Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang - Big Dud
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 196 of 287 (185184)
02-14-2005 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by sog345
02-14-2005 3:16 PM


Nothing turned into dead matter and that dead matter turned into living matter.
What, exactly, do you propose is the difference between "dead matter" and "living matter"? For all you imply it can't happen, we observe dead matter become living, and living matter die, as often as we sit down for a meal.
It's all matter. I don't see what the difference is. Can you explain it to me?
found something to marry,(that's a pretty good trick)
"Marry"? I presume you mean "sex", right? Did it escape your notice that the majority of life on Earth is asexual?
I would like to here how you personally think we got here.
What, here on Earth? I don't know about you but I was born here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 3:16 PM sog345 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 3:29 PM crashfrog has replied

  
sog345
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 287 (185192)
02-14-2005 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by crashfrog
02-14-2005 3:22 PM


I was just being funny.
I would like to here how you think everything got here (the universe, planets,humans,etc..)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2005 3:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2005 3:34 PM sog345 has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 198 of 287 (185195)
02-14-2005 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by sog345
02-14-2005 3:16 PM


Nothing turned into dead matter and that dead matter turned into living matter. Then the living matter grow and grow, found something to marry,(that's a pretty good trick) reproduced itself and gradualy became all the life forms we see today. Is that what happened?
Subtract the "found something to marry,(that's a pretty good trick)" part and yeah, that's pretty much what happened. Although it could be described a lot better.
Reality doesn't care whether you believe it or not, reality doesn't care whether or not you can conceive of how it could be that way. Reality just is.
I would like to here how you personally think we got here. Through the Big Bang or whatever.
The Big Bang, the formation of the Solar System, abiogenesis, then evolution.1
Every bit of evidence, and that's every bit of a humungous pile of interconnected evidence that we've built up over the years, points to it happening that way (although, as I wrote, we don't know much of where the Big Bang came from). I don't know what you believe but, if the Earth and life really were created ex nihilo about 10,000 years ago, then God put a lot of effort into lying to us about that. Myself, I think that what God wrote in the rocks trumps what Man wrote in the Bible.
------------
1I admit the possibiliity of a God or Gods that set it into motion and may even interfere once in a while; but I can't believe in an omnipotent being who's concerned with a few living things on an unimaginably small dust-speck in one corner of a vast Universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 3:16 PM sog345 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 199 of 287 (185198)
02-14-2005 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by sog345
02-14-2005 3:29 PM


I would like to here how you think everything got here (the universe, planets,humans,etc..)
It got here because the laws of physics work they way they do; if they worked a different way, other things would be here.
Why are the laws of physics the way they are? I don't know. Maybe they can't be any other way.
This isn't one of the questions that keeps me up at night, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 3:29 PM sog345 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 5:26 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 200 of 287 (185206)
02-14-2005 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by sog345
02-14-2005 3:16 PM


Hi Sog345,
Reading your last couple posts, I think your main question is about where the matter in the universe came from. The answer is that we don't know for sure. Quantum fluctuations is one possibility. The Casamir effect is an experimental verification that quantum fluctuations, the flitting in and out of existence of virtual particles, are real.
The evidence for the Big Bang is the current expansion of the universe. When we peer deeply out into space we find that in general all galaxies are retreating from each other. There are definite local differences. For example the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies and close enough to gravitationally attact one another, and they'll collide in another couple billion years. But for the most part galaxies are all retreating from one another.
If you project the current motions of the galaxies back in time by about 14 billion years, you find they would have all been in the same place. This tells us that the universe began with all matter and energy contained in a very tiny space. What was before that and where the matter and energy came from we cannot be certain. But that the Big Bang happened is not in doubt. Keep in mind it wasn't really a Big Bang, by the way, just a very rapid expansion of space. And that expansion continues today. The universe is still growing, and the growth rate is increasing.
It wouldn't be accurate to say that we came from the Big Bang. That would be like saying that your oak furniture came from an acorn. It isn't exactly false, but it leaves out an awful lot of detail.
Within a few hundred million years after the Big Bang the first stars began to form from the remants, which consisted mostly of hydrogen, but also of some helium and even lesser amounts of lithium. The first stars were mammoth. The bigger the star the shorter its lifetime and the bigger the explosion when it dies (goes supernova).
The fusion engine in the interior of stars is where the higher elements are constructed, and the stars' explosions spread these elements throughout space. Huge collections of stars called galaxies began to form around the same time. As time went on the huge stars continued to cook the higher elements, and about 5 billion years ago a cloud of gas in the Milky Way galaxy containing mostly hydrogen but also many higher elements began to coalesce into our sun and its surrounding planets.
Our earth was one of those planets, forming around 4.56 billion years ago. By about 3.8 billion years ago the first life appeared. Around 600 million years ago the first multicellular life began appearing. The first land animals were maybe 250 million years ago (I'm going from memory on everything in this post), the first mammals maybe 150 million years ago, the first primates maybe 60 million years ago, the first apes maybe 30 million years ago, the first hominids maybe 3 million years ago, the first humans maybe 100,000 years ago, and your parents less than a hundred years ago. It took a long time from the Big Bang to you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 3:16 PM sog345 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 5:31 PM Percy has replied

  
sog345
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 287 (185235)
02-14-2005 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by crashfrog
02-14-2005 3:34 PM


