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
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 5/19/10
The origin of universe in Qur'an, talking about Big Bang and Nebula
http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-c.htm

Approved by Dr. Alfred Kroner. He is one of the world’s renowned geologists. A Professor of Geology and the Chairman of the Department of Geology at the Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 5/19/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

[



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 let me say how i appreciate your reply (since a lot of kids are here who just bash around everyone)

I think your evidences, if we will base it in an empirical or scientific method, are all speculations and hypothesis. In short, none are proven at least to a point of 95%. It maybe an intelligent guess but it is still a guess. There is no existing concrete evidence of the big bang, abiogenesis and even the theory of evolution (well, i believe in the evolution of behavior but man from primates? i find that absurd)

Actually, I am no newbie with your theory as it is the points I/We usually here in forums (crunchyroll and other forum sites) so pretty much I can understand your point.

Those theories are pretty possible. Since men can only speculate on this matter (since there are no living person who lived from the beginning of time and wrote about it), I have to admit that those a possible but think about the "guiding factor" of those processes? Even Black holes are guided by something.

Even science people wonder who/what is that "guiding factor" What do you think on this "guiding factor"?
Posted 5/19/10 , edited 5/19/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:

The origin of universe in Qur'an, talking about Big Bang and Nebula
http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-c.htm

Approved by Dr. Alfred Kroner. He is one of the world’s renowned geologists. A Professor of Geology and the Chairman of the Department of Geology at the Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
Are you outta your mind?! What's the study of the Earth, aka Geology, has anything to do with somethings that's beyond Earth's reach?


alupihan45 wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



first let me say how i appreciate your reply (since a lot of kids are here who just bash around everyone)

I think your evidences, if we will base it in an empirical or scientific method, are all speculations and hypothesis. In short, none are proven at least to a point of 95%. It maybe an intelligent guess but it is still a guess. There is no existing concrete evidence of the big bang, abiogenesis and even the theory of evolution (well, i believe in the evolution of behavior but man from primates? i find that absurd)

Actually, I am no newbie with your theory as it is the points I/We usually here in forums (crunchyroll and other forum sites) so pretty much I can understand your point.

Those theories are pretty possible. Since men can only speculate on this matter (since there are no living person who lived from the beginning of time and wrote about it), I have to admit that those a possible but think about the "guiding factor" of those processes? Even Black holes are guided by something.

Even science people wonder who/what is that "guiding factor" What do you think on this "guiding factor"?
What the bloody hell is this "guiding factor" you're talking about? When the universe itself isn't guided by anything but a few simple rules, while the rules were simply there because nobody created them.

Furthermore, not only your so-called "guiding factor" was itself a speculation without direct evidence to justify its existence. What's worst is that there's simply no direct intervention from this existence to alter something outside of this universe. Therefore instead of you making scientific speculation, you're actually claiming the existence of something that can't be proved to exist via natural means.
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 5/19/10

DomFortress wrote:



what the no one puts the rules there? how sure are you and what is your basis then? is this a speculation? btw, the guiding factor is the rule that you speak of.

logic wise, if you believe that the world is not made random then there should be someone/something that orchestrated it. Do you think this rules are randomly put there?



17958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 5/20/10 , edited 5/20/10

alupihan45 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



what the no one puts the rules there? how sure are you and what is your basis then? is this a speculation? btw, the guiding factor is the rule that you speak of.

logic wise, if you believe that the world is not made random then there should be someone/something that orchestrated it. Do you think this rules are randomly put there?






What rules needed to be random?
Gravity is the underlining reason behind most of the things that happen, and why it is predictable not random or by chance.
All matter down to a smallest hydrogen atom has a pull, and is drown by other pulls from other object that have a pull.
birth planet, birth of stars, birth of even black holes can be predicted, by simple facts physics, not god given facts but logical fact that all things exhibit and can be shown through science not superstition. God is not a needed force for anything so why warship one without evidence for them in the first place.

Even life it self was not some lucky shot in the park, life had everything its needed and the time. Ask most scientist if they think life is out there in space.. And they laugh at you and say. The chances of their not being life out there is 100,000,000,000 times less than their being life on other planets.
Posted 5/20/10

alupihan45 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



what the no one puts the rules there? how sure are you and what is your basis then? is this a speculation? btw, the guiding factor is the rule that you speak of.

logic wise, if you believe that the world is not made random then there should be someone/something that orchestrated it. Do you think this rules are randomly put there?
Logic doesn't "believe" when it only cares about what things are and how they work. It's therefore acting as a countermeasure against unrealistic philosophical ideologies, created by our always imaginative yet often wrong belief system. Just like I don't care about your speculative claim of a supernatural "creator" who doesn't exist in our universe, when I can trust in my own individual ability to debunk your bogus theories with my intellect.
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 5/20/10 , edited 5/20/10

DomFortress wrote:



so what is you point? direct cause or randomness?

you just attack me with your i'm-more-intelligent-and-whatever-you-say-is-foolishness-like approach. Why don't you just lay out your points and just stop calling things "debunk", "imaginative" and "unrealistic"
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 5/20/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


What rules needed to be random?
Gravity is the underlining reason behind most of the things that happen, and why it is predictable not random or by chance.
All matter down to a smallest hydrogen atom has a pull, and is drown by other pulls from other object that have a pull.
birth planet, birth of stars, birth of even black holes can be predicted, by simple facts physics, not god given facts but logical fact that all things exhibit and can be shown through science not superstition. God is not a needed force for anything so why warship one without evidence for them in the first place.

