It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is there such a fight over this??

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

posted by: submersible
Eventho' we do have evidence that would lead us to believe that planets(or atoms) DO collide and new universes explode on a regular basis.


We have evidence that "... lead[s] us to believe that planets (or atoms) DO collide and new universes explode on a regular basis." ? Please clarify. What evidence or theory are you speaking of? I think maybe M-theory but the way you phrased your comment i wasn't sure... i'm pretty sure (layman alert!) that any of the ideas or "theories" that take us past the 'singularity' lack significant (or testable/falsifiable) evidence. M-theory exists only in the outer realms of theoretical physics to my knowledge... not saying it's untrue (admittedly WAY over my head) but i'm unsure what "evidence" is used to suport it.


Posted by toadmund

Which relates to something I've been pondering for awhile, which is; Why, if the big bang actually happened, why given the infiniteness of space could there not be other big bangs out there beyond the reach of our telescopes?


I don't think too many physicists question whether or not the big bang happened (with exception to the Steady State crowd which represent a small minority; and most if not all their points of contention have been addressed by BB theorists to my knowledge.) The alternative to a BB model is an infinite universe where time/space always existed (ie, no beginning) and matter comes along later (i'm pretty sure i just butchered that
). Matter, therefore life, has a beginning or creation event regardless of which model you like best... IOW i'm unaware of the scientific interpretation that says life (or even it's 'building blocks') always existed.

Here's a really informative page on Big Bang Theory: ssscott.tripod.com...


The Big Bang model that attempts to explain the origin and structure of the universe incorporates the talents of many individuals through the course of more than 150 years of study. Many times facing opposition similar to that of Galileo and Copurnicus, these cosmologists used a deductive approach in solving the greatest question in the history of science. The findings and observations of these emminant scholars forced them to draw the conclusions they arrived at. Every prediction that quantum physics and the theories of relativity have made regarding the origin and the state of the universe have either been observed and confirmed and/or not proven to be false. That is in essence the reason we have arrived at this cosmology, fully confident that our science and technology can look back in time 15 billion years and see the birth of our universe.







Why just the one? Then one could assume life in the Universe always existed, therefore never created?



Central to the question of the age of the Universe are two important theoretical terms. The Hubble Constant refers to how fast the velocities of the galaxies increase with their distance from the Earth. There is quite a raging debate on the value of this constant ranging from 50 Km/sec per Mpc (Mpc is a Megaparsec, about 3 million light years) to 100 Km/sec per Mpc. This explains the disparity in the ± 5 billion year estimate for the age of the universe. The other constant of importance is known as q that defines the deceleration of the expansion of the universe. Depending on the critical density of the universe that this q constant is based, the universe will prove to be either infinitely expanding as in the flat and open models, or an oscillating closed universe; a big crunch/big bang universe that will ultimately condense back into a singularity and begin the process all over again(Weinberg). Hubble's succesor Allan Sandage predicted a closed universe when he plotted a number of radio galaxies many billions of light years away. The evidence for this closed universe was quickly challanged a few years later and eventually fell out of favor. To this day the Hubble Constant and the q constant remain the two most important unanswered problems in modern cosmology.


Observations have also supported the predictions of theorists that certain elements could only have been created moments after the big bang. Based on the relationship between the amount of helium in the universe and the number of different types of particle "families" researchers concluded that there is one neutrino per family of particles. Due to the current energy density of the universe there will be a corresponding amount of helium produced. This in turn will create different types of neutrinos. When the predicted amount of neutrinos corresponded to what was observed it was another victory for the big bang cosmology(Wald).


(emphasis-Rren)- Even if the Bang-Crunch-Bang-Crunch etc.... model is acurrate (TMK most scientists believe it's not though) we have no reason to believe those other 'universes' had similar values or the 'fine tuning' needed for matter to form much less life.




This made me think of religious beliefs like a blanket on a cold day with the atheist trying to steal their source of comfort.
To live in this world without god in unconsionable.

Why can't proponents of ID accept the possibility that ID and evolution can't co-exist?


Which 'IDer' says they can't co-exist... specifically? Is questioning universal common ancestry (some IDers do - not all) enough to label someone as believing evolution does not exist? If you remove (directed/specified) design form the equation you're left with some seriously long odds (to say the least!) for RM+NS to make that rudimentary cheimstry turned biology (LUCA) into all life (plant, animal, insect, virus..etc..) on the planet... ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive.


I mean if god is so omnipotent, why would he create living things that could not genetically adapt to their environment. I mean do they really think nothing changes in time? If it didn't life would be gone, as the prototypes that led to a certain form are now obsolete and they no longer exist.
THINGS MUST ADAPT! OR PERISH!


I believe you're ill-informed as to what ID is or means to IDers. It's simply directed/programmed/designed evolution... you can believe that first cell was designed and subsequently evolved (based on evironment/circumstance et al). You could accept everything from the common ancestry of man and ape to the universal common ancestry of all plant and animal life on the Earth from that one cell.... and still be a 'loyal IDer.'


