Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What's the point of doing your usual blaming the other side as the reason you can't prove it, It's never worked before?
click to expandThe problem is that you are working with a very entry level explanation of the Big Bang, which is quite an abstract, counter-intuitive idea when you dig into it further. There are a whole host of questions that come about that are either difficult to conceptualize, or just nonsensical because they don't apply in any meaningful way, even though they SEEM to be sensible questions to ask.
Before a person could ask any intelligent questions, they need to understand some facts. Lay persons do not understand science --- all we have is some basic beliefs, a little bit of science learned here and there and that's about it.
One question I have asked is why the energy caused by the BB didn't just implode like I understand it was supposed to.
If the earth were a tiny bit (don't know in km) closer to the sun we'd burn...a tiny bit farther and we'd freeze. Everything does seem planned to me....My opinion...
For example: There was no split-second before the big bang. There was no time. It's like asking what is north of the north pole.
Or what did/is space expanding into?
I don't have the language to speak properly about this. By split second, I mean that we can only go so far back and then no more. That underground atom smasher was built in Switzerland for this very purpose. I don't hear anything much coming out of that. I did like the Higgs Bosson (?) discovery a few years ago.
IOW, if there was NOTHING just before the BB, what CAUSED the BB?
And yes, scientists are uncertain about that singularity state. And they have always said so. But why should we take on a "god of the gaps" to explain our gap in that knowledge, rather than just admit we don't know? How has that worked out in the past? There were gods for lightning, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. When has a gap been filled by a god that has turned out to be correct?
I could agree with you if we made up a "gap god",,,but it seems to me that man has always believed in a higher power. Like a lightening God, etc. So far, maybe God DID create lightening!
I think Christians believe more in a creator God than in a "gap god", if it were a gap god, then I'd agree with you.
I dislike bringing up the bible in these discussions but there are a couple of verses that say that God has always been known by what is visible; in a creed it says we believe He created all things...visible and invisible....which I find very interesting.
If the bar for accepting well evidenced scientific theories, was your personal blessing we would be living in the stone ages.
Why do you think biologists accept that the theory of evolution is true
click to expandIf you know Lawrence, you should ask him what he means by 'nothing'. I just read his book, 'A Universe from Nothing', and in it he takes great pains to explain exactly what he means by it each time he uses it, and he uses it in several different ways, none of which are 'the complete absence of anything'. Just as we say "there's nothing in the cupboard" when there are shelves and air in the cupboard, or "there's nothing in outer space" when there is spacetime, radiation, particles, etc., so in one part he uses 'nothing' to mean 'empty space' (spacetime without radiation or particles), and in another he uses 'nothing' to describe the more fundamental state from which spacetime itself emerges.
LOL. I didn't mean that I know him personally! I just know OF him and what he is trying to prove. (that something could come from nothing).
I know what you mean. It reminds me of that joke about the guy that tells God He is no longer necessary because man has learned to create life.
The scientists think that they have figured it all out and that they can create a human being faster and better than God can. God says to the scientist, "You go first" and the scientist bends over to scoop up some dirt. At this point God interjects, "Oh no, that's my dirt, you get your own dirt."
As for the beginning of the universe, you'll find that most cosmologists think that it's just the beginning of the universe as we know it. All that we can tell from the available evidence is that the universe was once incredibly hot and dense, then expanded very rapidly. The 'beginning' is the earliest point in time that we can extrapolate back to. That hot dense state itself precludes us knowing what - if anything - came before.
There are a variety of ideas of what went on before the earliest time we can 'reach', all of which could be consistent with what we understand of the physics underlying our universe; including being spawned as a baby or 'bubble' universe from a larger universe (or multiverse), being the result of a collision between multi-dimensional 'membranes' in higher dimensional space, being an eternal universe that oscillates, or just being self-contained and closed in time (i.e. finite but with no temporal boundary, like the surface of the Earth is finite but has no spatial boundary). It's also possible that the universe was infinite in size at the big bang, despite being the product of a finite event in another universe - this is allowed by Einstein's General Relativity.
I actually know some of the above.
I used to like to listen to a priest that spoke about these things. If I can find him quick...I'll post a link... He spoke a lot of a the multiverse.