Who made the Laws of physics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2005 3:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2005 5:27 PM sog345 has replied
 Message 204 by Chiroptera, posted 02-14-2005 5:32 PM sog345 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 202 of 287 (185236)
02-14-2005 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by sog345
02-14-2005 5:26 PM


Who made the Laws of physics?
What makes you think they were made?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 5:26 PM sog345 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 5:33 PM crashfrog has replied

  
sog345
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 287 (185237)
02-14-2005 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Percy
02-14-2005 3:44 PM


Where did all the original matter come from? The question I'm asking is that if you can't figure out how the original matter came about then the rest of your theory is rather shakey. Do you see what I'm saying, I'm not trying to be bullheaded about it. That aspect does not make any sense to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 02-14-2005 3:44 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by NosyNed, posted 02-14-2005 5:43 PM sog345 has not replied
 Message 222 by Percy, posted 02-14-2005 8:17 PM sog345 has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 204 of 287 (185238)
02-14-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by sog345
02-14-2005 5:26 PM


The "laws" of physics are not external constraints or obligations on the behavior matter and energy -- rather they are human descriptions of how matter and energy behave. What we call the laws of physics are actually properties of matter and energy.
I know that this is just semantics, but sometimes the words we use to describe things can have huge effects on how we understand them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 5:26 PM sog345 has not replied

  
sog345
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 287 (185240)
02-14-2005 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by crashfrog
02-14-2005 5:27 PM


There has to be a law giver. Things don't just come about. If you see a painting there must have been a painter, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2005 5:27 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2005 5:36 PM sog345 has not replied
 Message 208 by Sylas, posted 02-14-2005 5:46 PM sog345 has not replied
 Message 212 by PaulK, posted 02-14-2005 6:20 PM sog345 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 206 of 287 (185241)
02-14-2005 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by sog345
02-14-2005 5:33 PM


There has to be a law giver.
Why? If the laws of physics can't not exist, there needs be no one to give them. You'll have to prove that the laws of physics are contingent; and since there's never been any observation of a place where there are no laws of physics, the burden on you is considerable.
Things don't just come about.
Sure they do. Are you saying that nothing random ever happens?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 5:33 PM sog345 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 207 of 287 (185248)
02-14-2005 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by sog345
02-14-2005 5:31 PM


Shakey?
Where did all the original matter come from? The question I'm asking is that if you can't figure out how the original matter came about then the rest of your theory is rather shakey. Do you see what I'm saying, I'm not trying to be bullheaded about it. That aspect does not make any sense to me.
How is anything else "shakey" if the answer to this particular question is "We don't know."?
The origin of the universe is about 14 billion years ago. To notknow the details at that instant does not mean that we can't know a lot about everything after that.
If you wish to have God there, then, for now, you may. I don't see what that accomplishes though.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-01-2005 11:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 5:31 PM sog345 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 02-14-2005 6:49 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 208 of 287 (185251)
02-14-2005 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by sog345
02-14-2005 5:33 PM


Perhaps things do "just come about". Why not?
There are certainly causes and effects for things. A new island rises in the ocean; we can explain its origin in terms of volcanic actions. We can explain volcanic action in terms of physical processes in the mantle. We can explain physical processes in the mantle in terms of forces known to work in the world.
You can assert that there has to be some ultimate cause behind the fact that anything exists at all, and you can assert that this cause has attributes of personality and will and intent... that your God is the cause, in fact. But that claim is an assertion, not evidence. There is no basis at all for a general rule that "things don't just happen spontaneously". As far as we can tell, perhaps they do just happen spontaneously.
The word "law" in science is not the same as in jurisprudence. There is no written copy of natural law. Natural laws are things we invent to describe the way the world works. Usually they are incomplete or inaccurate in some details. So no, there is no "law" that one can place in evidence to show a "law giver". There are just our incomplete attempts to describe the natural world.
A painting needs a painter. But a sunset needs a Sun.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 5:33 PM sog345 has not replied

  
sog345
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 287 (185265)
02-14-2005 6:07 PM


Do any of you Evolutionists think that Mt. Rushmore (the four faces on the side of the mountain) could have been formed by a landslide or rain erosion, or wind abrasion?

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Chiroptera, posted 02-14-2005 6:13 PM sog345 has not replied
 Message 213 by Sylas, posted 02-14-2005 6:33 PM sog345 has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 287 (185270)
02-14-2005 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by sog345
02-14-2005 6:07 PM


This, of course, is irrelevant to the issue of whether evolution is a good description of life on earth.
I seem to recall that you denied that there is any evidence in favor of evolution. I not only supplied a link that describes over two and a half dozen separate, independent lines of evidence in favor of evolution, but I even wasted an entire half hour composing what is my favorite line of evidence in favor of evolution.
The question is:
Do you agree that all known species can be classified in a nested heirarchical pattern? If not, why not?
If so, do you agree that this classification is not arbitrary, but is a pattern that will emerge no matter which characteristics we use to classify species? If not, why not?
If so, do you agree that if the theory of evolution were a fact, then life would exhibit this sort of heirarchical classification? If not, why not?
If so, the do you agree that this heirarchical classification is evidence for the theory of evolution? If not, why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 6:07 PM sog345 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by AdminNosy, posted 02-15-2005 10:32 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024