Bye Bye Ape Man!!!

[DMagoh]

Quote:
How did the universe start?

I mean, we know that the amount of usuable energy in the universe is decreasing which means that the universe is not infinite... all the usuable energy will eventually be used up which means it will have an end, and therefore, had to have a beginning. Also, we know the universe is expanding, so it was not always as it is now, and had to have a beginning.

I don't know.

Clouds also have a beginning. Does this mean that clouds come about through supernatural means?

Universes may be the product of natural forces, just like clouds are the product of natural forces. Simply saying "Goddidit" answers no questions and effectively erases any reason to search for a testable and verifiable answer.

I love the way you avoid the real question. Clouds have a beginning, but they are formed from other matter that already existed. How did the original matter of the universe begin? THAT would have to be supernatural because science says matter cannot be made. And that, my friend, is the question you have no idea about, and avoid like the plague because it makes you uncomfortable.

 

[DMagoh]

What question would that be? A question about how you apply a time-dependent equation to a situation in which space and time cease to have any meaning? Or about a claim that energy has actually been created, despite that not in itself being a certainty?

Clarify your question and you'll get shown why you're wrong.

How did the original matter of the universe begin? THAT would have to be supernatural because science says matter cannot be made. And that, my friend, is the question you have no idea about, and avoid like the plague because it makes you uncomfortable.

 

[Elduran]

How did the original matter of the universe begin? THAT would have to be supernatural because science says matter cannot be made. And that, my friend, is the question you have no idea about, and avoid like the plague because it makes you uncomfortable.

Science says no such thing. Quote me the scientific law or theory which states that matter can't be made.

 

[Moo]

because science says matter cannot be made.

Science says lots of things you don't believe to be true. How do you know what type of science is correct and what isn't?
Seems like you try to get science on your side when it suits you, and disregard it the rest of the time.

 

[Dal M.]

And that, my friend, is the question you have no idea about, and avoid like the plague because it makes you uncomfortable.

"We don't know" doesn't mean "we have no idea." The theories explaining what may have occurred during (and possibly before) the Planck epoch are extremely speculative, but they hardly rely on the supernatural.

If you're at all interested in understanding the subject, there's a decent article written for a lay audience here.

 

[selfinflikted]

DMagoh,

There are some people in this world who believe "goddidit", because they need the security of "knowing". I suppose ignorance is frightening to these kinds of people. Conversely, there are some of us who are content to say that we don't know, and eagerly await the possibility of knowing one day.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

Science says no such thing. Quote me the scientific law or theory which states that matter can't be made.

QFT

It's interesting that creationists have discovered many universal laws without any research or experiementation. What even more amazing is how these laws stay standing when emperical observation defies them.

 

[Loudmouth]

I love the way you avoid the real question. Clouds have a beginning, but they are formed from other matter that already existed. How did the original matter of the universe begin?

The matter in our universe came about through nucleosynthesis. IOW, matter came about through the condensation of energy just as it does in today's particle accelerators. And just like clouds, the energy that was there at the beginning of our universe already existed.

THAT would have to be supernatural because science says matter cannot be made. And that, my friend, is the question you have no idea about, and avoid like the plague because it makes you uncomfortable.

Eeks. Perhaps you should review modern physics before telling me what I should and shouldn't know. But then again, this is standard creationist tactics.

Scientists, right now, can create matter from energy (and vice versa such as is done in nuclear reactors).

 

[Phred]

I hear two sounds:

1. the evolution House of Cards tumbling, and
2. the evolutionists trying desperately to "spin" the new finding

I hear just one sound. You ensuring nobody will ever take you for a learned man.

 

[Loudmouth]

Keep repeating that mantra. The fact of the matter, however, is that we are fundamentally different in our capacity for abstract thought, ability to deny visceral urges, and the way we respond to common diseases. Also, if indels are taken into account, the genetic similarity between chimps and humans drops to only 86.7% (See Anzai, Shiina, Kimura, et al.)

This is the reason that Brennin gives for humans not being apes, even though Brennin states that humans are primates.

The problem for Brennin is that we are different from all primates in the same ways, as well as being different from every other mammal, vertebrate, and eukaryote. It is not the differences that puts you in a taxonomic group. It is the commonanlities. If you make a list of all the common features that apes have you will find that humans also have those features. For example, all mammals have fur and lactate. Humans have fur and lactate. Humans are mammals, even though we are different from every other mammal in one way or another.

If we were to use Brennin's classification scheme then cheetah's would not be cats because they can run faster than all other cats. Bats would not be mammals because they fly better than all other mammals. Great Danes would not be dogs because they are larger than all other dogs. It should be obvious at this point that species are put into groups by what they share, not by what is specific to each species.

 

[Skaloop]

Actually, it sounds a lot like atheists who overestimate their intelligence. Atheists think that if they cant wrap their finite brain around something, it doesnt exist. Have you ever considered the possibility that you dont know everything, and that completely dismissing the possibility of God just because your brain doesnt understand how an all-powerful, all-knowing being could exist is presumptious?

Actually, it was the finite brains of primitive agricultural societies that came up with God in the first place because they couldn't wrap their brains around lightning, volcanoes, weather patterns, the stars, their existence, their fear of death, etc. God is not beyond the scope of a finite brain, God is the product of a finite brain. God is merely a filler explanation for the unknown. Since then, our knowledge has become less finite; we have learned more about everything. And every time we do, one of those God explanations gets relegated to a mythological footnote.

