|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5449 days) Posts: 67 From: Scottsdale, Az, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang is NOT Scientific | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
1. I do not dispute the existence of particles and agree that science has learned a lot about them. I was responding to Percy's comment in message 88 where he speaks of particles which "flit in and out of existence." This seems to be counter to what you are explaining.
2. I understand particles such as nutrinos can penetrate the entire planet and are attached to electrons, et al. I don't see them as a property of space, but something existing in space. Like gravity, waves of the sea and mysterious particles are related to things in the universe rather than properties of space. Remove all water from space and you have no waves in it, yet space remains in existence. By the same token, remove what nutrino particles attach themselves to in space and you have no nutrinos yet space remains in existence. How'm I doing? This may be considered off topic by some, but imo, the BB argument has everything to do with the space question, as to whether space has properties capable of expansion or not. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Hi Eta. Nice to have you and Sylas back participating. I assume you mean why I expect my hypothesis to satisfy the LTDs. Do you remember the debate I and Jar engaged in? I haven't taken the time to find it, but that's where I explained it. When I get caught up maybe I can do a fresh thread on it.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
Nope don't remember it. I haven't posted for 10 months until today.
This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 03-24-2006 10:23 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
cavediver writes: "how can empty space have properties of curvature?" (teaser - it doesn't ) How's this? What properties of space, i.e space void of anything energetic, make space capable of curvature? Thanks for the offer to discuss this further in another thread. Since you read some of my stuff in the space thread, I'll let you make that call on the basis of whether you think I am capable of discussing the material you have in mind. Though Sylas patiently and carefully dialoged with me, the layman in layman's terminology, through the issues of the space thread, obviously there were times when he was not well pleased with my responses. Perhaps we could do an exclusive dialog for a spell to see how it would go. Doing taxes and all, I am limited with time, so it might move rather slowly at times if you opt to do it. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
THIS IS OFF TOPIC. The reason I'm posting it is that since my participation in this thread has been from a unique viewpoint, it might help for other participants and readers to know what it is.
The Buzsaw Hypothesis is as follows: In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. Buzsaw Whether this satisfies the laws of thermodynamics is another topic. Note: I'll be out of town most of tomorrow. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
Well that is nicely not amenable to an approach Karl Popper would approve of.
This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 03-24-2006 11:34 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
knitrofreak Inactive Member |
On both sides of the debate we start with nothing. Evolutionists rely on naturalist laws and processes to make SOMETHING out of NOTHING. I would love to know a scientific law today that states that. As far as I know there isnt one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
with a being named God doing this however?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
knitrofreak Inactive Member |
Being on the creation side of things yes I believe that God was the divine deity which said and it was. I dont think i completely follow your statement
"with a being named God doing this however?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
You were having a problem with something from nothing. But I bet you don't have a problem with God coming from nothing or the other copout he is infinite and has always been.
To many people that is just as big a cop out if not more so. This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 03-25-2006 01:45 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4141 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Neather side starts from nothing, the basic life-forms came from something, but evolution doesn't deal with that, take that up with people developing the theories of abiogenesis
and the creationist side doesn't start from nothing, there was the primortal waters, which comes closer to where abiogenesis theorizes life started, in water no law will ever state having something come from nothing, that doesn't make any sense, at least as far as life
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
This is an old thread being resurrected, but even old threads have topics they are supposed to discuss. This thread is not about the nature of science, it is not about evolution, and it is not about God. It is considering whether the Big Bang has a legitimate scientific foundation.
Some participants may find that their impressions of the nature of science do not find acceptance among the more science minded, so keep in mind again that this is not a thread about the nature of science. Those who believe science has been defined improperly should discuss this in the [forum=-11] forum. Those who do not have the patience to explain their views carefully and in detail multiple times without becoming emotional and/or abusive should not participate in this thread. In the same vein, those given to ignoring or not understanding careful explanations so that they may repeat assertions unsupported by evidence (science requires evidence) should also not participate in this thread. I'd like to caution both sides that in this particular subject area it is often better to post nothing then to post something casually that is difficult to understand or easily misinterpreted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
First, thank you for your fairness attitude and willingness to understand my position. No problem!