Meet Fr. Spitzer
So you see, common-sense may often be a poor guide to things in everyday life, but it's completely useless for the physics of the universe.
It's just that I can't think of something coming from nothing. Of course...God would give me the same problem!
have you noticed that about 50% of the groups in the image appeared in the wrong place? (if the blue line represent the fossils record).Maybe I am misunderstanding the topic, but there are many means in which the order of fossils could be predicted within the earth, if we did not study fossils prior (assuming the geologic column were constructed without any use of index fossils).
Common reference is made to the evolution of cytochrome C.
However, determining where fossils specifically are (temporally), using molecular clocks, still uses index fossils as a means of calibration.
This doesnt mean that raptors are found in the cretaceous, just because we have already found them there (which would be circular reasoning). Rather it would mean that derived feather bearing raptors would post-date primitive theropods and pre-date birds.
Where explicitly that transition would occur though, would probably be challenging to determine without any fossil that could be used in calibration.
There is a case however, in which biologists and paleontologists argued over where particular fossils would be located, in which case biologists predicted the location of hominin fossils with greater precision than paleontologists did (with use of more temporally distant fossil discoveries).
Immunological time scale for hominid evolution. - PubMed - NCBI
Paleontologists were mistaken in suggesting that ramapithecus was the first direct ancestor of modern man (see below). This being an early suggestion based on fossil finds. Ramapithecus | fossil primate genus
Ramapithecus, fossil primate dating from the Middle and Late Miocene epochs (about 16.6 million to 5.3 million years ago). For a time in the 1960s and ’70s, Ramapithecus was thought to be a distinct genus that was the first direct ancestor of modern humans (Homo sapiens) before it became regarded as that of the orangutan ancestor Sivapithecus.
"The first challenge to the theory came in the late 1960s from American biochemist Allan Wilson and American anthropologist Vincent Sarich, who, at the University of California, Berkeley, had been comparing the molecular chemistry of albumins (blood proteins) among various animal species. They concluded that the ape-human divergence must have occurred much later than Ramapithecus. (It is now thought that the final split took place some 6 million to 8 million years ago.)"
"Wilson and Sarich’s argument was initially dismissed by anthropologists, but biochemical and fossil evidence mounted in favour of it. Finally, in 1976, Pilbeam discovered a complete Ramapithecus jaw, not far from the initial fossil find, that had a distinctive V shape and thus differed markedly from the parabolic shape of the jaws of members of the human lineage. He soon repudiated his belief in Ramapithecus as a human ancestor, and the theory was largely abandoned by the early 1980s. Ramapithecus fossils subsequently were found to resemble those of the fossil primate genus Sivapithecus, which is now regarded as ancestral to the orangutan; the belief also grew that Ramapithecus probably should be included in the Sivapithecus genus."
In this case, molecular biology was used to predict the location of particular fossils of a transition, which contradicted earlier paleontological thought. And the biologists turned out to be correct, in which they argued that the first fossils for human ancestry would be discovered (or ought to be discovered if at all) closer to 6-8 million years old, as opposed to 15 million (as suggested by paleontologists). Which ultimately served to be corroborated and confirmed by later fossil discoveries such as sahelanthropus (which has human traits and chimpanzee traits and is dated to 8 million years ago as the biologists had previously predicted that such a fossil would).
So, the fossil record was used in some ways in making the predictions, however in this case, biology "out-performed" paleontology in predicting the precise temporal location of fossils (using other more distant fossils for calibration). Paleontology then basically was updated and corrected based on the latest and greatest discoveries which provided an understanding of evolution and the fossil record with higher precision than before.
I kind of understood this from yesterday's posts.order of fossils prove nothing. see above.
since we can also arrange designed objects in hierarchy- order doesnt prove evolution:I kind of understood this from yesterday's posts.
Fossils show jumps,,,,but not HOW the jumps occurred, or the steps (?) in between. This is what I would have liked to find....
I've repeatedly pointed you to material including full courses where you can learn all about evolution and how it is supported. You keep refusing to make use of those resources.
Nobody can force you to educate yourself. Only you are in control of whether or not you want to learn.
Except you never will "look into the details".
That's what I'm trying to do, look into ALL the details
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?