I can't wrap my brain around 12 spatial dimensions, but I don't deny they exist. I can wrap my brain around God as described in the Bible. It is precisely because I can understand him on those terms that I deny his existence. I can only deny what I can comprehend. I deny what I understand (God, Creationism, Young-Earth) and I study, not deny, that which I do not (Cosmology, Quantum physics, String theory). You, on the other hand, accept only what you can understand while denying those things beyond your fathom.

 

[DMagoh]

How did the original matter of the universe begin? THAT would have to be supernatural because science says matter cannot be made. And that, my friend, is the question you have no idea about, and avoid like the plague because it makes you uncomfortable.

Science says no such thing. Quote me the scientific law or theory which states that matter can't be made.

"The Law of Conservation of Matter" states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

 

[Logic_Fault]

I love the way you avoid the real question. Clouds have a beginning, but they are formed from other matter that already existed. How did the original matter of the universe begin? THAT would have to be supernatural because science says matter cannot be made. And that, my friend, is the question you have no idea about, and avoid like the plague because it makes you uncomfortable.

DMagoh, are you aware of what God of the Gapshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_Gaps is?

There is nothing wrong with the answer, "I don't know." Most scientific advancement starts with that as an answer to "Why does that happen?" or "How does that work?" It certainly doesn't give you any room to insert god wherever you please just because something hasn't been answered yet.

 

[DMagoh]

Science says lots of things you don't believe to be true. How do you know what type of science is correct and what isn't?
Seems like you try to get science on your side when it suits you, and disregard it the rest of the time.

No, obviously you dont understand logic. I am simply making you play by your rules. Your rules state matter cannot be created or destroyed.... so now explain where the original matter came from using your rules.

 

[Logic_Fault]

"The Law of Conservation of Matter" states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

While that's technically true, as far as I'm aware, it doesn't preclude matter from changing form. Energy and matter are, for all intents and purposes, the same as Einstein showed with his famous equation. Matter can be converted to energy and energy to matter.

Given that, there's no need for "matter" to exist before the universe did, only energy.

My apologies to any physicists who may be reading this. I've used my rather meager understanding of such things to attempt an answer. If I've gotten this wrong, feel free to correct it.

 

[DMagoh]

"We don't know" doesn't mean "we have no idea." The theories explaining what may have occurred during (and possibly before) the Planck epoch are extremely speculative, but they hardly rely on the supernatural.

If you're at all interested in understanding the subject, there's a decent article written for a lay audience here.

That was a humorous read. Every "theory" cant explain the absolute beginning. The universe is a like a bubble that is created in boiling water, first being zero radius.... yeah, and so where did the boiling water come from? With every "theory" given, it just creates another question... so where did that come from?

A guy told me the other day that he believed the "Big Bang" so I asked him what exploded? He didnt know. Of course not. Something had to explode. He then said his teacher told him that it started with one tiny speck that started rotating faster and faster. Cool... so where did the speck come from?

So where did the original matter come from?

 

[Elduran]

"The Law of Conservation of Matter" states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

So you just disproved the equation that Einstein was most famous for?

(delta)E = (delta)m c^2

In other words, the change of energy is equal to the CHANGE OF MASS multiplied by the speed of light in a vacuum squared.

Yep, nuclear reactions create and destroy mass.

Would you like another try, because that was laughably easy for me to show you up

 

[Elduran]

That was a humorous read. Every "theory" cant explain the absolute beginning. The universe is a like a bubble that is created in boiling water, first being zero radius.... yeah, and so where did the boiling water come from? With every "theory" given, it just creates another question... so where did that come from?

A guy told me the other day that he believed the "Big Bang" so I asked him what exploded? He didnt know. Of course not. Something had to explode. He then said his teacher told him that it started with one tiny speck that started rotating faster and faster. Cool... so where did the speck come from?

So where did the original matter come from?

You can keep on asking "where did that come from" until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't ever mean that there must be a god, or that everything we know about events in history is wrong. All it means is that there comes a point where we can't say for certain.

Of course, everything we know so far about the universe is better supported by real evidence than your god, or your creation story, so why on earth would you pay them any heed if you don't believe stuff with really strong evidence?

 

[Logic_Fault]

A guy told me the other day that he believed the "Big Bang" so I asked him what exploded? He didnt know. Of course not. Something had to explode.

I see your grasp of cosmology is as firm as your grasp on evolutionary theory.

Nothing "exploded." There was no "bang." The event was simply an expansion of space-time from a single point.

He then said his teacher told him that it started with one tiny speck that started rotating faster and faster. Cool... so where did the speck come from?

We don't know. Which is, as I said before, a perfectly valid answer. Goddidit is not. If you don't know why then perhaps you should brush up on a few things before you continue posting.

So where did the original matter come from?

I haven't the slightest idea. My guess, which is likely wrong or a huge distortion of what current ideas suggest, is that there was none to begin with but shortly after the "Big Bang" and the expansion of space-time the energy originally present began to "change" into matter of various types.

 

[Liquefied]

You missed the whole point. We're not talking about beliefs. We're talking about knowledge. The Christian martyrs in the first century did not die for their beliefs - they KNEW whether they had actually seen Jesus alive again. So, either they did see Him alive again and were willing to die for it, or they KNEW they didnt really see Him alive again and died for something they KNEW was a lie. You might find one or two lunatics that would die for what they KNOW is a lie. But not literally hundreds and hundreds.

So are you saying there were hundreds of hundreds of men that claimed to have actually seen [pick one: Thor, Zeus, Ahura Mazda] and walked and talked with [pick one] and were martyred for refusing to take it back?

There most likely were 'hundreds and hundreds' of people who died for their beliefs in these other religions. Stop using the word know. There is no evidence for the resurrection of Christ outside of the Bible.

Please look up Jonestown for a modern, well documented example of hundreds and hundreds of people dying for a lie.