Creation is a Scientific Fact

reply to post by jaamaan


Einstein explained that the universe is curved, so there is no end to the universe per sey, but rather that you eventually run out of places to go (or you can go everywhere there is to go in the universe without ever meeting an edge).

Many scientists have done the math of the frequency of life in the universe. Isaac Asimov calculated that there were 250,000 earth-like planets (with moons too) with human-like organisms with developed civilisation in this galaxy alone. I read that in his book, 'Extraterrestrial Civilisations'.

[edit on 9/22/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I didn't exactly understand what Dave was getting at by posting that link, either. I mean, I thought the Big Bang is what you used in your video. I assumed I must have been missing something Dave was trying to get at by posting that link so I figured I'd wait for him to come in and explain it before jumping to any conclusions. Dave, what am I missing in your link? Maybe I'm tired but the BB is something I do believe and understand. Is there something in that article that you are trying to bring to my attention to refute my question? If so, what? Thanks.

reply to post by Good Wolf


Actually, more recent scientific estimates state that there are a billion billion stars in the universe. If there is a one in a billion chance of life occuring in a solar system, then there are a billion planets out there with life on them.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


And don't forget the planets revolving around those stars.

Just sayin'!

Edit: As in if there are one billion billion stars, then there even TONS more planets. Meaning, the probability skyrockets even more.

[edit on 9/22/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Good Wolf

 

Actually, more recent scientific estimates state that there are a billion billion stars in the universe. If there is a one in a billion chance of life occuring in a solar system, then there are a billion planets out there with life on them.

I said "this galaxy, alone". Estimates of life in the universe as a whole is just a guessing game of numbers. I was just a talking about IA's calculations for the milky way.


Actually, speaking of ET life. I remember that even when I was very christian, I just knew life was out there (an opinion not held by my peers) because I understood how big the universe was. It would be just out of character for god to leave the universe that empty. So I concluded that life must be rampant in the wider universe. I was met with the argument that since the bible doesn't say anything about them they must not exist (in a very 'and that's the end of it' kinda way), which to me meant nothing. With what I know now about ancient astronauts in such, absence of aliens in the bible is very debatable.

[edit on 9/22/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by Good Wolf


Sorry, my eyes must have skipped that word.

reply to post by AshleyD


It's based on the assumption that there is only room for one planet in the 'habital' zone of each star system.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Of course you could argue that moons could support life too (it mite start on one body and cross contaminate another).

You know, like Yavin IV in ep 6. I'm such a nerd.

[edit on 9/22/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Ah ok. Yes, this IS a one-liner but I believe in acknowledging errors.

[edit on 9/22/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

We are created in Gods image -

I have to disagree with you here BigW ... we do not look like giant flying spaghetti monsters ... nor do we have multiple faces and arms ... and we are certainly not giant serpents ...

But back to the Ashley's question ...

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Horza

 

Hey, thanks. I appreciate your reply so much. I'll look into the first things you said. One quick thing though- I never mentioned abiogenesis or even living cells or the species. That isn't what I am interested in at the moment or referring to. I'm actually talking about the universe, matter, and energy

Yes ... sorry, I was thinking from a creation v evolution point of view ... my bad ... after re-reading your post I see that you where talking about the universe in general not just our, as in humans, existence.

As in, inorganic. I'd like to know how this could have come to be when it is a violation of every natural law we know. This would lead me to assume it would have been a physical impossibility to be natural but instead supernatural.

So let's try to step away from abiogenesis and organic life and focus on the actual existence of the universe and inorganic matter and the energy.

[edit on 9/22/2008 by AshleyD]

Yes ... Lets ...

As I posted originally, the universe could very well be cyclic and therefore infinite.

Cyclic models have been around for about seventy years, but they could never address the fact that a contraction period inherently means that the universe is contracting and creating order instead of expanding. The Baum-Frampton model solves this problem by explaining that each patch, devoid of any kind of physical matter, has no entropy, and follows the law of thermodynamics. So while the universe may be contracting, there’s nothing actually inside it to contract.

Well, nothing tangible, that is. There is something inside these patches; it just can’t be seen, felt, heard, tasted, or smelt. Dark energy is an ethereal nothingness that comprises 72 percent of our universe. It was discovered by cosmologists only ten years ago, and is thought to be the culprit in the universe’s accelerated expansion and, ultimately, its impending blowout. It’s also what makes Frampton’s new cosmological model work.

This model solves the problem of an infinite universe and the conflict with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that other cyclic models have had.

Unfortunately, at this time, I have not found the information that explains how these empty patches then form the matter that will become the universe from the next Big Bang in the eternal cycle of Big Bangs.

However, it does seem to me to point to a creative force and one that is natural, not supernatural ... so let's not assume that it is an intelligent creator ... that's a different argument all together and one I will address in another post.

The interesting part is that the Baum-Frampton model, as it is known as, does not contradict the Big Bang but is considered as an alternative version of the Big Bang ... actually an infinite number of Big Bangs.

So we still have the question of:

"Where did all that matter come from"

Ok ... I will work on it ...

edit - it needed it ...


[edit on 23/9/08 by Horza]

reply to post by Bigwhammy



Nicely put together video ... Can't believe I only just came across it!

Now to address the OP.

I have a major beef with this so called "fine tuning" of the universe.

There are too many assumptions with this argument ... The biggest is the assumption that a form of life could not exist with different universal conditions.

Humans so like to be special don't they ...

So lets look at the options with the universe and fine tuning:

MULTIVERSE - If there is infinite universes, as the theory of a multiverse suggests then the idea of an intelligently fine tuned universe is moot. This universe has a 100% chance of existence within an infinite amount of universes. No special treatment here. This argument does not contradict the idea of a creative force.

ONE UNIVERSE - The argument that the universe is fines tuned to life as we know is deliberately approaching the idea from the wrong way around so to fit the idea of an intelligent creator.

Lets flip around to the way it should be - Life, as we know it, is fine tuned to be able to exist in this universe.

Much more appropriate.

If the universal conditions were different then it can only be argued that a different form of life could exist in those conditions.

Life, aah, finds a way.

The universe came first and then life came into the universe, so, logically, the argument must be approached from this perspective.

This argument does not contradict the idea of a creative force but challenges the idea of an intelligent creator.

ONE UNIVERSE: CYCLIC - As already discussed - infinite ... no beginning, no end, no creator. Does not contradict the idea of a creative force. See "One Universe" for details on argument against "fine tuning".

As it is plain to see, there is no need to use the idea of an intelligent creator to explain the existence of the universe.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Good Wolf

 

Actually, more recent scientific estimates state that there are a billion billion stars in the universe. If there is a one in a billion chance of life occuring in a solar system, then there are a billion planets out there with life on them.

Exactly. we know all star types are not capable of supporting mirror-earth's. What about binary star systems in such. Red Dwarfs. White giants. The habitability zone may be so far out that very little sun light reaches these planets.

[edit on 9/23/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by AshleyD


You asked a question - "how this could have come to be when it is a violation of every natural law we know" - and provided you a page that contains information about and links to other articles discussing that very issue. That's all. It wasn't an attack - just an honest attempt to improve someone's knowledge of something very incredible.

I wanted to add this to the actual video response section but it’s more then 500 characters so here it is -

The main point of the video is that everything had a beginning so because the bible also says there was a beginning it surely must have been god……What? If you use your brain and apply that same rational to god then god also must have had a beginning as well – big shock!

So your entire video falls apart by its own logical stand point.

Next – creationism is not a scientific fact because it is caused by the supernatural – if the supernatural is scientifically observable then guess what, it’s not supernatural anymore is it, it’s natural, it’s scientific. Logical fallacy.

(God can’t be natural because then he’s bound by limitations because he’s not supernatural - he can’t do magic – he’s not all powerful and all knowing)

Lastly - no one knows what is beyond the point before the seconds before the big bang so claiming god did it is illogical because you still have to prove what god is to prove he caused it. Otherwise anyone can just say anything they want created the universe without having to prove what it is.

I’d say it’s back to the drawing board for you Bigwhammy

Bravo! whammy, it would be nice to have an actual discussion of the facts you present not just back and forth banter about what we think we believe. Does anyone have evidence to refute the expansion of the universe, background radiation or the COBE project.

reply to post by Platypus!


You do realize that with the exception of the post above yours, this thread has been dead since last September???

Can not a creator be seen in his creation?
"The natural is the shadow of the supernatural" author-unknown

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by bigbert81

 

Its was 1 in 10 ^40 it is called statistically absurd or statistically impossible.

Your video has been withdrawn so I can't fathom what this is about.

Are you asserting that someone has calculated that there is a 1 in 10^40 chance that the Big Bang would have happened all by itself? What does that even mean in the context of non-existence? That is a number that absolutely guarantees that it would happen.

Leaving out the effects of the postulated multiverse system, there is no time before the Big Bang, that means there was an infinitely 'long period' of no existence ('long period' is a meaningless term when time doesn't exist, but there is nothing else to describe such nothingness).

That infinitely 'long period' gives infinite opportunity for a 1 in 10^40 chance event to occur.

Do you get it? Infinity is infinitely BIGGER than 10^40.