Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evolution, Creation and ?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Background
After taking an ancient civilization class last semester, I lost my faith (Christianity).The class explained how and why the first recorded civilization (Mesopotamia) developed/invented/created gods. The reason was a simple one: to explain life (tides, birth, everything). I asked myself, "How can something (God) come from nothing?" Then I asked myself the same question: How can something (The Universe) come from nothing? Then I asked myself, how can the two major schools of thought (Creation and Evolution) ask that question of eachother and accuse the other theory to have no begining when they themselves can't answer the very same question? The answer is, they cant - like most humans, they are hypocritical fools. Yes they may have PhDs and yes they may have won the Nobel Prize, but all they are doing is pointing fingers before getting their own facts and questions straight.

So, for a while after that class, I didn't believe in anything. Then I started to think about time and began to incorporate my knowledge of evolution to develop a third possibilty to the "begining" of the Universe. And no, this is not some stupid cult religion. A belief - yes, a religion - no.

Theory
I believe time is infinite into the past and into the future. In other words, time has ALWAYS been and will ALWAYS be. Everything you, the earth, the sun, the solaor system, the galaxy, and the Universe does/did/will do is just an event in time. Therefore, the Big Bang itself, pre evolution, is just an event in time. We now run into the problem of the Big Bang coming from nothing again. Well suppose time is a cycle - there has been infinite Big Bangs, infinite you, infinite me. Suppose at the "end" of the Universe there is a huge collapse. From that collapse, the matter needed to cause the Big Bang is created. That way, something comes from something and not nothing. Now does time as a cycle mean that my other selves in the past and in the future Universe are doing exaclty what I'm doing right now and lived the same life? Who knows.

Time Travel
How does the time cycle relate to time travel? The most obvious way is the parallel universes theory. Suppose you want to see your future. Lets call the Big Bang we know BB0 to help you understand (who knows what number it really is though). You are 19 in the Universe of BB0. IF the things you do/did/will do are exactly the same in every Universe (BB0, BB-5, BB23, etc) you could theoretically go see your future (a real world Back to the Future). How? By travelling from BB0 to a previous BB, you are traveling to the past. However, say you wanted to see yourself when you are 50. You leave BB0 as a 19 year old, arrive in BB-1 (age 19), but see "yourself" at 50.

Also, with this theory, the question about why havent time travellers from the future come back. The reason is: because time is infinite, there are infinite parallel Universes. The probablity of the time travelers reaching our Universe (BB0) is one in well, infinity.

Problems
This theory also has its flaws and holes. Although the question of where matter came from is answered, the question of where time came from isn't. Thinking of time as a circle (a cycle), we all know circles, as opposed to a line segment*, have no start and no end; they are infinite. However, a complete circle just doesnt appear; you must start the circle somewhere, which would be a begining. Next problem is related to the one discussed in another thread on this board: the problem of the Earth never being in the same place in space. It talks about how if you went to the future, the earth would be somewhere else, and you would materialize in space. My theory works has the same problem - kinda. Say you go from BB0 as 19 to BB-1 and see your 50 year old "self". The Earth you are on in BB0 as age 19 will be in a different place in space as it will be when you are 50 in any Universe, even in BB0.

Lastly, the question of when the Universe will begin again is unknown. We know the Universe is 13 - 16 billion years old. But for how much longer will it last? Two seconds after I post this? 30 trillion years after I post this?

*When I say line I mean a line segemnt, with the start of the line the Big Bang, and the end of the line being the end of the Universe.

Discuss, comment, nitpick.

[edit on 7/6/04 by xenophanes85]




posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Evolution makes no claims about the beginning of the universe. Mainstream cosmology doesn't say anything about the first 10^-48 second after the big bang, because we simply don't know yet what happened then. There is no talk about spacetime (if there was any) before the big-bang (if there was a before), because we cannot check our theories yet.

There are scientists talking about patterns in the CMBR that might reveal if there was something before the big bang, but these theories are very speculative at best.

The difference between the ideas of science and religion about the beginning of the universe is that science says that we don't know it (yet) and the religion just assumes it was God, without explaining how God has created the universe.

I find it a bit strange that you call scientists hypocrites, because "all they are doing is pointing fingers before getting their own facts and questions straight", when you don't provide any evidence the proves your theory is more correct than standard theories. At least science has the courage to say that when there is no evidence yet we simply don't know what happened. We can construct mathematical theories, but we don't know if those are right.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Amantine hit it on the nose, in summary it's subjective until further data can provide more insight into that magick moment. For the mean time all anyone can do is speculate as to what has caused this particular state. Regarding the initial post this sounds like the 'Big Crunch' idea. The universe becomes so huge that it eventually collapses in on itself until a fine and rather unique particle exists, but given it's unusual and unstable nature it explodes quite violently that the universe is reborn. I am inclined to further comment that perhaps the extra dimensional strings that have been recently investigated about in the persuit of string theory, may indeed be the 'former' universe, and that one day all that is before us will be the 'strings' of the next big bang. just my 2



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I'd just like to point out that science has a lot of assuptions when it comes to tales of the past. It is the BEST explination but will never be 100% fact simply because we have to assume the laws of physics are constant or at least changed predictably.

For example if time randomly speed up or slows down in how fast it passes over all (not relativily) then a lot of the theories of the eraly universe are way off.

Science isn't stating fact, its stating the most likely route things took based on current knowledge and fact. As opposed to religion which is based on 2000 year old religious stories.

So its not that science is saying other explinations are falt out not true, but rather offers the most liekly, most true account of things.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by xenophanes85
Then I asked myself, how can the two major schools of thought (Creation and Evolution) ask that question of eachother and accuse the other theory to have no begining when they themselves can't answer the very same question?

As others have said, creation and evolution are two different things. Religion and science aren't incompatable -- but SOME religions are incompatable with science. There are a fair number of practicing Jews among scientists (and liberal Christians and atheists and agnostics and Buddhists and Shintoists and Hindus and pagans) -- but it's very difficult to hold a literalist religion and be a scientist.

I saw on another board someone (possibly a troll) saying that they had a job at a geology lab and a prof wanted a specemin dated by carbon-14 and the writer knew that the test would produce an age much older than 10,000 years (when the writer believed "God created the Earth.") The writer was asking if he should "lie in the name of truth"; give an earlier date instead of what was reported.

Among the advice given was "don't do the test and explain it's on religious grounds."

So, no, if you're seeking a divinity to believe in, believing in science doesn't mean dropping religion and mysticism from your life. But you will be taken onto a more liberal route, rather than a blind following of selected interpretations of a book written centuries ago.

You may find it a more interesting and more intellectually valid pathway. Most who take it find it more satisfying and find that their lives aren't quite as superstition haunted.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by xenophanes85
Background
After taking an ancient civilization class last semester, I lost my faith (Christianity).

Wow...
After taking one class your belief system changed?? Are people today that easily influenced?

This is even worse than allowing a movie to dictate how you vote.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
I'd just like to point out that science has a lot of assuptions when it comes to tales of the past. It is the BEST explination but will never be 100% fact simply because we have to assume the laws of physics are constant or at least changed predictably.


We can look back at light from billions of years ago and we see stars. This means that probably the laws of nature where the same or similar to the laws of nature now, because otherwise stars couldn't exist.

It is true that sciences assumes that the laws of nature are the same everywhere. This is such an important postulate, that when a law doesn't work everywhere, we would rather change the law than admit the laws of nature aren't the same everywhere.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Well I thought it was known that when the Big Bang happened, matter was created. Knowing that life is a form of matter, and that atoms are in everything, it indirectly explains the "birth of life" on the Earth. Creation just says God was infinite, like time, and created the Universe and Earth. Amantine, please ask yourself what Creation and Evolution (a tangent of the Big Bang) are asking each other. If you don't know, its basically the classic "chicken or the egg" question. As I said before, my question to them is, how can they ask eachother that when they cant even answer it themselves? Where did the "stuff" that "set off" the Big Bang come from? Where did "God" come from? I realize my theory would probably make a great, although cliche, sci-fi movie, but at least it has an explanation of where space/matter came from. The reason I don't have data or proof, is becasue it would be impossible to produce data of the time before the Big Bang because nothing survives. All it (and Science in general) is, is a hypothesis - pure speculation, and a little bit of imagination. Also, I wasn't calling only scientists hypocrites, I was calling the scientists AND the Creation leaders hypocrites.

