Big Bang vs. God

I think this has started off without a clear definition of what "matter" is. What is more matter, etc.?It might help clear this up. One person is using an increase in mass to mean "more" matter. And colloquially we would probably agree. The other is saying if there are the same number of basic particles then there is not "more".------------------
What goes? The Nose Knows!

:ae:In post 40 from taco I was objecting to this phrase. The equation does not say that matter can originate from energy.
It does not even say that mass can originate from energy.It says mass and energy are two different ways of looking at the same thing.
In the same way as you can say a Canadian is a human being but not a human being is a Canadian so it goes for matter can originate from energy, and energy can originate from matter.

god created the universe and let it evolve from there......the point being to evolve to a state where we don't need to exist in a physical form and can be at one with godwhy ???cos it was lonely...how ???In the beginning was the word and the word was BANG...when ???at T=0

Well, you're right the equation doesn't explicitly say that, but it does happen. Material particles are created out of kinetic energy in particle collisions. Basically if you slam two protons together hard enough, you end up with two protons and a neutral pion that is created out of the exchange of kinetic energy in the collision. Check it out. Yeah, obviously, but mass and energy don't really "originate" at all as described by the mass/energy conservation law. Matter, on the other hand, can and does originate from energy.You see, as we increase the velocity of a material particle, its relativistic mass/kinetic energy increases. However, no additional matter is created until it collides with another proton and the energy is transferred.

Sorry, i didnt read the thread, thought i might point out an error is the first post
[qoute]Also the chances of evolution are about 1 in (10 to the exponent of 44,000) thats 44 thousand 0s. So from what I see evolutionists dont have their own society to back them up.
[/qoute]
Evolution is a natural product of life and the ever changing enviroment in which it resides, the chance is more like 1 in 10 to the exponent 0, thats a 1 with no zeros following it.

Are not theese the decieving scientist who said the earth was flat before galilalo and columbus. Did not the bible state the earth was round. Dont even try that eliptical junk cause I know it's "Eliptical"Now you are trying to say "Nothing... No laws of physics.... Nothing... No material... No time... So far nothing... BOOM... All of a sudden the laws of physics have been defined and material has come into exisitence. Hard to believe but it's true man DUH!!!"

Well, the Bible says very clearly that the Earth is a circle in Isaiah 40:22, and refers to it being circular or dik-shaped in quite a few other places. But I'm not aware of any place in there at all where "elliptical" or "spherical" or "oblate spheroid" ever get mentioned. Just two-dimensional shapes, and immovable.And it's not real clear from your post what you're trying to say - can you clarify a little?

Who? Creationists? No. The Bible mentions the 'circle of the earth', a circle being a flat, coin like, disc. The Bible also describes certain events which are only possible if the earth is flat. Who said the laws of physics need to be defined? What is hard to believe but true?

---

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

Who said the laws of physics need to be defined?Guidosoft writes:
Hard to believe but it's true man DUH!!!What is hard to believe but true?I think Guidosoft is talking about various theories and speculations in cosmology and physics.He seems to think that because parts of them are speculative that means they are somehow less believable than the God idea.However, he misses the point that the God idea is totally speculative with no evidence. I think the real problem is that Guidosoft doesn't have any understanding of where the physics is at. (Of course, I don't think I have more than the most tenuous of grasps on what the h... they are talking about myself ).The fact that something is hard to understand and not worked out yet doesn't mean it is time to reject it. It just means that it isn't time to accept it yet. That's the process that has worked so well before.If Guidosoft wants to pick God as the trigger for the big bang I don't think there is adequate evidence to make much comment about that idea. However, s/he should be careful about adding to much detail about how God did the job. We are progressing rapidly in cosmology.Once the universe is kicked off we do understand how things unfolded pretty well. Clearly God has chosen to allow that unfolding to progress free of interference in any detectable way. This makes scientific and theological sense.

---

Common sense isn't

Jesus once said "Do not focus on what you can see because it is only temporary but what you can't see is eternal."How does the brain make self awareness?It don't. It's a calculator made out of cells with an unfound bridge to you SPIRIT with has you soul.Because we have self awarness how can eveolution have truth?It seems as though you have never read it once.If you pay close attention throughut the bible the earth's round or eliptical shape as a Sphere is suggested but not specificly stated.[This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 01-31-2004]

He did? And I suppose that makes it true? Could you show me this spirit or soul? What does our being self-aware have to do with 'eveolution' and truth? How does Jesus being able to see the entire world from the top of a mountain suggest that the world is a sphere?

---

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

Because self-awareness is an artifact of language. It's simple. Look up what happens when you raise a child without exposure to language (like, by wolves, or something.) No self-awareness. Not much of it, anyway - no more than chimpanzees usually have.The problem with human intellect is that it's only superior by degree. Any mental behavior humans are capable of, you can find to a lesser extent in the great apes. Our bodies are similar to apes, and our consciousness is as well, so why doesn't that point to evolution?This "self-awareness as proof against evolution" is not going to work, because you can't establish what we have that apes don't.