Creation

Hi AZ Why not ask your opinion? Everyone has an opinion and everyone is welcome to mine. But everyone doesn't have to agree with me. Just as I don't have to agree with yours or anybody else's either.My God is eternal in existence.
I am not YEC.Haven't you figured out by now that I am super old earth and super old universe?So don't accuse me of having a puny little god like Faith or others here.My God has all power and all knowledge. He is omniscient and omnipotent.

Hi AZ Don't blame nature for what my mom and dad did and be sure you don't blame my God.He only ever created the mankind in Genesis 1:27 male and female created He them. Everyone else is a result of those two having children. Had you ever though if they had no kids you would not exist. Everything science has discovered is the way God did it. You may not know and probably never will know.But what makes you think I don't know why things are as they are?God created everything for a specific purpose which is to glorify Him.Everything in the universe obeys all the rules God placed upon them. That includes what you call nature. But all the things in the universe obey His laws. All animals obey His laws. The only created entity that does not obey God is mankind. Since everything else obey God completely He wanted something that could choose to obey Him or disobey Him. Mankind is the only entity in the universe that God gave the ability to choose to obey or disobey Him. And boy have we made a mess of His Creation.God Bless,

10 years ago in fact Message 92. It was the same mistake as talking about the centre of the surface of a sphere. In the first case you were talking of looking up and today you are talking of looking down. But those dimensions don't exist in the 2D world we're talking of. Well the raisins would not have travelled through the dough at all. They'd have remained stationary. So they haven't travelled at any speed in that sense - the distance between them has grown rapidly - but not because they are moving.Find it preposterous all you like, that's what the evidence shows. Unlike raisins in dough there are a number of fundamental forces of nature. So let's introduce a cake-esque force of nature. Stickiness. Raisins can stick to each other, and sometimes the force of the raising dough isn't enough to pull them apart. If the dough and raisins start sufficiently close - the raisins will be clumped together as their sticky nature will resist the dough rising. And remember, the first nuclei were forming within minutes. They were attracted to each other by the fundamental forces of nature (the stickiness) which in some cases are VERY powerful. At short range - they are way more strong than the tiny amount of expansion that occurs at that range. Even a tiny bit of unevenness would magnify up to of of clumpiness which would stick together due to gravity, and the other forces in such a way as to overcome the rather slow rate of expansion of space between them. It has been done. What needs to happen is for you to stop repeating the same questions and objections and advance forward given the explanations you have been provided.

quote:

---

So much for the density-independent equilibrium state achieved over a lengthy period of time. But the case of the big bang is different. The matter was rapidly dispersed only a short time after the mixture of neutrons and protons had started the chain of fusion processes. Under these circumstances, the final abundances of nuclides depended on how many collisions were able to take place before the dispersion effectively brought the processes to a halt. This in turn means that the final mix of particles is expected to depend on the density. More specifically, it is encounters with protons and neutrons that are significant, so it is the cosmic density of protons, neutrons and matter based on protons and neutrons that is important. This particular contribution to the overall density of the Universe is known as the baryonic density, since the proton and neutron are the lightest members of a family of particles known as baryons. We shall represent the average mass density of baryonic matter in the Universe as ρb/c2, preserving the symbol ρb for the associated energy density of baryonic matter. Thus, the baryonic density prevailing at the time of nuclear synthesis had an important part to play in governing the relative abundances of the light elements formed.

​

Roughly speaking, you can think of the baryonic density as the density of ‘ordinary’ matter. You are essentially made of baryonic matter as are the Earth, the Sun and all familiar objects.

​

There is a second reason why the baryonic density was important. It arises from the fact that while these fusion reactions were taking place, free neutrons (those that had not yet been incorporated into nuclei) were decaying

​

Unlike the fusion reactions, the rate for this decay is independent of baryonic density. Thus when the baryonic density changes, the balance between the two types of reaction changes. At low densities, a neutron travels further before colliding with another baryon, so it has a greater chance of decaying before being captured into a nucleus. Contrast this with collision reactions which have less probability of occurring at low densities. It is these different dependences on density that provide the second reason why the final mix of nuclei will depend on the baryonic density during the period of nuclear synthesis.

​

Now let us take a look at the result of detailed calculations. The rate of each reaction depends on the concentrations of the parent nuclei, on experimentally determined relationships between the reaction probability and the energies of the particles, and on the relationship between the equilibrium distribution of energies and the temperature. To find out the net effect of all the reactions is, mathematically, simply a matter of solving simultaneous differential equations; but they must be solved numerically, and judgement must be exercised in interpolating the experimental data. It is a lengthy computer calculation, even though it is basically straightforward.