All these Laws of Science we have will never be true Laws, becasue we have only based them off what we have experienced first hand. The only way for Laws to be Laws would be for us to know every single thing about the Universe, which we obviously don't, and most likely never will.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Wow...
After taking one class your belief system changed?? Are people today that easily influenced?

This is even worse than allowing a movie to dictate how you vote.

I just like to think with logic, something that isn't very much a part of religion. Religion is belief in the nonexistant; silly myths.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   


The probablity of the time travelers reaching our Universe (BB0) is one in well, infinity.


Seems like if there were infinite paralell universes then there would also be infinite time travellers travelling back in time, so the odds of seeing a time traveller would be closer to infinity out of infinity. I was never too good at statistics tho.
I think I know what you're generally trying to say there but its hard to compare two infinite numbers and get a meaningful result.

I read your skimmed your post twice and missed the part where you solved where everything came from. Saying stuff was always there and is just being recycled is a cop out. Maybe I missed the explanation, sorry if I did.

[edit on 7-7-2004 by perseus]



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by perseus
Seems like if there were infinite paralell universes then there would also be infinite time travellers travelling back in time, so the odds of seeing a time traveller would be closer to infinity out of infinity. I was never too good at statistics tho.
I think I know what you're generally trying to say there but its hard to compare two infinite numbers and get a meaningful result.

I see what you mean by the first part. Imagine if there were a set amout of Universes. - 100 lets say. Then lets say you can only go to one once. Next we say it doenst have to be in order. It will still eventually reach you, but it might be in 100 cycles, or in 32 cycles, or in 1 cycle; nobody could know. Then theres the fact that we dont know when the Universe will end. Each cycle could be trillions of years, or a few hundred billion. Now compare 100 to infinity. The chances are infinitely not in your favor. There is no pattern in infinity, no equation to predict where the next "time" traveler will appear.


Originally posted by perseus
I read your skimmed your post twice and missed the part where you solved where everything came from. Saying stuff was always there and is just being recycled is a cop out. Maybe I missed the explanation, sorry if I did.

FIrst of all I said time was always there, not matter. Anyways, lets continue with my explanition of infinite time. I noticed that problem too, but when you think about it, how can time have a begining? How can it have an end? I explained it in a roundabout way. I said everything that happens to you, the world, the solar system, the galaxy, and the Universe is just an event in time, even the Big Bang itself. So that means the Big Bang wasnt the begining of time (but it was the begining of "space" and the relationship between the two; space-time). I have another theory to explain what is before the existance of the Universe, its an infinite blackness, therefore impossible to measure with space-time. If you would care to see how its connected, just tell me.

[edit on 7/7/04 by xenophanes85]



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 09:51 PM
link   
First off - not to sound rude - but you might want to call your "theory" a hypothesis just out of respect for the vast research related differences in terminology...

As you yourself have mentioned, along with the many posters that followed, all we have to go off of our theories, as no ample evidence exists to explain the time before and shortly after the Big Bang theory...so to ask your question - "How can they ask eachother that when they cant even answer it themselves?" - is a bit of a conundrum...

Creationism is often attacked by anthropologists, like myself, and other non-faith based scientists...Chances are either your teacher was very good at his job or very bad at making bias attacks on religion, but I'm sorry that it lead to the questioning of your faith - maybe it was for the better - who knows...

Creationism, as I said above is faith-based, and relys only upon your ability to read and believe the scriptures and personal accounts that are provided

Evolution is purly based off of archaeology and the forensic analysis of skeletal and cultural remains on a very high acadmic level, with complex timelines and ever-increasing new discoveries which require new timelines - lol

Both fields of research have many scholars who cross boundaries...archaeologists who believe in God and Christians who believe in evolution...so the real question you have to ask yourself is, can you believe in both, or do you have to pick sides?

