• 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.
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Please evidence that matter can be created or destroyed.
Click to expand...

11834811f04f86349.jpg
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Then you agree that the Big Bang theory which proposes the creation of matter is in opposition to long established scientific laws.
Click to expand...
Jerome, the "law" you are referring to, Conservation of Mass, was formed in the 18th century when we had absolutely no concept of high energy or small scale physics. Like classical Newtonian physics, it is only really applicable in our mid-scale, slow-moving everyday context.

Believe it or not, we've actually learned a thing or two about the universe in the last 250ish years since Conservation of Mass was first framed. Space(time) does not follow flat Cartesian geometry, for example. The atom is not the smallest unit of matter. Electricity and Magnetism aren't two separate forces.

And yes, matter can spontaneously appear, as shown by Hawking Radiation. (Another excellent example of the theory predicting a phenomenon that was later observed.)

So, the question becomes this: Are you going to reject 20th and 21st century science because it does not agree with 18th century science? If so, what validates the 18th century science over the more modern versions?
 
sphenisc said:
According to the link, Hawking Radiation has never been observed, so I'm not sure what you meant by the above?
Click to expand...
Doh! You're right. It's an example of an experimental prediction. Stop.

If it is is observed, it will validate that portion of quantum theory. If it is not observed, it will invalidate that portion.

My mistake.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Matter is not being destroyed in a nuclear reactor.
Click to expand...

You think?

Where does the energy come from then?

E=mc2
The energy output of a nuclear reaction measured in joules is equal to the loss of mass in kilogrammes multiplied by the square of the speed of light in metres per second. Works just the saem for fusion..

Nickel has the lowest binding energy per nucleon, it is therefore the most stable nucletide. Nucletides below that weight release binding energy when they fuse to form a heavier nucleotide. A nucleotide heavier than nickel releases binding energy under fission producing lighter nucletides. In both cases the binding energies contribute to the mass of the reagents. In such reactions this mass turns into energy.

Mass is a form of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed merely converted into other forms. Modern particle phsyics use the terms pretty much interchangably.

Acceleate a particle it increases mass, decelerate it it losses mass. Energy being converted to mass and back again. Same equation E=mc2
No don't like it, somehow want to argue that although mass disappears, matter remains? Claim that nuclear binding energies affect Mass but don't represent matter? Then you're engaging in daft semantics and modern phsyics left you behind a century ago.

Never mind moving on try matter anti-matter anihilation. Same equation E=mc2, matter definitely destroyed. No quibbling.

(Finally figured out how to do a superscript in this editor. Huzzah!)
 
Last edited:
1) The total energy of the universe is a constant zero. As far as my understanding goes, this would be true even "before" the BB event, even though the theory doesn't acknowledge any time prior to t=0. So neither energy nor matter was actually created in the event, just rearranged.
2) The first moments of the universe (t < 10−35 s) had no matter in existance at all, just energy. Unless you're proposing sci-fi energy creatures, this would indicate no life.
3) The matter that formed (a few minutes into the process) was primarily H and He, with traces of Li and other light elements. Hot Helium Balloon creatures lack evidence, so this would indicate no life.
4) The solar system formed around 4.6 billion years ago. There may have been life before that, but we lack evidence for it, and it is less likely since earlier stellar populations would have a low metallicity compared to ours. What life may have existed was almost certainly destroyed in the process that formed the Sun and the planets. If you wish to look for it, ask your congressman to fund research into asteroids and comets, who are likely locations for such pre-Solar system life. But without evidence, we have to conclude no life.
5) 4.527 billion years ago, (about 30–50 million years after the SS formed), another planet about the size of Mars smashed into the early Earth, melting both planets and flinging out a mass that later formed the moon. Early civilisations would have been under rapid evolutionary pressure to survive as magma beings.
6) The Late Heavy Bombardment, approximately 3,8 to 4,1 billion years ago, sent scores of asteroids into the inner solar system. It's estimated that over 22,000 impact craters with diameters > 20 km, about 40 impact basins with diameters about 1000 km, and several impact basins with diameter about 5,000 km, formed during a relatively short period, causing global, severe damage every 100 years or so. Even a single one of the larger impacts would count as an global extinction event. If there was life before that, it got cooked.

Is that enough evidence for the "yup, life would have to start from scratch" theory?
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
There is no evidence that life has ever not existed.
Click to expand...

I realize the Big Bang discussion took priority, so you may have missed my earlier question. I am reposting it for convenience, and because I am very curious about your above statement:

"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?"
 
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...
E=MC2


Paul

:) :) :)

The sun converts 4,000,000 tons of matter to energy every seconds, update your science books.
 
skeptical said:
I realize the Big Bang discussion took priority, so you may have missed my earlier question. I am reposting it for convenience, and because I am very curious about your above statement:
Click to expand...

Sorry, I did miss it.

"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?"
Click to expand...

The dating is not certain, in fact it is a lot of circular guessing. The "earliest" rocks are deemed so because they show no life.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom