• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paulhoff said:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

From your link:
According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today ... was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.
Click to expand...


Please evidence that matter can be created or destroyed.

The Big Bang is in conflict with fundamental principals of science.
 
Last edited:
Its not ingenious, its a vexing problem that permits no easy answer. Viruses exhibit nearly every aspect of "life" except that they cannot propagate on their own. Yet, they are nearly universally considered as "not life". Conversely, some microbes which arguable exhibit less complex behavior are "life" because they can reproduce. It all depends on the characteristics that one chooses to focus on. This is why it is an interesting area of research.
Click to expand...

It is ingenious to speak with great authority and not be tied down by definitions of the words one is using.
Click to expand...

How are words in the first paragraph used in a manner inconsonant with their definitions?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
That is backwards, is it not?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't follow, please explain.


JEROME DA GNOME said:
It is ingenious to speak with great authority and not be tied down by definitions of the words one is using.
Click to expand...

Ummm, what? Were you speaking of me or scientists or who when you say "great authority"? I don't believe I ever claimed to be a great authority. I do stand by what I said, trying to define "life" is quite difficult, its a bit like obscenity, you know it when you see it, but hard to put it down to anything other than a laundry list of characteristics.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
You may find it difficult to believe, yet is true.
Click to expand...

So given that there are essentially only 2 possibilities, naturalistic processes or some outside, intelligent interference, you claim that you have absolutely no opinion on which is responsible for the origin of life? Sounds like a false hyper agnosticism to me, but if you say so...
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
There is no evidence that life has ever not existed.
Click to expand...

Now, you really have me intrigued.

Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying that there was no beginning to Earth and that life has always been on the earth as it is now? Or something different? Please explain, I'd like to hear this.

ETA: One more question, I assume you do not consider the fact that the earliest rocks on earth show either no life forms or only microbial life, with more complex life arising later in the fossil record, to be evidence that life did not exist at some point in time?
 
Last edited:
skeptical said:
Sorry, I don't follow, please explain.
Click to expand...

You stated that organic can become non-organic. This does not evidence that the reverse can or does happen.


Ummm, what? Were you speaking of me or scientists or who when you say "great authority"? I don't believe I ever claimed to be a great authority. I do stand by what I said, trying to define "life" is quite difficult, its a bit like obscenity, you know it when you see it, but hard to put it down to anything other than a laundry list of characteristics.
Click to expand...

Not you of course, you always present that you are reasonably talking about the subject at hand. I thank you for this. I was referring to the reverence given to science dispute the fact that it is unencumbered by itself from being tied down to precise definitions of the terms it uses.



So given that there are essentially only 2 possibilities, naturalistic processes or some outside, intelligent interference, you claim that you have absolutely no opinion on which is responsible for the origin of life? Sounds like a false hyper agnosticism to me, but if you say so...
Click to expand...

A third possibility would be that life has always existed. I have no certainly and no preference as to which is correct.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
From your link:



Please evidence that matter can be created or destroyed.

The Big Bang is in conflict with fundamental principals of science.
Click to expand...

The Big Bang does not imply that matter was destroyed or created--just that it was all in the same place. (Yeah, I know, it wasn't technically a "place" yet.)
 
Prometheus said:
The Big Bang does not imply that matter was destroyed or created--just that it was all in the same place. (Yeah, I know, it wasn't technically a "place" yet.)
Click to expand...

Only that scientists describe the theory as creating matter in violation of accepted scientific laws.

:boggled:
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Only that scientists describe the theory as creating matter in violation of accepted scientific laws.

:boggled:
Click to expand...
Umm, actually, no, it doesn't.

Matter can be created, or destroyed in exchange of energy. That's what pair production and matter/antimatter annihilation are, both of which have been observed in the lab. Provided there is no net loss or gain in relativistic mass-energy there is no violation of the laws of physics. And since the net mass-energy of the Universe is zero (Gravity is a purely negative, potential, form of energy) there is no problem with mass creation.
 
wollery said:
Umm, actually, no, it doesn't.

Matter can be created, or destroyed in exchange of energy. That's what pair production and matter/antimatter annihilation are, both of which have been observed in the lab. Provided there is no net loss or gain in relativistic mass-energy there is no violation of the laws of physics. And since the net mass-energy of the Universe is zero (Gravity is a purely negative, potential, form of energy) there is no problem with mass creation.
Click to expand...

Nope, that is a change of matter not a creation or destruction of matter.
 
Go back and read your own post, #1470. Then read my previous post again.

Do it 2 or 3 times and think about what you said.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
No it was not. The Big Bang was accepted because it predicted BGR. This is very different than BGR disproves Steady State. You do know of course that theories are massaged into new forms based upon new data?
Click to expand...

So what new form has Steady State been massaged into to take account of BGR?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Please evidence that matter can be created or destroyed.
Click to expand...

E=mc2

image
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom