Space

[mooeypoo]

blood_pardon, if "smart people" forgot to put god into the equation, you would not have religious scientists -- which you do. They exist.

 

It's not that we forgot to put god into the equation, it's that the definition of god is that it's beyond space and time and is therefore irrelevant to a description of space and time, and therefore is irrelevant as a consideration in science.

 

F=ma, for example, is a scientific law that describes reality, we can predict the behavior of physical items from it. Whether or not it just "is" or if some god made it is a philosophical question (or a theological one) and not a scientific relevancy.

 

Same goes to relativity and the "Big Bang". If you say "god", you stop asking. It's not giving you an answer as to *how* things behave (if anything, perhaps as to their 'why'). Some people care about the why and believe in a god - that's fine. But it's not relevant to a scientific discussion about how things behave.

[mulreay]

Sorry I'm new here so not wanting to step on toes. I have been reading through this argument/discussion and I find It very interesting.

This is a scientific discussion that will go on and on as both sides (religion/science) can never find common ground. People say that science killed God and on the flip side (dark ages) God tried to kill science as being not doctrine. To argue that the Universe should be understandable and imaginable is an exercise in futility.

I'm not saying one day we won't understand that illusive everything but it's certainly not today.

This argument for creationism however I feel is just people searching for the easiest answer (no matter how incorrect) to find there place in the universe. I for one am happy that I don't understand everything about Space and the universe, how it came in to being and why? But I won't take the easy route and have a eureka moment using nothing but faith.

As I say I'm new here and my knowledge is limited and my opinion humble.

[Phi for All]

Can we please go correct the mistakes in the Bible now? It's only fair that if you can correct the mistakes in our "holy texts" that we can correct the mistakes in yours.

I've always felt that the literal interpretation of the six "days" of creation in the Bible is the root cause for mistrust of evolutionary theory, not the claims of inerrancy. I'd be perfectly willing to cede that the discrepancies between whether man or beast was created first in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are a matter of non-literal interpretation, but if that's so then why be so adamant that the Hebrew word yom has to mean only a 24-hour day? Allow that yom (day) could be an indeterminate amount of time (as in, "back in the day", which is, after all, one of it's three meanings) and then evolution (forget the micro/macro garbage) can simply be one of God's mechanisms, as the Catholics believe. Then science can recognize what it is supposed to recognize, and leave the unobservable aspects to religion and faith.

 

But as long as creationism insists on a single meaning for a single word, they do so against all the evidence that is available to modern science. They are then forced to fabricate all kinds of absurd reasons why a god would go to such lengths of deception to plant that evidence.

[blood_pardon]

But as long as creationism insists on a single meaning for a single word, they do so against all the evidence that is available to modern science. They are then forced to fabricate all kinds of absurd reasons why a god would go to such lengths of deception to plant that evidence.

 

God didnt plant anything, men see certain things and say they support there theories. He simply allows you to believe lies, but he isnt responsible for them.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I disagree, I think you are 100% sure about certain things. Do you have a heart? Do you require water to live? In the same way I am sure space and time are entwined.

You will find that there are philosophers that argue that they don't even know if their own bodies exist.

 

But that's philosophers for you.

 

I know that time does not bend, and the rate of it does not change. Time is just the measurement withing human beings to comprehend the sequence of events and the passing of moments,weeks, months, years, etc.

You are contradicting most of known physics here. For example, I could fly extremely accurate clocks in airplanes around the world and find that the clocks disagree with each other when they return back, due to their speed of travel. In fact, that's already been done.

 

In order for you to say that space expands over time accuratley you have to know how large the universe is correct? How do you know the farther you go back in time the less space there was if we don't know how large our universe is now?

The neat thing about light is that it travels at the speed of light -- a finite speed. This means that if we use telescopes to look at objects billions of light-years away, we're also looking billions of light-years into the past. Observations made of extremely distant objects can be compared with observations of relatively close objects.

 

For example carbon-14 dating is based assumptions:

 

1.Rate of decay stays constant

2. The sample has undergone NO contamination

3. Carbon 14 and Carbon 12 ratio has been constant

 

1. The rate of decay is based on our understanding of basic atomic physics. It's not an assumption; it's an observation and a prediction made using the best understanding of how atom works that we have. Atomic physics successfully predicts the results of experiments all the time.
   
2. This is true, but carbon dating can always be verified against other dating methods and other dated objects found in the same area.
   
3. Generally one can verify the carbon 12/14 ratio by using objects dated via other methods. For example, tree ring dating can determine the age of some object, and the carbon 14 levels can be measured to see if they fit with the age of the object. Other methods of dating could also be used. Using these methods, scientists have verified the accuracy of carbon dating for objects up to 50,000 years old. http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.html and http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html
   

[toastywombel]

God didnt plant anything, men see certain things and say they support there theories. He simply allows you to believe lies, but he isnt responsible for them.

 

Okay this is a big problem I have with Christianity right there. God is the alpha and the omega, he is all powerful and has existed forever. He also is the creator of the Universe. Christians praise God for all the beauty in the world, yet God is not responsible for the bad in the world. Shouldn't he take the responsibility though? He is the one all knowing and all powerful, meaning he created us and our Universe, already knowing the faults each individual might have. Then he condemns us to hell for things we do, in which he already knows the outcome. Seems kind of un-fair doesn't it?

 

But seriously Religion has no place here. It is not based on any scientific data.

[Phi for All]

God didnt plant anything, men see certain things and say they support there theories. He simply allows you to believe lies, but he isnt responsible for them.

This is another big problem with your arguments. You start with the assumption that all the evidence so painstakingly and objectively accumulated by many scientists over many years is lies. You start with the assumption that the Earth is only 7000 years old, with only a hardline, fundamentalist interpretation of a work written for a barely literate population to back you up. Even when you can easily see that genetics (a science you seem to have more enthusiasm for) proves that the earth's creatures have been around much longer than 7000 years, you appear to ignore it because your initial belief is too sacred to stand up to contradiction.

 

You insist that we be open-minded about God while you adopt the most narrow-minded of interpretations about what He meant by "days", an interpretation that the majority of Christians agree can't be true. If God created the Earth, and the evidence is buried there to for us to see, how is it that the evidence is lies we've made up? And why is it more magnificent for God to "poof" the world and it's flora and fauna into existence in six days rather than creating the universe and all it's mechanisms (including evolution) in an instant that expanded and spread His almighty grand design over the cosmos with a patience that spans billions of years? Again, that later interpretation would allow science to predict the physical mechanisms of reality while religion can explain things they understand through faith, and there need be no discrepancies.

[ydoaPs]

God didnt plant anything, men see certain things and say they support there theories. He simply allows you to believe lies, but he isnt responsible for them.

 

How do you, then, explain the fact that we can see the other side of the galaxy?

[mooeypoo]

God didnt plant anything, men see certain things and say they support there theories. He simply allows you to believe lies, but he isnt responsible for them.

That would make him malicious, wouldn't it? Also, how could anyone be blamed for "falling" for a godly coverup?

 

Quite a convincing coverup, too.

[ydoaPs]

How do you, then, explain the fact that we can see the other side of the galaxy?

 

blood_pardon, I'm going to be in the middle of the ocean for a while, so it will take some time for me to get back to you, but I'm going to leave you with a question.

 

You've already stated that god doesn't plant false information(so, you've already cut yourself off from that out), so I want to see how you answer this. The speed of light is constant(if it wasn't, both Special Relativity[one of the best tested theories EVER] and our understanding of electricity[Maxwell's Equations which predicted the speed of light] are completely wrong; neither your GPS nor your computer would work). Our galaxy is approximately 100000 light-years across(a light year is the distance a beam of light travels in one Earth year). How is it, if the Universe is only 6000 years old, that we can see the edge of our galaxy(and WELL past)?

 

We can actually see billions of light years away, which means the universe MUST be billions of years old.

Edited January 24, 2010 by ydoaPs

[mooeypoo]

I'd also like to point out that you can measure the speed of an electromagnetic wave (and hence, of light) at home, quite simply, without trusting the collective judgments of remote laboratories.

 

 

 

 

Shameless plug, sure, but in good context. Try it out, it's fun.

[StringJunky]

Amazing what you can do with a bit of chocolate!

[Law]

blood_pardon, I'm going to be in the middle of the ocean for a while, so it will take some time for me to get back to you, but I'm going to leave you with a question.

 

You've already stated that god doesn't plant false information(so, you've already cut yourself off from that out), so I want to see how you answer this. The speed of light is constant(if it wasn't, both Special Relativity[one of the best tested theories EVER] and our understanding of electricity[Maxwell's Equations which predicted the speed of light] are completely wrong; neither your GPS nor your computer would work). Our galaxy is approximately 100000 light-years across(a light year is the distance a beam of light travels in one Earth year). How is it, if the Universe is only 6000 years old, that we can see the edge of our galaxy(and WELL past)?

 

We can actually see billions of light years away, which means the universe MUST be billions of years old.

 

Playing advocate but arent there systems moving away FASTER then light??

 

as for time...i think its reletive to the location...how far can things further towards the edge of the universe see?? because they would (i think) be older then us since they are moving away

 

God and science to me go hand in hand...he makes everything fit and since we are in His image we have the genius, and intuition just built in from the start...if its not in our DNA...then there really is possibly some sort of 4th dimension to life that we cant see

 

Its like when people KNEW the world was flat(false info by God?)...and that was only what?? some xxx years ago??

 

everything works too well with overall decay and recycling to say its just coincidence...or maybe it is...

 

Im torn like most people...the universe is definitely older then 6000 years simply because we see further away then that...I personally think we are trapped in this sort of 3d world with these resources and (Scientific) Laws are able to create things out of them

 

has anybody been able to create something out of absolutely nothing??

No. Its Impossible, that would make us God Himself.

 

I wish we had the answers to what created everything on the Atomic level...

 

Do you guys think there will be a big crunch?? and eventual big bang again??

 

If so...do you think everything will happen JUST as it was again?(destiny?)

 

Sorry if I sound confusing and flustered...I just happen to be contemplating this topic to myself when it was on the forums:doh: i havent been on these in almost a year...great timing huh

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Playing advocate but arent there systems moving away FASTER then light??

 

Sort of. They're not actually moving. It's just that space itself is expanding, so they're getting farther away from us at over the speed of light -- but the galaxies aren't actually moving particularly fast at all.

 

Imagine inflating a balloon with dots on the surface. The dots get farther apart, but they're not actually moving around on the balloon.

[Law]

Sort of. They're not actually moving. It's just that space itself is expanding, so they're getting farther away from us at over the speed of light -- but the galaxies aren't actually moving particularly fast at all.

 

Imagine inflating a balloon with dots on the surface. The dots get farther apart, but they're not actually moving around on the balloon.

 

thanks for the explanation

[michel123456]

(...)The reason for the controversy is believers around the world recognize that the "smart people" have forgotten to figure God in to there equations and so therefore fail as scientists.

 

(...) Time is such an interesting subject (...).

 

To answer you ? no I have never been formally taught on the subject. I was but everyone was so mean to this science teacher that no one wanted to learn anything ever. I failed biology that year, my senior year the teacher was a Christian that out right refused to teach it and no one said anything.

 

Blood_pardon is actually testing the forum as a priest would have done. His question about space is a tricky one. But nevertheless he is honest. He speaks straight. Good for him.

What I would say is this:

_"no one wanted to learn anything ever" except you I hope.

_your biology teacher's behaviour is criminal. I am really surprised that "no one said anything."

_time is really an interesting subject.

_IMHO the mean thing is to remain sceptic. If you want the Truth and only but the Truth, search for it, I believe you are doing that already.

_speaking for myself, I always suppose that there is progress in knowledge, so that last explanationsd are more reliable than ancient ones. Following that simple procedure, I have some difficulty to accept explanations coming from a 2000 years (or older) book, even if it is a Holy one.

_Many scientists are believers. They see God everywhere in the structure of the universe as explained by modern science. Some of them use last discoveries in order to support their belief. Some others do exactly the opposite (mirrored): they use last discoveries to explain their no-belief. Both roads are wide opened. But none of them stand on a word-to-word interpretation of the scriptures.

 

Now, about space. The question of "was space existing before..." is related with the concept of creation. Creation is a concept coming from western christian culture. In other civilisations, there is no such a concept, but only an eternal circle like the seasons of the year. As I said in some other thread, the Big-Bang Theory is the modern derivation of the Creation concept, introduced by a creationist priest, accepted by the Pope, you should like it.

 

Of course, your question will remain.

[blood_pardon]

A Catholic priest proposed the Big Bang. What does that say about that organization?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

_"no one wanted to learn anything ever" except you I hope.

_your biology teacher's behaviour is criminal. I am really surprised that "no one said anything."

_time is really an interesting subject.

_IMHO the mean thing is to remain sceptic. If you want the Truth and only but the Truth' date=' search for it, I believe you are doing that already.

_speaking for myself, I always suppose that there is progress in knowledge, so that last explanationsd are more reliable than ancient ones. Following that simple procedure, I have some difficulty to accept explanations coming from a 2000 years (or older) book, even if it is a Holy one.

_Many scientists are believers. They see God everywhere in the structure of the universe as explained by modern science. Some of them use last discoveries in order to support their belief. Some others do exactly the opposite (mirrored): they use last discoveries to explain their no-belief. Both roads are wide opened. But none of them stand on a word-to-word interpretation of the scriptures.[/quote']

 

_I didn't want to be taught about millions of years but its in the curriculum.

_The teachers contract was terminated

_the mean thing is to remain skeptic? unless the bible is true.

[mooeypoo]

A Catholic priest proposed the Big Bang. What does that say about that organization?

That the person proposing is irrelevant. The evidence is.

 

_I didn't want to be taught about millions of years but its in the curriculum.

_The teachers contract was terminated

_the mean thing is to remain skeptic? unless the bible is true.

If you can provide half the amount of evidence to your last assertion as to that of evolution, then it becomes worth considering. Otherwise, it bcomes a theological argument (which we're not going to have).

 

In any case Pascal's Wager has been answered quite a lot by philosophers and is not much of a logical argument.

 

~moo

[Galindo]

What is evolution? Well in simple terms it is change. We can't control what exists on the physical side of our world, but we can change our mind and the way we think. Mind over matter.

[michel123456]

That the person proposing is irrelevant. The evidence is.

 

Next starry night, look at the sky, that is the evidence.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

A Catholic priest proposed the Big Bang. What does that say about that organization?

It looks to me there are not stupid at all, and that some of its ministers accept scientific procedure. But that doesn't mean there are open minded.

 

_the mean thing is to remain skeptic? unless the bible is true.

 

Maybe the Bible is true. Maybe not. That's skepticism.

The world is full of holy books. Christians, Hebrews, Muslims, Hinduists, Buddists have their own. Don't be so sure you had the chance to be born in the culture who got the right one.

[pywakit]

Sisyphus writes:

 

It seems like you're thinking of space and time as an overarching, solid framework in which all the "stuff" there is is placed. However, it has been discovered that this is not the case. Space itself expands over time and bends in the presence of mass. The farther you go back in time, the less space there was. Time is not a constant clock ticking in the background, but different depending on where you are in the universe, and what your velocity is relative to everything else. It happens that more time can pass for one person than another, and that events that are simultaneous for one person are not so for another. And on and on.

 

Hey there. Got a few questions. If the above is true, and space and time did not exist before the BB ( I was just reading some Paul Davies ), then why are respected cosmologists, and astrophysicists theorizing cycling universes? Did you not just say ( in an earlier post ... maybe I am confusing you with someone else ) that nothing, not space ... not time ... not ANYTHING existed before the BB?