​

Look first at the basic particles: neutrons and protons. Initially, at time 1 second, we have essentially 13% neutrons and 87% protons. This ratio can be calculated with confidence as it depends only on the mass difference between neutrons and protons.

​

As far as we are concerned, the interesting action starts just above 10⁹ K, the temperature at which the proton and neutron numbers begin to drop because they are being used up in thermonuclear reactions (similar numbers of neutrons and protons are used up — it is only the logarithmic scale that makes the drop in the proton curve almost invisible). Some elements, such as helium. The deuterium concentration, on the other hand, increases rapidly but later (below 6 10⁸ K) the concentration falls a little, because more deuterium is being used in making helium than is being synthesised from raw neutrons and protons.

​

. The point is that at this stage we are dealing with periods of time comparable to the mean lifetime of the neutron (930 s, i.e. about 15 minutes). Neutrons are being removed by decay — note the steady decline in its curve — and are thus no longer available for synthesising deuterons. However, there are still collisions going on that are destroying the deuterons. From a cosmologist's point of view, this is the crucial stage. The greater the baryonic density of the Universe at that time, the longer the process of deuteron destruction can continue after the synthesis of deuterons has effectively ceased, and therefore, the lower the final concentration of deuterium. It is true that this effect is partly offset by the fact that in a denser Universe, more deuterium would have been formed in the first place. But the destruction of deuterium is more sensitive to density than is its initial formation.

​

What we have seen is that a theoretical model based on the assumption that there was a big bang, and incorporating an assumption about the present-day value of the baryonic density

​

leads to definite predictions as to what the nuclear abundances must have been when the elements froze-out. This, therefore, provides us with a third way of checking out the big bang hypothesis: Do the present-day cosmic nuclear abundances agree with these predictions for any plausible value of the present-day baryonic density?

​

Obtaining an answer to this question is not as easy as one might think. The trouble is that since the freeze-out abundances were established, about 20 minutes after the big bang, further modifications to the nuclear abundances have been going on. The story of most matter is that it exists for a few hundred million years as a rarefied gas, and then is slowly drawn into a star, where its nuclear composition is altered because it is heated up to temperatures at which further nuclear reactions take place. Because the temperature and density conditions in a star are very different from those encountered during the big bang epoch of nuclear synthesis, the thermonuclear reactions in stars are different, and they lead to a different mix of end products. Therefore, the freeze-out concentrations of the various elements are not reflected directly in the abundances found in stars, or indeed on the Earth which itself condensed out of stellar matter thrown out of stars during supernova explosions.

​

....

​

Bringing all of the observed abundances together, it does seem that they are consistent with the predicted primordial abundances (Figure 32), provided the present-day baryonic mass density is around 10⁻²⁸ kg m⁻³.

​

Pleasingly, at least to those who like consistency, a present-day baryonic mass density of a few times 10⁻²⁸ kg m⁻³ is in excellent agreement with the rather precise value of ρb/c² deduced by those who attempt to deduce cosmological parameters from the observed anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background radiation (as described in Section 6.3). The fact that there is a narrow range of values for the present-day baryonic densities in which the predicted and ‘observed’ light nuclear abundances agree, is a significant success for big bang cosmology. The fact that this narrow range of baryonic densities includes the value deduced by a quite different technique is a truly remarkable achievement.

---

Error - OpenLearn - Open UniversitySo rather than trying to dismiss things as fairytales through analogy, it pays to remember that the rate of expansion, it's impact on density and how fundamental particles actually act are all taken into account by physicists who agree than when you put it all together - atoms can and will form, those atoms will come together to form stars and further nuclear synthesis will occur creating denser elements.The raisins in the dough analogy is meant to illustrate the recession of the galaxies in simple form - it does not work to describe fundamental forces of nature operating in very hot and dense early conditions of the universe. That's a bit more complex than an analogy about cake is going to be able to model.And the fact that cakes have boundaries and the universe does not, has caused you all manner of confusion about the centre of the universe. You say the balloon analogy is confusing - but the cake one seems to have confused you way more. Like I said earlier - try to understand the principles in 2D before leaping into higher dimensional understandings.So, where does Bible give its predictions on nuclear abundances, the magnitude of the CMBR etc? I mean - all of this did begin with you claiming stuff about the Bible right. You haven't lost sight of the goal in order to pursue your pet subject have you?

Hi Mod, I assume you are talking about something that nature could not create.I would put the modern human mind in that category. It can reason, love, hate, choose to do anything decided to do. It can even go against everything that is precious to all human beings.I would put the information in each cell in the human body in that category. The human cell has complete information in it to be able to build a completed, living, functioning human body.God Bless,

And I'd say that nature created both those things. For those particular things the evidence suggests that is likely true. You said "I can't find anything nature ever created." I look at these and don't see something God ever created, there's certainly no evidence that he did. Your best argument, judging by this thread (and others) is that you can't see how nature created them, but there's more information detailing how nature went about that than there is detailing how God went about it - which I understand from your general thesis amounts to six terse chapters in a text with a claimed, but uncertain authorship by a group or individual who you regard as uneducated and possibly even less intelligent that you or I. Hardly a strong case. And you can't argue 'since I don't understand how nature could have done it, it therefore must have been the specific God discussed in the book of Genesis' as that relies on a false dichotomy which seems persuasive only because you start from that perspective. I'll happily concede that the chance of it being your God is as supported as any other supernatural explanation. Thus, even if it was not nature - it still doesn't mean it was YHWH.

So if it is all created by nature who or what created nature?

Hi Mod Glad you took time to look it up.
But did you read enough to understand what the discussion was about? I did not say anything about the raisins moving through space. According to the theory the space did grow moving the location of the raisins relative too where they were at when they were in that small 3" ball.You can spin it any way you want you can not change the fact that the 1,000th raisin's location had changed by 186 million miles in one second. It does not make any difference about the stickiness of the raisins. In cake dough that can stick together. But when the space between them expands there is nothing that can hold them together.
From the moment expansion began they were not touching as they had already been ripped apart and being 186,000 miles of space between them in 1 second.You are talking about minutes but in 1 second there was 186 thousand miles of space between them. Whether this is the elements of the universe or the raisins the space would grow at the same rate.At the end of 60 seconds there would be 11,345,000 miles of space between each raisin. The last raisin would be 11,346,000,000 miles from the original position in the 3" ball of raisins. That is eleven billion, three hundred and forty six million miles of space from the original position.BTW you would have space in the place where the 3" ball had existed. That space would be 22,692,000 miles in diameter. Do you ever think through your answers before you post them? A proton is a positively charged subatomic particle found in the nucleus of an atom.Nucleus is the center of an atom.Neutron is an elementary particle with 0 charge and mass about equal to a proton.Electron is a negatively charged particle located outside the atomic nucleus.Atomic number is the number of protons in an atom.Element a substance made up of only one kind of atomAtom the smallest unit of an element that maintains the properties of that element.What composes an atom?

quote:

---

An atom itself is made up of three tiny kinds of particles called subatomic particles: protons, neutrons, and electrons. The protons and the neutrons make up the center of the atom called the nucleus and the electrons fly around above the nucleus in a small cloud.

---

The atom did not exist until 380,000 years after expansion began.BTW 380,000 years after expansion began is as far as science can see back in the universe. No one knows anything that happened until after 380,000 years after expansion began. It was that long before any light shined through.So what are they basing their assumptions on? My raisins in my thought experiment is simply for the purpose of showing the distance that the space grows between each element before anything can be joined together to form anything. But the universe does have boundaries. You can not go past the fabric of the universe. You are stuck inside. I never lose site of my goals.
I am here to learn.
I am here to gather information for my book.
I am here to cause you to think for yourself. (That is a hard task)
Over the past week I have questioned expansion as presented in theory.
I think I have presented mathematical evidence that expansion can not have existed as has been proposed.So my aim is the same, causing people to question what they have been force fed. I know the hard core posters here will never do that but the lurkers will that is the reason they are here.God Bless,

Really? Then you go and quote the idea the analogy was giving?Intellectual disagreement is one thing, but this level of deliberate ignorance is dishonest, ICANT. You already knew exactly what idea was being demonstrated.Why you do that? The lesson has nothing to say or do with any "outside of the universe". Ignore the balloon. Ignore its surface. Yes. Things like all the other galactic clusters moving away from us with the farther ones moving faster than the closer ones. Just like the analogy demonstrates.You understand the analogy already. Why the obfuscation? No you don't and no it isn't.At the time of the inflationary epoch, ICANT, there were no raisins (which in one message you equated to protons, electrons, quarks, etc.) There was nothing but a smooth uniform mixture of time, space and energy in the universe, so there were no particles to experience this hyper inflation. But, due to this hyper inflationary expansion the smooth uniformity of the plasma developed denser and thinner areas of the energy.After this inflationary epoch stopped then the particles and forces began to condense out of the plasma with areas of denser and lighter concentrations. Since then the universe has continued to inflate but at a much slower rate. Much slower then this speed of light conjecture as you seem so enamored. Yes. Preposterous because no one, except you, is pushing this absurd idea. No. Think in the terms I have given above, about the differences in the inflationary epoch and after. And, please, ICANT, don't insult me again by deliberately ignoring it and going on like the idea never existed.ABE: I can deal with the raisin ball analogy but I don't want to repeat the error of confusing which inflation we are talking about. There are two: the inflationary epoch at the beginning of the universe and the expansion of space we are experiencing today. They are two separate distinct items with separate details and different effects.You tell me which one you want to talk about first and I will do my best to relate the raisin analogy to that period.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Why do you think it had to be created?If you think things have to be created by some form of intelligence you're going to get asked 'who or what created that intelligence?'Swiftly followed by - 'and why should that intelligence be the god you believe in?'

Yeah. No, it's location has not changed in the reference frame of the cake - which given the analogy is all that matters. It does if we're comparing them to fundamental particles, yes. The density of raisins and their stickiness are vital in understanding how they interact in an expanding cake. Maybe in your example, but in the universe that didn't happen. There were certainly some fundamental particles that were far enough away from one another that the space was increasing between them faster than light could overcome - but there were also those that were close enough together such that the expansion was much lower. Which is a problem for the hypothetical universe you just invented. But when you use the actual numbers in the actual universe - that problem doesn't exist. As explained in my previous post with reference to some of those actual numbers. Yeah - forming neclei is the hard part. Getting the electrons is easy money after that. I gave you that information already. We understand how protons and neutrons act, we can use observations to calculate density today and apply the maths for what the density would be like when the universe was smaller and deduce at what density protons and neutrons must be at for nuclei to form. The universe had the right kind of density to allow the formation of nuclei despite your protestations to the contrary. Thinking about cake and understanding nuclear physics are world's apart. The scientists do the latter, and all the thoughts about cake won't overturn their work. Yeah - but your cake thought experiment has several important flaws that result in your conclusions being invalid.1) Fundamental particles don't act like raisins
2) The density of particles and the energy involved show nucleus formation is almost certain to happen. The probability that it would not happen is so low that it can be discounted.
3) Space doesn't expand at the speed of light in the way you describe.
4) Raisins don't form until after the inflation in inflationary theories, and when they do, there will be regions of density sufficient to allow for the formation of nuclei and later stars etc.
5) The speed of expansion after the raisins appear is closer to 70km/s per megaparsec rather than a uniform 'light speed everywhere'. Slow enough that particles can reach other for interactions, and still high enough energy for nuclear synthesis to occur.You have to move past the cake if you want to tackle the reality. Or at least use more realistic numbers. Say 7cm a second per 100 miles of cake or something like that. Being stuck inside doesn't mean there are boundaries in the sense that the cake has boundaries. If the universe is infinite in size - then you can't get out, there is no edge. If it is finite in size but it curves back on itself like the surface of a sphere - travelling in a straight line long enough could result in your arriving back where you left (assuming you could travel fast enough for long enough) - just like walking east on the planet's surface will not result in you reaching an edge, a boundary. You can keep going east forever. The surface of the planet is edgeless, it has no boundary. The cake has those boundaries, which is where you have tripped up a few times. You've applied mathematics using arbitrary numbers to a hypothetical cake and shown that the raisins will grow further apart over time. You haven't tackled the more complex problem of the universe and fundamental particles. IT's the latter that matters. And it would be tricky - because we've already run the numbers and the scenario you describe isn't what actually comes out of them. Good luck with that. I'd hope the lurkers can recognize the cake is a lie {cultural reference} - and that you have a lot more work if you want to prove the problem you describe actually exists.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

As I said - when you can answer 'if it is all created by god, who or what created god?' you will have answered the question you just asked me.

well played.

Exactly, we both have the same question to answer. It's "turtles all the way up" whether you are trying explain an infinite regression of natural processes or of a intelligent creator.My answer is simply that the creator is infinite. Science seems quite happy to deal with infinities so why can't theists?You have to explain all the unintelligent processes that started from a singularity at time=0, that without intelligence, resulted in a world with consciousnesses, intelligence and a sense of morality. I think that you have the bigger problem.

I imagine that there are portions of the lurkers who will accept that the universe acted just like raisins, and will ignore the fact that your claims and assumptions do not match anything that scientists are actually saying about the universe. They won't see that you are addressing a strawman, and will be just as pleased with your explanation as you are pleased with yourself.Anyone who has actually gotten past the sixth-grade "substraction" that you have had has a pretty good chance at seeing that you are full of it. I'm satisfied that you won't fool anyone capable of understanding the theory you are addressing will want a better explanation. But you probably will reach some number of lurkers.I appreciate your motives a bit better. AZPaul3 has you sized up perfectly.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Just an aside, GDR.Scientists, especially physicists, more especially cosmologists, are not at all happy with infinities. They ruin everything.Mathematicians love infinities because they can be made to produce just about anything. Physicists hate them for exactly the same reason.