Wolfs couldn't live with man very easily, and wolfs no longer needed to be wolves with man, so they became dogs.


Dogs are an example of intelligent selection/breeding. I'm not sure i see your point here?




posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
*so nice he said it twice*


Sorry for the dble post folks... dang dial-up bottleneck.


[edit on 5-2-2006 by Rren]



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Rren said:



I believe you're ill-informed as to what ID is or means to IDers. It's simply directed/programmed/designed evolution...

Oh, is that what the proponents of ID believe now?

Seems like an ID acceptance of Darwinism, except that god is making the changes in the DNA, wolves became dogs not because of selective breeding, but because god tweaked them to become dogs?!


If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund
Rren said:



I believe you're ill-informed as to what ID is or means to IDers. It's simply directed/programmed/designed evolution...

Oh, is that what the proponents of ID believe now?

Seems like an ID acceptance of Darwinism, except that god is making the changes in the DNA, wolves became dogs not because of selective breeding, but because god tweaked them to become dogs?!


If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!


What are you blathering on about? Man "tweaked them to become dogs"; pretty sure i was clear on that.... ie, intelligent selection. What's your issue here, semantics? You prefer the term Selective breeding, what's the difference exactly? Finish your thought beyond the ignorant rhetoric. Love the way you cherry pick what to comment on btw. And then completely misrepresent that... priceless.



Selective breeding can clearly create an organism (e.g. Chihuahua dog) having a new design that did not previously exist. Natural forces (including survival of the fittest) have an effect nearly identical to selective breeding in selecting features of a new organism design.


Your ignorance of what ID theorists "believe now" or ever have postulated is irrelevant. Relevant to the topic at hand "Why is there such a fight over this" though. Do you even understand the position you're arguing in support of... much less what you're arguing against? I think not... but hey that's just me.

Have a nice day, oh enlightened one.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I'm sorry Rren, I assumed you meant god was doing the ID, not the breeder, my mistake.
And as far as cherry picking; when it comes to the Universe, any idea is credible, wether or not we are the only big bang or not. Therefore I could not agree or disagree.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund
I'm sorry Rren, I assumed you meant god was doing the ID, not the breeder, my mistake.


Fair enough. Actually a good example of scientifically determining design in biology though, eh? Although in this case the intelligent agent is an asian/european human some 15, 000 years ago so nobody gets upset over the conclusion... in this case the designer is 'generically' identified and didn't really 'make' anything. *shrug*



And as far as cherry picking; when it comes to the Universe, any idea is credible, wether or not we are the only big bang or not. Therefore I could not agree or disagree.


I was just wodering where the theory of matter existing infinitely comes from. Was it M-theory or Bang-Crunch or some combination thereof... wasn't arguing with you just asking. Neither of those, to my knowledge, predict what you suggest they do...

BB to man in 14(ish)billion years is alot to expect of chance... you'd need an infinite multi-verse for philosophical naturalism to make any sense scientifically imo... without a designer of course.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   


I don't know how something can appear out of nothing.

Really? Imagine a table, and on that table is a birthday cake with a big candle on top in the shape of the number "7." There it is, with a little flickering flame on top...

Now, where did that image in your head come from? It wasn't there are few minutes ago. It literally came out of nothing. Out of "thin air."

So I guess stuff appears out of nothing all the time, huh?



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   
First of all i would like to say if this offends anyone, its only a point of view, so dont take it offencive.


So I guess stuff appears out of nothing all the time, huh?


from what i think we are the "gods" we all have god "inside us"
we have the power to "create and destroy" im not saying we must destroy, but we do have the power to.

we can create somthing out of nothing, its called "mind power"
we have the ability to move things with our minds, create objects out of thin air, your probbly thinking im mad or somthing but we do have this gift.
its been stoped thruout generations.

we can leave our bodys using light, & that "light" gets projected outside the brain and outside the body, we can do anything we like once we know were out, fly, create things, see the world in a 4th demention, leave the earth and go exploring, talk to others using mind power, teleport our selfs using a method of "point to point" "from here, to there"

imagin a triangle, and the first point, the top is ware you are, and the point at the left or right at the bottom is your destination, so wat your going to do is put thos two together.

thats my method of "point to point"

im not saying i have done this before but, if you think about the universe its self, its a really complex thing, and where knowing how much we can get out of it, about the way it works, we have ifinite possabilitys of "creation"

we are gods, or lower powers of god. or just simplly "just lower than the angels"



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   
How many of these questions actually represent real human questions? What are the real truthful answers, sans religion?


The pope * in the woods and all that stuff.

Yeah, yeah, I'm offended; you're offended,

we’re all offended. Let’s hold hands and make a show of it.



But really... What's truly the right answer to the unknowable?





"I don't know"







True?



Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.

- Robert G. Ingersoll


[edit on 19-2-2006 by kegs]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
My opinion on why people debate over such things...

Everyone wants to be right when it comes to something they believe (myself included). Actually having someone understand where you are coming from gives you a sense of comfort that what you believe isn't wrong.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join