Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Some musings of mine - Athiests answer me this, cell division

  • Thread starter Thread starter Frackal
  • Start date Start date
the big bang Theory was thought to exist because it explains why distant galaxies are traveling away from us at great speeds but it has a huge hole in it. As it is most athiests believe that matter is " self existent " and if the big bang theory did occur then where the the matter come from to begin with? with no outside force , no energy, and no intelligence matter would have had to become existent. on the other hand the earth has been " proved " to be millions of years old by examining strata which , oddly enough, can be replicated to the equivelent of 5 billion years of aging in a matter of minutes.
 
As humans have seen, occurrences with minute probabilities eventually occur over a infinite amount of time.

if this is true is still would not explain where the first atom of matter came from. If nothing is there to begin time certainly is not going to make matter appear from no where.
 
Mattavelli said:
the big bang Theory was thought to exist because it explains why distant galaxies are traveling away from us at great speeds but it has a huge hole in it. As it is most athiests believe that matter is " self existent " and if the big bang theory did occur then where the the matter come from to begin with? with no outside force , no energy, and no intelligence matter would have had to become existent. on the other hand the earth has been " proved " to be millions of years old by examining strata which , oddly enough, can be replicated to the equivelent of 5 billion years of aging in a matter of minutes.

If your question is "Where did the original matter (that formed the big bang) come from," well, then I do not have an answer.
 
heres a quote by a friend of mine

" In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work!! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position."


I just wanted to try and make you think. Maybe you dont care at all, but your an intelligent person and to think that you are a product of chance...thats not logical to me darwin himself admitted that the formation of the eye to random chance mutation was " obsurd in the highest degree ". Even still he held his beliefs till he died i dont think he ever recanted as is rumored. Nevertheless you will beleive what you believe. I just hope you are right.
Good day my friend
 
Mattavelli said:
I just wanted to try and make you think. Maybe you dont care at all, but your an intelligent person and to think that you are a product of chance...thats not logical to me darwin himself admitted that the formation of the eye to random chance mutation was " obsurd in the highest degree ". Even still he held his beliefs till he died i dont think he ever recanted as is rumored. Nevertheless you will beleive what you believe. I just hope you are right.
Good day my friend

You did make me think and I appreciate that. It seems that there are a few things I need to consider before I dismiss faith in God because of scientific data. Good night, brother.
 
Everything moving in this universe was moved by something else.


What then was the uncaused cause?
 
the purpose of my statements reguarding the universe is that there was a beginning, however athiests maintain that matter is self existing and has not been created, but these same athiests believe in a theory like the big bang...if you disect Mr Hawkings theory and reverse the big bang it would bring the universe to a point , which scientists call singularity, which also would signify a beginning. Of course unless you still wanna hold that matter came from nothing to begin with. As i believe God was that cause if that is what your looking for in your question. God could have very well created the world using something like the Big Bang theory but as is told in the Bible this is not true. And as is the Big Bang is still a theory.
 
and if you still want to maintain everything is mere chance Here are some facts i have found. I cannot validate these but i found them interesting, that is if in fact they are true.