You may not be aware of my personal hypothesis which calls for an eternal universe in which the ID creator has been forever creating things in, destroying things in and managing things in his universe at will to suit his pleasure. I've read some of you previous posts on this. The above seems fair enough. An eternal universe is quite possible even within the Big Bang scenario...
It fully satisfies all three TD laws. Ok, my first question before we get started is simply... why the hang-up with TD? This is quite a deep concept but Thermodynamics and even energy itself only really makes sense locally (by local I mean any decent lump of space, such as around the earth, the solar system, or even the Local Group of galaxies) When we move to look at the whole universe, concepts such as energy and thernmodynamics no longer make a huge amount of sense. Think of north, south, east and west. Four directions, each rotated 90 degrees from the previous. But we know that as you approach the poles this concept starts to break down, and actually at the north pole there is only one direction: south. When we look at the Earth as a whole, we realise that north, south, east and west don't have quite the fundemental meaning we once thought. However, this doesn't invalidate their usefulness when navigating in some "local" area of the US for example.
The BB, of course has the entire universe all scrunched up into a submicroscopic bit of energetic space before the fact. The universe, inclusive of everything existing includes God himself. So before the alleged BB, this god is also scrunched up into his hyper-dense itsy bitsy ball, for there's allegedly no outside of this speck for him to reside in for all of pre-BB eternity and if there were, he'd be out there with nothing around him and nothing to do. It is infinitely demeaning to an infinitely majestic creator, great Jehovah, god of the Bible! How does this fit into Biblical IDism? Put like that, I understand your objection But why should God have His existence in the physical universe? I have always envisioned the universe as a globe held in His hand! Furthermore, although the classic Big Bang scenario has the entire universe "scrunched" into this state, there is absolutely nothing wrong with considering our universe as an expanding bubble nucleating from within a larger (potentially eternal) universe reality. This is quite possible. Finally, there is no pre-Big Bang eternity (unless as the eternity of the larger embedding universe.) Time (as I'm sure you have heard repeatedly) begins at the Big Bang. For this reason alone, it makes no sense at all to me to think of God constrained by the physical universe. God is Spirit after all...
The BB is counter to intelligent design (ID) as per Biblical scriptures which clearly imply nothing random or naturally selected I don't really see anything random in the Big Bang (though quantum fluctuations back then had a very large impact on the development of the universe) There doesn't appear to be anything counter to ID or TE here. Perhaps you could expand on this if you still don't agree.
Imo, The BB does not explain the order and design we observe I don't see why the BB runs counter to the order and design we observe. Don't get hung up on those horrible layman presentations of the BB as some explosion creating randomness and mayhem. This idea has nothing to do with the BB.
nor does it satistisfy the TD laws as well as a more literal rendering of the Genesis account. It actually fits so perfectly that it's difficult to convey my meaning. The universe (however it is arranged: eternal, BB, mixture of the two, etc) dictates the real meaning behind energy and TD, not the other way round. As I said before, all we see normally are the local aspects of energy and TD... Apology: fair mixture of theology here with the science... sorry Admin. Where would you prefer this taken?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
knitrofreak Inactive Member |
ok you talk about abiogenesis. Isnt the best known law in biology "The Law of Biogenesis" life comeing from life. I mean who ever heard of some dead nonliving chemicals producing life? NEVER.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
knitrofreak Inactive Member |
I absolutely dont have a problem with God making everything from nothing. God didnt come from nothing he has always been. Dont even try to understand it. Humans are finite and dont think in Gods ways.
Creation at least has an explantion that God created something from nothing. Evolutionists just say. "it exploded generating all space time and matter" Where did "it" come from? Certainly it didnt make itself.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024