - a singularity."
After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a planet, circling a star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity.

(So in end a Giant black holes death "could have been" the birth/start of are galaxy.) But that is just my Hypothesis. Based on my experience and knowledge of Matter. http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-632338/a-black-holes-death-equals-a-new-start/#31499754

Evidence for the Big Bang.
1. galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
2. if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
3. the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

Their is more, but I am going to move on to the next topic.
How stars are made.
Picture a huge dark cloud made up of gas and dust (a nebula) in space. When a nearby star explodes, a shock wave travels through the cloud. The cloud begins to shrink and divide into even smaller swirling clouds. As the cloud collapses, energy is released, which causes it to heat up. The centre of the cloud, called the prostar, gets hotter and hotter to about 10 million degrees or more until it ignites and a new star is born.

Most of the gas in interstellar clouds is hydrogen. And at such high temperatures, the hydrogen atoms start to combine, or fuse together. This fusion reaction produces enormous amounts of energy as light, heat and other radiation. When this happens, the collapsing cloud starts to shine as a star.

The outward "pressure" of the radiation coming from the core of the new star acts against the matter that is collapsing under gravity. Eventually the two balance each other, and the collapse ceases. The star settles down and begins to shine steadily. It takes a star the size of the Sun about 50 million years to reach this state.

The hottest stars are blue-white in colour and burn their hydrogen fuel very quickly. The Sun, a small yellow star, burns hydrogen more steadily. Proxima Centauri, the closest star to the Sun, burns its gas very slowly and is a cool, red star. The speed at which the stars burn hydrogen determines how long they will live.

A Sun-sized star shines steadily for about 10,000 million years, until the hydrogen fuel in its core is used up. The star then begins to collapse again under gravity. The heat triggers off hydrogen fusion in the gassy shell surrounding the core. The shell heats up, causing the star to expand and brighten. But the core continues to shrink and get hotter.

Blue giants have a short life, and explode dramatically. The Sun will continue to burn for another 5 billion years. Then it will expand into a large red giant and finally shrink to a white dwarf. Proxima Centauri, however, will remain unchanged for tens of billions of years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5lcKLUvLzQ&feature=related

Life... Got it start.
abiogenesis or biopoesis .... is the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time, or with cosmogony, which covers how the universe might have arisen. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

The RNA world hypothesis proposes that a world filled with life based on ribonucleic acid (RNA) predates the current world of life based on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and protein. RNA, which can both store information like DNA and act as an enzyme like proteins, may have supported cellular or pre-cellular life. Some hypotheses as to the origin of life present RNA-based catalysis and information storage as the first step in the evolution of cellular life.

The RNA world is proposed to have evolved into the DNA and protein world of today. DNA, through its greater chemical stability, took over the role of data storage while protein, which is more flexible in catalysis through the great variety of amino acids, became the specialized catalytic molecules.
Properties of RNA
The properties of RNA make the idea of the RNA world hypothesis conceptually possible, although its plausibility as an explanation for the origin of life is debated. RNA is known to form efficient catalysts and its similarity to DNA makes its ability to store information clear.
The ability to self-duplicate, or duplicate other RNA molecules. Relatively short RNA molecules that can duplicate others have been artificially produced in the lab. The shortest was 165-base long, though it has been estimated that only part of the bases were crucial for this function.
RNA is a very similar molecule to DNA, and only has two chemical differences. The overall structure of RNA and DNA are immensely similar—one strand of DNA and one of RNA can bind to form a double helical structure. This makes the storage of information in RNA possible in a very similar way to the storage of information in DNA.

Evolution... Go to my thread... There I have did a detailed report for anyone to see.
http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-466759/discussion-of-theories-on-evolution/?pg=0


Did I miss anything? If so I be happy to go over it with you as well.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.