Melethiel: Whoops. My bad. Thanks for correction. Yes, I meant to say "second Laws of Thermodynamics."
Mwilliamsll: Again, let me rephrase the question. How long did it takes for heavy elements to appear from Light elements' first birth? It appears to me, as far as I'm concerned, that Evolutionists does not know the answer to that question, thus making their claims of 14 billion years old seem questionable to me. For example, in the article you provided in link, the author states, "Most of the oxygen in the present-day Universe was produced in nuclear reactions just before or during the spectacular stellar explosions known as Type II supernovae. These occur at the end of the life of stars that began with about eight times or more mass than the Sun." Notice the statement "at the end of the life of stars", this is why I quoted in my first reply: It cannot be in early first generation of the Stars, as Evolutionists might suggest, because heavy elements required extremely high temperatures, i.e. Supernova, to occurred." So think about it. Between light and heavy elements, those 'time' are missing. Could it be 40% missing? 60.546545%? Or even 99.34%?
When people tells me that Universe came from Nothing, then there's a major problem that I have in mind. For example, (someone from other site gave an excellent explanation about the flaw of Big Bang Theory). I will explain what he stated in general (sorry, I cannot remember which site I went but here goes...) Imagine that there is an enormous box, about the size of football field, and it has no window or any open around it. All of the sides are solid and nothing comes through it. Inside the box, there is Absolutely Nothing in it, meaning that there is no atom, no life form, no air, etc. How in the world can we manage to get around inside the box that'll change our life? You might think that there has to be at least a single particle inside the box, though that you still hold the view of Absolutely Nothing, then that doesn't make any sense. Do you understand what words 'Absolutely Nothing' means to you? You might think that we have to give "time" for something to happen inside the box, however the word "time", itself, doesn't change anything, literally. If I bake the cake for 15 minute and it got warm, then what did the 'time' ever do to the cake? Nothing. The heat of oven warm up the cake, not the time.
Furthermore, if I put two people, male and female, inside the box and about a year later, will something change? Yes. It's not "time" that change something. It was Male and Female that can mate together and produce baby. In fact, they can make babies as much as they wish. But one major problem. There's no air, no water, no atom, etc., inside the box. They cannot survive without them. This is the major reason why I dismissed the whole theory about few years ago when I learned more about it.
Mwilliamsll: i suspect that it is ignorance driving your desire to dismiss this science completely, not a deep understanding of it that resulted in a knowledgable critic of it, given the elementary mistaken idea i referred to above.
Big Bang Theory, the way I understood, is not a science. Actually, it is what, I believe, they called an Origin Science. Meaning that they cannot go back to the past and make any conclusion of what has happened to them. They entirely depend on things they see around them (such as rock, earth, fossils, and the like). As far as I understand, it seems to me that they try to come up with reasonable interpretations concerning presuppositions they have that give many different ideas about the origin of Universe. Of course Creationists, too, have their own different interpretations on presuppositions and they're entirely depend on the Bible (hence frameworks and eyewitnesses). I am not ignorance and I always desired to learn/investigate everything as much as I can, just as Paul tells us, "Test everything and hold on to good," (I Thessalonians 5:21). While I do not expect myself to know everything, I wanted to understand what evolutionists are trying to say about Big Bang Theory and I strongly disagree with them for the number of reasons (not just because of my beliefs alone although it does helped a lot in number of ways).
Note: English is not my first language, so if there is something you do not understand, then I'll try my best to explain more better. Thanks for your patient.
EDIT: Why are my font so big? Wow, lol.
Mwilliamsll: Again, let me rephrase the question. How long did it takes for heavy elements to appear from Light elements' first birth? It appears to me, as far as I'm concerned, that Evolutionists does not know the answer to that question, thus making their claims of 14 billion years old seem questionable to me. For example, in the article you provided in link, the author states, "Most of the oxygen in the present-day Universe was produced in nuclear reactions just before or during the spectacular stellar explosions known as Type II supernovae. These occur at the end of the life of stars that began with about eight times or more mass than the Sun." Notice the statement "at the end of the life of stars", this is why I quoted in my first reply: It cannot be in early first generation of the Stars, as Evolutionists might suggest, because heavy elements required extremely high temperatures, i.e. Supernova, to occurred." So think about it. Between light and heavy elements, those 'time' are missing. Could it be 40% missing? 60.546545%? Or even 99.34%?
When people tells me that Universe came from Nothing, then there's a major problem that I have in mind. For example, (someone from other site gave an excellent explanation about the flaw of Big Bang Theory). I will explain what he stated in general (sorry, I cannot remember which site I went but here goes...) Imagine that there is an enormous box, about the size of football field, and it has no window or any open around it. All of the sides are solid and nothing comes through it. Inside the box, there is Absolutely Nothing in it, meaning that there is no atom, no life form, no air, etc. How in the world can we manage to get around inside the box that'll change our life? You might think that there has to be at least a single particle inside the box, though that you still hold the view of Absolutely Nothing, then that doesn't make any sense. Do you understand what words 'Absolutely Nothing' means to you? You might think that we have to give "time" for something to happen inside the box, however the word "time", itself, doesn't change anything, literally. If I bake the cake for 15 minute and it got warm, then what did the 'time' ever do to the cake? Nothing. The heat of oven warm up the cake, not the time.
Furthermore, if I put two people, male and female, inside the box and about a year later, will something change? Yes. It's not "time" that change something. It was Male and Female that can mate together and produce baby. In fact, they can make babies as much as they wish. But one major problem. There's no air, no water, no atom, etc., inside the box. They cannot survive without them. This is the major reason why I dismissed the whole theory about few years ago when I learned more about it.
Mwilliamsll: i suspect that it is ignorance driving your desire to dismiss this science completely, not a deep understanding of it that resulted in a knowledgable critic of it, given the elementary mistaken idea i referred to above.
Big Bang Theory, the way I understood, is not a science. Actually, it is what, I believe, they called an Origin Science. Meaning that they cannot go back to the past and make any conclusion of what has happened to them. They entirely depend on things they see around them (such as rock, earth, fossils, and the like). As far as I understand, it seems to me that they try to come up with reasonable interpretations concerning presuppositions they have that give many different ideas about the origin of Universe. Of course Creationists, too, have their own different interpretations on presuppositions and they're entirely depend on the Bible (hence frameworks and eyewitnesses). I am not ignorance and I always desired to learn/investigate everything as much as I can, just as Paul tells us, "Test everything and hold on to good," (I Thessalonians 5:21). While I do not expect myself to know everything, I wanted to understand what evolutionists are trying to say about Big Bang Theory and I strongly disagree with them for the number of reasons (not just because of my beliefs alone although it does helped a lot in number of ways).
Note: English is not my first language, so if there is something you do not understand, then I'll try my best to explain more better. Thanks for your patient.
EDIT: Why are my font so big? Wow, lol.
Upvote
0
the enemy of my enemy ...