 

The second law of thermodynamics can NOT be violated. Right? And the universe is on a one way trip ... It is going to expand into nothing. So how can all these guys ignore this?

 

I'm curious. What's going to happen to all that 'left-over' space when our universe has decayed and dissolved back to nothing? That space that only came into existence for the pleasure of our universe?

 

What is it going to do? Turn back to 'never was'? Seems to me with all that 'expanding space' so many are ( nearly ) certain sprang out of the ( whatever ) .... that was 'manufactured' to give our matter/energy a location to hang out in ... you are going to have a pretty big area of space left over when that last atom decays into nothing. Like a few gazillion cubic lightyears worth.

 

Time going to stop, too? I guess it must, because there will be no more atoms to decay. So all that space .... all 10^1,000,000 plus cubic kilometers of it will just sit there. Frozen in time. Empty space. For eternity. How sad.

 

Pretty nice though, for the universe to go to all this trouble.

 

Wait! I get it. It's going to shrink back to 'never was' as the matter/energy decays into nothing. Great! No space left over.

 

Hmmmm.

 

But what about that theorized space that just keeps expanding on it's own? I'm so confused.

 

I mean, inflationary theory, which seems pretty mainstream now, just has space/matter/energy constantly filling in the gaps ... so to speak. What's going to turn THAT spigot off? So is it going to go on forever, then? New matter materializing ... always filling in ... sort of a 'steady state' universe. Eternal, but with a beginning. Interesting.

 

Point is, we don't have conclusive proof that either time, or space started with our universe. All we can say with certainty, is the physical structure we call the visible/local universe had a beginning. And we exist in this universe that we think is about 13.7 billion years old. And that 'our' visible/local universe is going to end ... at some point, and in some fashion that ALSO don't know for certain.

 

In fact, to be perfectly accurate about this, there are a whole lot of respected scientists with a whole lot of different scenarios hypothesized for not just the end of our universe, but the beginning, and what came before.

 

I am not on board with blood pardon on this god thing, but in the interest of accuracy, I feel it important to take care not to speak in absolutes. Unless it really IS an absolute. Not just accepted theory.

 

The people reading this may just assume you are absolutely correct without checking the facts for themselves. Even though you have suggested they do. You sound so authoritative. Paul Davies even more so. I would just take your word for it.

 

It would be unreasonable to expect you to understand all of this right away, or even to take my word for it that these things are proven to be the case. In fact I encourage you to look into it yourself. All I ask is that you admit that the universe is more complicated and less intuitive than it seems, and that there are things you don't understand. And so comments like "I am 100% sure of this," or even "there isn't sufficient evidence for BB" (when it's clear you haven't really grasped what the BB is, let alone the evidence for it) are not warranted. Ok?

______________

Edited January 28, 2010 by pywakit

[Leader Bee]

 

 

 

I'm curious. What's going to happen to all that 'left-over' space when our universe has decayed and dissolved back to nothing? That space that only came into existence for the pleasure of our universe?

 

 

Wait! I get it. It's going to shrink back to 'never was' as the matter/energy decays into nothing. Great! No space left over.

 

 

This is a common misconception within the general populace that I see. Space was never expanding into something. Space is just expanding as there is "Nothing" for it to expand into and there will not be left over space when it begins or if it begins to decay; it cannot receed from something that isn't there.

 

As for the BB, my understanding is that it always was there, the universe was compacted into an infinitely small singularity. It was never created by the BB, just expanded by it. Keeping in line with conservation of energy I don't see how this could just dissapear and believe it would just return to a singularity if the big crunch has any validity.

[Mr Skeptic]

A Catholic priest proposed the Big Bang. What does that say about that organization?

 

And the Pope accepts evolution. Perhaps they remember from that one time they had a disagreement with a scientist called Galileo, to whom they have now appologized. What does that say? That they don't let their faith blind them to what can be seen. Unlike other religions.