"1 Gravitational coupling constant If larger: No stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar lifespans
If smaller: No stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
2 Strong nuclear force coupling constant If larger: No hydrogen; nuclei essential for life are unstable
If smaller: No elements other than hydrogen
3 Weak nuclear force coupling constant If larger: All hydrogen is converted to helium in the big bang, hence too much heavy elements
If smaller: No helium produced from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
4 Electromagnetic coupling constant If larger: No chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron are unstable to fission
If smaller: No chemical bonding
5 Ratio of protons to electrons formation If larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
If smaller: Electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
6 Ratio of electron to proton mass If larger: No chemical bonding
If smaller: No chemical bonding
7 Expansion rate of the universe If larger: No galaxy formation
If smaller: Universe collapses prior to star formation
8 Entropy level of universe If larger: No star condensation within the proto-galaxies
If smaller: No proto-galaxy formation
9 Mass density of the universe If larger: Too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly
If smaller: No helium from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
10 Age of the universe If older: No solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
If younger: Solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
11 Initial uniformity of radiation If smoother: Stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
If coarser: Universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
12 Average distance between stars If larger: Heavy element density too thin for rocky planet production
If smaller: Planetary orbits become destabilized
13 Solar luminosity If increases too soon: Runaway green house effect
If increases too late: Frozen oceans
14 Fine structure constant* If larger: No stars more than 0.7 solar masses
If smaller: No stars less then 1.8 solar masses
15 Decay rate of the proton If greater: Life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
If smaller: Insufficient matter in the universe for life
16 12C to 16O energy level ratio If larger: Insufficient oxygen
If smaller: Insufficient carbon
17 Decay rate of 8Be If slower: Heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
If faster: No element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible
18 Mass difference between the neutron and the proton If greater: Protons would decay before stable nuclei could form
If smaller: Protons would decay before stable nuclei could form
19 Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons If greater: Too much radiation for planets to form
If smaller: Not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form
20 Galaxy type If too elliptical: Star formation ceases before sufficient heavy element buildup for life chemistry
If too irregular: Radiation exposure on occasion is too severe and/or heavy elements for life chemistry are not available
21 Parent star distance from center of galaxy If farther: Quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets
If closer: Stellar density and radiation would be too great
22 Number of stars in the planetary system If more than one: Tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits
If less than one: Heat produced would be insufficient for life
23 Parent star birth date If more recent: Star wuld not yet have reached stable burning phase
If less recent: Stellar system would not yet contain enough heavy elements
24 Parent star mass If greater: Luminosity would change too fast; star would burn too rapidly
If less: Range of distances appropriate for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period for a planet of the right distance; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen
25 Parent star age If older: Luminosity of star would change too quickly
If younger: Luminosity of star would change too quickly
26 Parent star color If redder: Photosynthetic response would be insufficient
If bluer: Photosynthetic response would be insufficient
27 Supernovae eruptions If too close: Life on the planet would be exterminated
If too far: Not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
If too infrequent: Not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
If too frequent: Life on the planet would be exterminated
28 Whiete dwarf binaries If too few: Insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed
If too many: Disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated
29 Surface gravity (escape velocity) If stronger: Atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane
If weaker: Planet's atmosphere would lose too much water
30 Distance from parent star If farther: Planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle
If closer: Planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle
31 Inclination of orbit If too great: Temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme
32 Orbital eccentricity If too great: Seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme
33 Axial tilt If greater: Surface temperature differences would be too great
If less: Surface temperature differences would be too great
34 Rotation period If longer: Diurnal temperature differences would be too great
If shorter: Atmospheric wind velocities would be too great
35 Gravitational interaction with a moon If greater: Tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe
If less: Orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities
36 Magnetic field If stronger: Electromagnetic storms would be too severe
If weaker: Inadequate protection from hard steller radiation
37 Thickness of crust If thicker: Too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust
If thinner: Volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great
38 Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface) If greater: Runaway ice age would develop
If less: Runaway green house effect would develop
39 Oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere If larger: Advanced life functions would proceed too quickly
If smaller: Advanced life functions would proceed too slowly
40 Carbon dioxide level in atmosphere If greater: Runaway greenhouse effect would develop
If less: Plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis
41 Water vapor level in atmosphere If greater: Runaway greenhouse effect would develop
If less: Rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land
42 Ozone level in atmosphere If greater: Surface temperatures would be too low
If less Surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the surface
43 Atmospheric electric discharge rate If greater: Too much fire destruction would occur
If less: Too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere
44 Oxygen quantity in atmosphere If greater: Plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily
If less: Advanced animals would have too little to breathe
45 Oceans to continents ratio If greater: Diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
If smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
46 Soil mineralization If too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
If too nutrient rich: Diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
47 Seismic activity If greater: Too many life-forms would be destroyed
If less: Nutrients on ocean floors (from river runoff) would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift
*(a function of three other fundamental constants, Planck's constant, the velocity of light, and the electron charge each of which, therefore, must be fine-tuned) "
 
Top Bottom