The Bible has holes...and so does prehistory, or else you wouldn't have posted this - And not to descredit previous posters, but the real answer is not going to be found in someone elses opinion, it will be in your own cross-analysis of the two fields

I, myself have no religious beliefs and fully subscribe to evolution - but there are many unexplainable things in our history, and many famous people have been carried through their lives due only to their religious beliefs - so I would not so quickly debunk it - maybe there's another form of religion out there for you apart from Christianity...I'm just trying to get you to tie in your loss of faith with your new found hypothesis and maybe see some connections - I dunno - let me know what you think...I've been kind of lacking in details in certain parts, primarily due to my own laziness - lol - so if you'd like me to provide sources or other info, just let me know



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Thank you for a respectful and constructively critical reply. I agree, it should be considered a hypothesis. And for the record, my teacher is one of the best Ive ever had. In fact, I'm going to retake the class for a few reasons:

1. I failed it
2. I wanna understand the info better
3. I like the teacher
4. I wanna record his lectures



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by xenophanes85
1. I failed it
2. I wanna understand the info better
3. I like the teacher
4. I wanna record his lectures

HAHA - been there - I failed this one class (Forensic ANT) then decided after I got my grades back that that was what I wanted to do - it's just that the subject matter was so difficult and new to me and so fast paced that I would want to just read chapter one over and over again - lol

Well - if you take it again and need some help, just u2u me - archaeology wasn't my all-time fav, but I've had enough to know my way around



I have another theory to explain what is before the existance of the Universe, its an infinite blackness, therefore impossible to measure with space-time. If you would care to see how its connected, just tell me.

Physics has never quite been my bag, so to speak - maybe you can explain this a little more - I've always wondered how "something" comes from "nothing."


ME

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 10:40 PM
link   
This topic seems to be comming from a christian view point that pisses this person off. . . Buuuuuuuuuuut, there is a lil' wiggle room here. GOD, God, LORD GOD, Most High . . . All Means the same from a christian view point. Thats the Bitch of it all. Go back and re-read Genesis 1 and 2. GOD/God, is, plural and all. But the LORD GOD/Most High, is of, but physical.


K. . . Lemme try to explain, imo. Existence. Too exist, or not. The GOD of christianity, even tho' they say it but will not admit it, IS, meaning ALL. The LORD GOD, is OF that existence and higher in the manner of 'being'. WHY did God create? Too exist! In other words, why did the Universe expand? To exist.

In other words, life is here because of existing, to keep going. How f'ed up would it be for a Universe to exist with no 'life' . . .

Anywho, really, re-read the fallacy of Gen 1-2, and notice the God in Gen 1 and the LORD God in Gen 2. Gen 1 explains in short, evolution. Gen 2 explains in short, intervention.

. . . Peace



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Beginning of the Universe and Evolution, seem to me to be only very distantly related subjects.

Quest states it quite well, all TRUE science realizes it is theory based on data. The estimated probability of a theory may be as high as 80, 90, 99.99% , but it ALWAYS remains a theory. [side note:I also might add that I strongly suspect and some new data has come to light that some so called 'constants' of the Universe (the speed of light) are actually not absolute, they change gradually over time.]

The difference between science and religion is, science starts with, theoretically, no assumptions, gathers data, forms hypothesises, tests or looks for confirmation of theories. Religious faith is (usually emotional) attachment to an idea that is rarely objectively tested or put to scrutiny by those who believe it. That does not make it wrong. I personally wouldn't bet the farm on it though.

We use science when we cross the street, we look both ways, we listen (gather data), we form our hypothesis about the safety of crossing the street at this particular instant, and we act (crossing or not) based on our hypothesis. Caring parents try always to instill behavior like this in their children.

Evolution is an attempt to describe how a natually occurring set of events could result in the biodiversity all around us. Best estimates put the start at around 3.5 or so billion years ago.
Im having difficulty seeing any direct connection to that and the 'beginning' of the Universe and other possible Universes. One is biology and the other is physics. Strictly speaking biology is a subset of the physics of chemistry.

I have a theory that God is sort of a carte blanche account of the mind. When a sophisticated mind such as humans have gets overloaded with the chaos of non-integratable details of the Universe, a God mechanism relieves us of the burden of paying attention to it. (It turns off or tunes out the noise) It is like an overload switch, a circuit breaker. It allows one to drop the scattering details of the Universe and focus on simpler presumably important abstractions. Such as finding a mate (getting married) having and raising children, making a living, accomplishing things to improve the human condition (new math, science, imaginative technology). It is interesting that alot of the edicts of religions do concur with the basic mechanisms of Evolution. Creating and supporting a stable family unit, bearing and raising children, rejection of gays (because the use resources and don't create offspring). As our concept of our place in the world has grown we realize we have to take some care of our enviornment lest we choke ourselves out of existence, some religious views are starting to take that into account as well.

As for time travel, i still subscribe to all the paradoxes that are created by time travel. I believe you might go to a parallel universe, but you can never go back in your own time unless you were already there in the past. Which means going there will/cannot have any effect on the present or future because your trip to the past was in the past already and so there is no change. Then the only reason for going back into the past would be as some kind of vacation. It might be possible that there is some 'convergence' factor of the universe, ie. minor changes don't make any lasting changes, Im still dubious though.
It is interesting our perceptions about time, the past seems fixed and immutable, and the future vauge, fuzzy and diffuse. It could be perceptual or could be a good reflection of how things are.

I hope you do well when you take the class again. You could treat it as a game. You may believe in God, but are going to learn about the current state of the Theory of Evolution. You may even be able to point out flaws in it, helping it to be a better theory. If you can point out enough substantiative flaws you might well convince people that the theory doesn't hold up.

Yours, mine or anyone elses beliefs or disbeliefs will not make Evolution or faith in God any better or worse for it. Think of it as mental exercise and acrobatics. Faith is faith and science is science and by mutual agreement the two shall never meet.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   
AH, FINALLY soemeone who thinks like me! You pretty much summed up what I believe about science and religion, especially the reason for gods to exist in the first place. What God was to the Mesopotamians was an escape, an explanation for the logically unexplaianble. They didn't "know" science, so they turned to mythology. In every religion, there is main god. Enki (I think) for the Mesopotamians, Ra (later to become Amun-Ra, Zeus-Ra) for the Egyptians, Zeus for the Greeks, I forget who the Romans had (Zeus? then later God), God for the Christians and the Jewish, God (Muhammaed?) for the Muslims, Bhudda for the Bhuddists. Also, it's not that the Mesopotamians were intellectually incapable of using logic or science, they just didn't know where to begin!



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link   
ok,

just imagine for an instant what being eternal is, and how we would see and perceive things if we were.

now, (i hope you did try) the basic i could say is:
1) time would be irrevelant, even the notion of it.
why? cos there was no beginning to your existence nor ANY kind of thoughts about your existence ending. we would just`"BE".

2)beginning and ending would also be irrevelant, even the notion of it.
why?cos there was no beginning ever.

3)past and future? they would not exist either, there would only be one moment where everything happens at the same TIME.

so the very question how life and the universe were created are irrevelant. the universe has always have been out there. Assuming God (or whatever you call it, energy, special force of life, etc.) is eternal too, Both God and the universe at the very infinite are the same.

who are we? hmmm thats the toughest question.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   
We are matter, just like everything else in the Universe.

[edit on 7/8/04 by xenophanes85]



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   
who are we, i mean by that, who are we since we arent eternal in our current forms.

are we here to experience the universe in a different form?
if so, what is our other forms?

are we angel materialized?
are we at our core THE eternal being, which, from a transformation unknown to me, THE being separate itself in a multi state beings?

any ideas?



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conan The Usurper
are we angel materialized?
are we at our core THE eternal being, which, from a transformation unknown to me, THE being separate itself in a multi state beings?

any ideas?

That sounds alot like Bhuddism...which if there were any religion I could devote myself to, I believe that would be the one...

I believe that we all contain some form of a life force which is bound and shared by all other objects - some are more aware of it than others - and our physical presence is a distraction to our ultimate realization - as we are reborn in new lives we carry with us and represent our past until we reach the point of ultimate control of this force, thus becoming a part of the whole and unaware of our existence as we are everything (this Earth, the Universe, and beyond)....but like I've said....I'm soul-searching, so that's my current viewpoint on who we are and why we exist

Maybe I've just played one too many final fantasy games - lol



[edit on 7/8/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join