Even life it self was not some lucky shot in the park, life had everything its needed and the time. Ask most scientist if they think life is out there in space.. And they laugh at you and say. The chances of their not being life out there is 100,000,000,000 times less than their being life on other planets.


I'm afraid we will stray away from the topic so let's put it in a decision: I am leaning on the " Direct Cause" idea

there are only two things here " god of gaps" aka direct cause or "Random of Gaps" aka "they just happened randomly". Those two are pretty much self explanatory so what is it?

Posted 5/21/10

alupihan45 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



so what is you point? direct cause or randomness?

you just attack me with your i'm-more-intelligent-and-whatever-you-say-is-foolishness-like approach. Why don't you just lay out your points and just stop calling things "debunk", "imaginative" and "unrealistic"
It's only a simple fact that you can't be absolutely certain for sure, when your entitlement claim lack concrete evidence and conceptual theory to prove otherwise.
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 5/21/10 , edited 5/21/10

DomFortress wrote:


why won't you answer my question?afraid that you are not absolutely sure and that you lack concrete evidence too?
Posted 5/21/10

alupihan45 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


why won't you answer my question?afraid that you are not absolutely sure and that you lack concrete evidence too?
More like I'm certain that I'm not sure what's the nature of your question. As in you're asking about an imaginative existence that's beyond this reality, unless you what to change that fact by yourself creating an actual God here on Earth so that we can all see. When seeing is believing.
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 5/21/10

DomFortress wrote:


More like I'm certain that I'm not sure what's the nature of your question. As in you're asking about an imaginative existence that's beyond this reality, unless you what to change that fact by yourself creating an actual God here on Earth so that we can all see. When seeing is believing.


well, i can't help it if you don't want to answer my question. I don't know why you are avoiding it. Pretty much the nature of my question is Res ipsa loquitur.

btw, if God the creator, definitely he is not part of nature or reality so you are right to say he is beyond reality. It's like I create a house for you but i'm not part of the house.

Posted 5/21/10

alupihan45 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


More like I'm certain that I'm not sure what's the nature of your question. As in you're asking about an imaginative existence that's beyond this reality, unless you what to change that fact by yourself creating an actual God here on Earth so that we can all see. When seeing is believing.


well, i can't help it if you don't want to answer my question. I don't know why you are avoiding it. Pretty much the nature of my question is Res ipsa loquitur.

btw, if God the creator, definitely he is not part of nature or reality so you are right to say he is beyond reality. It's like I create a house for you but i'm not part of the house.
No, that would've suggested that this universe that we're in had became an innate form of "perfection", which it's not the case when our universe itself and everything within it are still changing. So nobody had ever created this "perfect" universe that you're talking about.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 5/21/10

DomFortress wrote:

No, that would've suggested that this universe that we're in had became an innate form of "perfection", which it's not the case when our universe itself and everything within it are still changing. So nobody had ever created this "perfect" universe that you're talking about.


The universe is perfect in its own form, the rotation and evolution between galaxies are perfectly matched with each other. Scientist said, the universe is still expanding, that's true when several big bang still happening out there. But the rest of universe that has been created today is perfect, if not at some point the universe might destroys each other for disturbance of rotation.

Also, see again. The origin of universe in Qur'an, talking about Big Bang and Nebula
http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-c.htm

Dr. Alfred Kroner is one of the world’s renowned geologists. He is Professor of Geology and the Chairman of the Department of Geology at the Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. He said: “Thinking where Muhammad came from . . . I think it is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out within the last few years, with very complicated and advanced technological methods, that this is the case.

Also he said: “Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics fourteen hundred years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind, for instance, that the earth and the heavens had the same origin.”
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 5/22/10 , edited 5/22/10

DomFortress wrote:



btw, if God the creator, definitely he is not part of nature or reality so you are right to say he is beyond reality. It's like I create a house for you but i'm not part of the house. No, that would've suggested that this universe that we're in had became an innate form of "perfection", which it's not the case when our universe itself and everything within it are still changing. So nobody had ever created this "perfect" universe that you're talking about.


eh? when you said perfect you mean "complete"?

not because it is continaully changing, doesn't mean it is imperfect. We are living in a moving time not on a still time.

Besides, if you claim that the universe is not yet complete, what is lacking then? what is yet to be done?

history is repeating itself now, pretty much everything in the world isn't new anymore. Sure the variables are different but the equation is still the same.

since you deny that no one created the universe, it means you don't believe from a direct cause, which also means you believe that the universe is nothing to excite about that all of it are just useless. is that your case?
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.