[Sisyphus]

pywakit -

 

Where did I say that time and space began with the BB? I didn't, because neither I nor anyone else knows if that is the case. So I guess that kind of takes the wind out of your whole rant, huh? Is there anything I did say that is disputed by anyone taken seriously? Not that I know of. I spoke in very general terms partly to avoid getting bogged down in stuff like that.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And the Pope accepts evolution. Perhaps they remember from that one time they had a disagreement with a scientist called Galileo, to whom they have now appologized. What does that say? That they don't let their faith blind them to what can be seen. Unlike other religions.

 

But why would a young earth creationist accept the Copernican revolution, even today?

Edited January 28, 2010 by Sisyphus

[pywakit]

pywakit -

 

Where did I say that time and space began with the BB? I didn't, because neither I nor anyone else knows if that is the case. So I guess that kind of takes the wind out of your whole rant, huh? Is there anything I did say that is disputed by anyone taken seriously? Not that I know of. I spoke in very general terms partly to avoid getting bogged down in stuff like that.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

But why would a young earth creationist accept the Copernican revolution, even today?

 

Did you not notice the 'disclaimer' where I said I might have confused you with another poster? Lol. So sensitive!

 

Anyway, I was just teasing the science community. The material I was reading by Davies was still stuck in my head. Here is a guy who is rather adamant about the way the universe functions.

 

I apologize for annoying you. Doesn't anyone here have a sense of the absurd? What does it take to make someone laugh at themselves around here? Too unseemly?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And the Pope accepts evolution. Perhaps they remember from that one time they had a disagreement with a scientist called Galileo, to whom they have now appologized. What does that say? That they don't let their faith blind them to what can be seen. Unlike other religions.

 

OK! Now I am ticked off! Are you joking? They tortured Galileo. Forced him to sign a 'confession' repudiating his theories. Placed him under house arrest for the remainder of his life. The only reason he wasn't tortured to DEATH like so many other heretics of the day ( the Church felt compelled to 'protect' the HOLY RELIGION ) was because Galileo had enjoyed a long friendship with the ( then ) current pope in prior days. Plus, Galileo was a respected teacher, mathemetician, and very popular.

 

It took the Church about 100 years to 'grudgingly accept' that we 'might' live in a heliocentric universe. Get real.

 

It was in 1992 that the pope 'apologized' to the descendants of Galileo. Fat lot of good that did the poor man. And that apology? Yea, right. The pope apologized for a 'misunderstanding'. What BULL. I read that apology. Not once did the pope say flatly ... " We were wrong. Galileo was right."

 

It took these 'forward thinking' nutcases THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY YEARS to admit anything at ALL. Give me a break!

 

So what does THAT say about those psychopaths? Never heard of the Inquisition? Know much about it? Did you know that Inquisitors paid people to 'rat out' heretics? Do you know the various ways the Church tortured their victims? Know how they killed them? Know how long this insanity lasted?

 

Did you know the Office of the Inquistion still exists, and still feels exactly as they did all those years ago? The Church, and it's dogma MUST be protected. The only thing holding these jerks back today is the LAWS of MAN. If they had their way, it would be a ONE WORLD ORDER. THEIRS!

 

Maybe I misunderstood your comments. if so, I am sorry. But anyone suggesting the Church is finally in touch with reality is bereft of the facts.

 

PS: That sex scandal ... the one that the individual diocese are still declaring bankruptcy over. Think it was just a 50 year cover-up? Guess again. That BS has lasted as long as the Church has lasted. Over 1000 years. You really should take the time to research the Church. Oh yes ... these are people who won't let themselves be 'blinded by faith'.

 

The lives these people ruined. The families they tore apart. It was stunning in it's breadth, and scope. There is no defending these people. Truly sick.

 

I'm sorry for the 'off-topic' remarks. I need to keep my outrage to myself. Blood pardon is correct in that certain individual members of the Church have made contributions to science. But it is a rare thing indeed.

Edited January 28, 2010 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.