Jump to content


The Origin Of Matter


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
47 replies to this topic

#21 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 11 November 2008 - 08:08 PM

To address the topic in the thread title, which theory is simpler?

The universe popped into existence pretty much in the configuration as we see it now 6000 odd years ago.

Or

As the observable universe is expanding, it should have been denser and hotter in the past.

View Post



Neither, simply because both popped into existance at one point in time, and who says that the creation model CANNOT be expanding, moving around in circles, jumping up and down, or just plain existing. Same with the universe expanding, amazing, it was created, and it's expanding, that is simply amazing, well not really but anyways.

Atheist say the universe or matter just exist.

Creationist say that God just exist.

The only difference is that God has the ability to actually perform the creating process while matter, which just exist, would absolutely most positvely 100% without a doubt NOT start expanding for absolutely 100% without a doubt for no REASON. And using the atheist model, matter wouldn't do anything, because it simply 100% without a doubt does not have that creating ability on its own. Offcourse atheist would deny that matter would actually need a reason, or guiding abilities because in the atheistic view EVERYTHING just randomly POOFS into existance with zero guidance, and zero intelligence.

It simply amazes me that Atheist actually believe that planets, stars, and gravity just simply expanded into existance with absolutely zero guidance from ANYTHING. Remember that matter on its own has zero guiding ability.

From a logical point of view, God creating the universe just makes a whole lot more sense than nothing creating the universe, and all living things.

This is also another example of the Atheist model of the origin of matter, and the universe: Matter just starts to move and bring all these elements perfectly together to create planets, and whole galaxies. It just happens as the atheist like to say. Well using that train of thought, a box legos should randomly start to expand and start to create an entire Universe over a series of billions of years. Remember again, all of this with absolutely zero guidance. Also, remember that Atheist do not like to answer where matter came from, it just exist.

Another example of the Creationist model: God creates the universe, and how
He did it is a mystery, and also there is some slight evidence that it is expanding and moving, but whole solar systems are moving to, also gravity seems to be working just fine. God has created a working/moving Universe. Amazing, but amazing to the atheist view is Matter has defied the odds of actually doing something, and created a working/ moving Universe. Also, remember that Creationist do not like to answer where God came from, He just exist, oh yes He does.

Remember, if the path you have taken has lead you to either of these views, then consider this.... What is the rule?

#22 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 12 November 2008 - 06:47 AM

Neither, simply because both popped into existance at one point in time, and who says that the creation model CANNOT be expanding, moving around in circles, jumping up and down, or just plain existing.  Same with the universe expanding, amazing, it was created, and it's expanding, that is simply amazing, well not really but anyways.

Atheist say the universe or matter just exist.

Creationist say that God just exist.

The only difference is that God has the ability to actually perform the creating process while matter, which just exist, would absolutely most positvely 100% without a doubt NOT start expanding for absolutely 100% without a doubt for no REASON.  And using the atheist model, matter wouldn't do anything, because it simply 100% without a doubt does not have that creating ability on its own.  Offcourse atheist would deny that matter would actually need a reason, or guiding abilities because in the atheistic view EVERYTHING just randomly POOFS into existance with zero guidance, and zero intelligence.

It simply amazes me that Atheist actually believe that planets, stars, and gravity just simply expanded into existance with absolutely zero guidance from ANYTHING. Remember that matter on its own has zero guiding ability.

From a logical point of view, God creating the universe just makes a whole lot more sense than nothing creating the universe, and all living things.

This is also another example of the Atheist model of the origin of matter, and the universe:  Matter just starts to move and bring all these elements perfectly together to create planets, and whole galaxies.  It just happens as the atheist like to say.  Well using that train of thought, a box legos should randomly start to expand and start to create an entire Universe over a series of billions of years.  Remember again, all of this with absolutely zero guidance.  Also, remember that Atheist do not like to answer where matter came from, it just exist.

Another example of the Creationist model:  God creates the universe, and how
He did it is a mystery, and also there is some slight evidence that it is expanding and moving, but whole solar systems are moving to, also gravity seems to be working just fine.  God has created a working/moving Universe.  Amazing, but amazing to the atheist view is Matter has defied the odds of actually doing something, and created a working/ moving Universe.  Also, remember that Creationist do not like to answer where God came from, He just exist, oh yes He does.

Remember, if the path you have taken has lead you to either of these views, then consider this.... What is the rule?

View Post


I'm sorry, could you rephrase the question?

#23 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 12 November 2008 - 08:40 AM

I'm sorry, could you rephrase the question?

View Post


So using what little knowledge we have of the origin of matter, why then did you choose to take the path of atheism, instead of creationism. What rule did you follow to help you better see that matter just poofed everything into existance without any guidance?

#24 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 12 November 2008 - 04:38 PM

So using what little knowledge we have of the origin of matter, why then did you choose to take the path of atheism, instead of creationism

View Post


My lack of belief in gods has nothing to do with the origin of matter.


What rule did you follow to help you better see that matter just poofed everything into existance without any guidance?

View Post


Matter exists. That on a cosmological scale, everything is racing away from everything else and getting colder and less dense. Since the laws of physics are time reversible, the universe must have been hotter and denser in the past. The theory of a hot dense expanding universe satisfies observations made by telescopes.

Past that point, I don't know. But I do know that any competing theory would have to also explain the things that I can just look up into the sky and see.

#25 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 November 2008 - 05:35 PM

Hi Jason,

Quote;everything is racing away from everything else and getting colder and less dense. Since the laws of physics are time reversible, the universe must have been hotter and denser in the past.

If your referring to the red shift,heres a few problems with that.

Not all stars are red,so not all of them are moving further away.In fact,some galaxies are colliding.

If you know very much about metal halide lighting then you know the color spectrum is determined by the gas and metal ratios in the bulb.Why would it be any different for stars?

Thanks.

#26 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 13 November 2008 - 01:37 PM

If your referring to the red shift,heres a few problems with that.

Not all stars are red,so not all of them are moving further away.In fact,some galaxies are colliding.

View Post


I am appealing to the observed red shift in star spectra when I say that it is a fact that the universe is expanding and getting less dense. I also accept that there are places in the universe where (locally) things are colliding.

If you know very much about metal halide lighting then you know the color spectrum is determined by the gas and metal ratios in the bulb.Why would it be any different for stars?

Thanks.

View Post


Stars do contain metals and other elements that show up as dark or light bands in the spectrum of their light that is received. Those lines are always in the same place, for example, neutral hydrogen always shows up brightest on the 21cm line. Red shift doesn't refer to the colour of a star, it refers to how far the stars spectrum is shifted towards the red end.

#27 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 November 2008 - 06:03 PM

[quote name='jason78' date='Nov 12 2008, 06:38 PM'][QUOTE]Since the laws of physics are time reversible, the universe must have been hotter and denser in the past. The theory of a hot dense expanding universe satisfies observations made by telescopes.[/QUOTE]

What to you mean by "the laws of physics are time reversible"?

Terry

#28 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 13 November 2008 - 09:22 PM

My lack of belief in gods has nothing to do with the origin of matter.
Matter exists.  That on a cosmological scale, everything is racing away from everything else and getting colder and less dense.  Since the laws of physics are time reversible, the universe must have been hotter and denser in the past.  The theory of a hot dense expanding universe satisfies observations made by telescopes.

Past that point, I don't know.  But I do know that any competing theory would have to also explain the things that I can just look up into the sky and see.

View Post



The big bang is senseless, it shows a very shoddy and slapped together hypothesis that even a 3 year old would see its flaws. All forms of stars and galaxies suddenly exploding into existance from absolutely nothing is a load of dinosaur coprolite and it is obvious. And speaking of dinosaur poop, denying the creator of the poop is like denying the creator of the universe. We haven't seen the creator therefore it must haved pooped, i mean popped itself into existance.

Just look, stars 100 times larger than planet earth just randomly popping into existance, or BANG!!! Matter just randomly expands into an entire universe. Don't you see how extremely flawed the big bang is??? To tell you the truth nothing could bang if there was nothing to bang in the first place.

You could try and say what about the origin of God, how did he just poof everything into existance??? How did God come into existance???? At least God has the know how to put together an entire UNIVERSE, where as matter in and of itself has no ability to create ANYTHING on its own.

Even if matter simply exist, it most certainly would not just bang an entire universe into existance, nor would it do this by trial and error. Simply because it does not have the ability to do so. Are humans now so desperate to disprove the existance of their own creator by giving inanimate objects human traits, and reasoning capabilites to create an entire universe from nothing????

#29 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 13 November 2008 - 11:07 PM

I think that before one can reject the BB theory, one must try to understand it. The term 'Big Bang' is simply a popularized (and slightly humorous) label for an event that we are still very far from understanding.

What we know is that if we extrapolate the universe we can observe backwards in time, everthing appears to converge in a single point. Beyond that point, our present understanding of time, space, energy, and matter fails.

Hans

#30 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 14 November 2008 - 06:02 AM

The big bang is senseless, it shows a very shoddy and slapped together hypothesis that even a 3 year old would see its flaws.  All forms of stars and galaxies suddenly exploding into existance from absolutely nothing is a load of dinosaur coprolite and it is obvious.  And speaking of dinosaur poop, denying the creator of the poop is like denying the creator of the universe.  We haven't seen the creator therefore it must haved pooped, i mean popped itself into existance.

Just look, stars 100 times larger than planet earth just randomly popping into existance, or BANG!!! Matter just randomly expands into an entire universe.  Don't you see how extremely flawed the big bang is???  To tell you the truth nothing could bang if there was nothing to bang in the first place.

You could try and say what about the origin of God, how did he just poof everything into existance??? How did God come into existance???? At least God has the know how to put together an entire UNIVERSE, where as matter in and of itself has no ability to create ANYTHING on its own.

Even if matter simply exist, it most certainly would not just bang an entire universe into existance, nor would it do this by trial and error.  Simply because it does not have the ability to do so.  Are humans now so desperate to disprove the existance of their own creator by giving inanimate objects human traits, and reasoning capabilites to create an entire universe from nothing????

View Post


If that is what you think the big bang refers to then no wonder you find it ridiculous.

#31 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 14 November 2008 - 08:16 AM

If that is what you think the big bang refers to then no wonder you find it ridiculous.

View Post


It is not what I think the big bang refers to, it is what the big bang refers to. And no amount of rainbow colored sprinkled hypothesis will change this.

#32 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 14 November 2008 - 08:32 AM

Argument from ignorance. :)

Hans

#33 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 14 November 2008 - 09:57 AM

Argument from ignorance.  :)

Hans

View Post



Thats right! This entire argument is bogus, simply because the big bang is bogus. :)

#34 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 14 November 2008 - 02:23 PM

It is not what I think the big bang refers to, it is what the big bang refers to.  And no amount of rainbow colored sprinkled hypothesis will change this.

View Post


I'm afraid it isn't. The Big Bang theory states that the matter that we see making up the universe now was hotter and denser in the past. Scientists have since found evidence to support that theory.

As far as I know, no scientist has ever put forth the speculation you just have.

A good book to read on the subject is Stephen Hawkins "A Brief History of Time"

It's basically a beginners guide to how the universe got started. You'll like it, there's even a bit on God in there.

#35 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 16 November 2008 - 06:26 PM

The big bang is senseless, it shows a very shoddy and slapped together hypothesis that even a 3 year old would see its flaws.  All forms of stars and galaxies suddenly exploding into existance from absolutely nothing is a load of dinosaur coprolite and it is obvious.  And speaking of dinosaur poop, denying the creator of the poop is like denying the creator of the universe.  We haven't seen the creator therefore it must haved pooped, i mean popped itself into existance.

Just look, stars 100 times larger than planet earth just randomly popping into existance, or BANG!!! Matter just randomly expands into an entire universe.  Don't you see how extremely flawed the big bang is???  To tell you the truth nothing could bang if there was nothing to bang in the first place.

You could try and say what about the origin of God, how did he just poof everything into existance??? How did God come into existance???? At least God has the know how to put together an entire UNIVERSE, where as matter in and of itself has no ability to create ANYTHING on its own.

Even if matter simply exist, it most certainly would not just bang an entire universe into existance, nor would it do this by trial and error.  Simply because it does not have the ability to do so.  Are humans now so desperate to disprove the existance of their own creator by giving inanimate objects human traits, and reasoning capabilites to create an entire universe from nothing????

View Post


Again, I think it is worth remembering the history of the Big Bang theory.

At the beginning of the last century, the most popular theory was the steady state theory of the universe: a universe with no beginning. A Belgian priest and mathematician (Georges Lemaitre: a man who dedicated his life to God) followed the evidence - and his math - and argued that the universe had a beginning. Lemaitre argued that this work pointed to "a day without yesterday" where both space and time converged on a singularity. Initially, this theory was rejected by most scientists: including Einstein.

The term "Big Bang" was coined by the atheist Fred Hoyle to mock the concept which he saw as a 'Christian' creation theory. However, the multiple lines of evidence for the "Big Bang" convinced Einstein and today most of the scientific community - despite the religious overtones. By 1933, Einstein described the theory as both "beautiful" and "satisfactory".

I therefore find it curious when I see Christians use the phrase "Big Bang" in a mocking tone much as Hoyle did. This is one of the great examples of a theory proposed by a devout Christian which became the dominant theory because it was supported by the evidence.

Here is a nice photo of Einstein with Lemaitre
Posted Image
http://www.catholice...ce/sc0022.htmll

James

#36 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 16 November 2008 - 09:24 PM

What to you mean by "the laws of physics are time reversible"?

Terry

View Post


What I mean is that physical laws are symmetrical over time.

#37 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 17 November 2008 - 05:28 PM

I'm afraid it isn't.  The Big Bang theory states that the matter that we see making up the universe now was hotter and denser in the past.  Scientists have since found evidence to support that theory.

As far as I know, no scientist has ever put forth the speculation you just have.

A good book to read on the subject is Stephen Hawkins  "A Brief History of Time"

It's basically a beginners guide to how the universe got started.  You'll like it, there's even a bit on God in there.

View Post


Yes hotter and denser so on and so forth, but lets open the box up to what the hypothesis is stating. Planets, stars, and the entire universe just expanded into existance. Atheist like to put God in the picture because it stumps their logic to think that planets just expanded into existance.

Red shifts/ Blue shifts. The movement of the planets that we see through telescopes. So if we see other planets moving through the telescope, then this automatically means that all the planets in the universe came from one central location in the universe, and that the universe itself is finite. Now, if we see the planets shifting with the Hubble telescope, what does this mean for the planets we see shifting while we are positioned on earth. Does this mean the earth is stationary?

Because in space, their isn't supposed to be any friction so you cannot slow down save for gravity. Is this correct? So why is everything else moving but not the earth? This makes no sense, and can you explain it for me.

#38 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 18 November 2008 - 04:40 AM

*snip*

Because in space, their isn't supposed to be any friction so you cannot slow down save for gravity. Is this correct?  So why is everything else moving but not the earth? This makes no sense, and can you explain it for me.

View Post

Methinks you should read some elementary books on astronomy. Don't worry, there is absolutely nothing religious (ot antireligious) about astronomy; it's all about empirically observable facts.

But, yes, there is no friction in space. Objects may loose energy for other reasons, but generally, they just go on, once given a push.

The Earth is moving too, but we tend to use it as a reference, because this happens to be the spot we view everything from.

Hans

#39 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 18 November 2008 - 09:11 PM

Methinks you should read some elementary books on astronomy. Don't worry, there is absolutely nothing religious (ot antireligious) about astronomy; it's all about empirically observable facts.

But, yes, there is no friction in space. Objects may loose energy for other reasons, but generally, they just go on, once given a push.

The Earth is moving too, but we tend to use it as a reference, because this happens to be the spot we view everything from.

Hans

View Post



You know, using telescopes we see the formation of new stars, which are not in-sync with the big bang hypothesis. Also, why would solar systems exist, simply because they are spinning in their own direction, totally ignoring the unity of the great expansion.

The big bang also does not explain the existence of black holes, which are seemingly stationary. Ah yes, meteors also ignore this great expansion by following their own uniquie route through the solar system. So why all the order from a great misguided unorderly expansion?

#40 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 19 November 2008 - 03:31 AM

You know, using telescopes we see the formation of new stars, which are not in-sync with the big bang hypothesis.


Again, I urge you to actually seek information about astromomy, instead of just arguing from ignorance.

There is absolutely nothing in the BB theory that precludes new stars being formed continuously.

Also, why would solar systems exist, simply because they are spinning in their own direction, totally ignoring the unity of the great expansion.


You are evidently missing the scale of things here. A solar system is a microscopic speck in the universe. The effect of expansion is not perceptible on a solar system scale. In fact, it is barely perceptible on the scale of a galaxy.

The big bang also does not explain the existence of black holes, which are seemingly stationary.


Where on Earth did you get the idea that black holes are stationary? Black holes are not particularly predicted by the BB theory, but they are indeed predicted by the laws of physics.

Ah yes, meteors also ignore this great expansion by following their own uniquie route through the solar system.  So why all the order from a great misguided unorderly expansion?


Meteors are also part of the solar system. Within that scale, the expansion of space is, as already mentioned, infinitessimal.

The order is guided by the laws of physics.

Hans




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users