Scientists Re-Create Big Bang in Lab

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dreaz said:
The Big Bang is a reference point in the time/space continuum. It is not a "beginning" because space is curved, and curves--like the sphere of the Earth--don't really have a "beginning". Asking what comes "before" the big bang is pop-science. It really just shows your ignorance in the universe, not your curiosity.
Click to expand...

An excellent way to put it. I often try to explain to people that its not really a creation theory, that describes the dynamical evolution of the universe to its present state based on observations regarding the distribution of matter and energy, the redshift/expansion, microwave background, broken gauge symmetries and such.
 
Parmenides said:
The Liberia Flag is very similar to the United States flag. But it would be doubtful to imagine millions of years worth of printer ink errors in a USA flag factory to accidentally produce liberian flag. It's logically possible, but in practice it just doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

You're right, it doesn't happen on accident. However you list a flag version of evolution considering Liberia was created by freed slaves from the US and local tribesman from pre-Civil War US efforts. It was a manner of escape for free blacks to get home to Africa. The locals didn't have a concept of a flag but the freed blacks did and so in an effort to honor their ties and show mutual heritage, they took the US flag colors and modified them to represent their new country. Even the name of the country symbolizes what was going on. It was also an effort at protection since viewing the colony as American would prevent French and British interference in the efforts to start this.

Changes occur, even now we're seeing them with the increase in natural breast size of women over the last 2 or 3 decades. You also don't believe cows were always lazy beasts of burden? We bred them to be what they are. Same with most domesticated animals.
 
Wow, it only took 15 posts for this to derail in a science/religion clusterfuck, and the post that sparked it had nothing to do with the posts that came before it.
 
The anti-evolution crowd in this thread should read this article:

http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

I'm pretty sure it covers every objection raised in this thread. There is much more evidence supporting evolution out there if you bother to look. Choosing to disbelieve facts or remain ignorant of them is certainly your right, but disbelief or ignorance does not change reality.
 
In before Raptor Jesus

raptor-jesus1.jpg
 
So yeah, how about that LHC?

Pretty nifty that they can re-produce similar things to the supposed Big Bang. It moves your regular English theory closer to the Scientific style of theory. E.g: concrete.

Isn't that awesome?
 
Using HR diagram observation technique, globular clusters can be 30 billion years old. But if astronomers value their careers, they should not be caught espousing any Hubble heresy.

Sadly, big bang is the theory modern astrophysicists base their entire cosmology upon. Sadly, I say, because the whole thing is based on misunderstood redshift. The modern "accepted" explanation for redshift effect is that the observed object must be moving away usually from the observer.

Halton Arp contends that redshift is caused mainly by an object's being young, and only secondarily because of its velocity. Big bang theory and all its supporting science is false.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
Good Grief.

The Big Bang is a theory.
Nothing more.
Just because it is the theory that most people hang their hat on does not change the fact it is a theory; a GUESS.
The same with evolution and the rest of the theories people pick and chose from to complete the portfolio that makes up what they believe.
And to ridicule people that believe God had something to do with it is being rather hypocritical since it is a matter if faith to believe in a theory.
Click to expand...
+1

Couldn't have said it better.
 
After reading the article, my thoughts are indifferent to my previous post (no change).

Scientists say a tiny ball of matter exploded and then quickly formed a melted "soup" of matter, which then re-ordered itself into what is now the universe.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a "big bang." To me, based on what I read of the article, all they did was collide some things together with a great amount of force at a great amount of pressure (which temperature is directly proportional to), and it created heat for a trillionth of a second. Oh, wow. I can do that by just rubbing my hands together; my parent's diesel engine does the same in its combustion of gas via pressure.

Matter is neither created nor destroyed. That soup of matter referred to is essentially no more different mixing different kinds of sand together. Reordered itself into today's universe they say? What kind of intelligence does matter possess in order to so brilliantly and perfectly assemble itself into such a system as today's universe? And how can you explain the planets and moons that spin and orbit backwards?

Nothing about the Big Bang Theory makes sense to me, and believe me, I've honestly looked into it. there are too many factors and aspects on which I do not think the integrity of this theory can suffice. Knowledge itself is essentially a "theory" in a sort of way, because we are not the creator's of this universe but instead are its victims and subjects. Unlike a programmer, we do not and cannot really know the source code of a complex piece of software to its full and 100% integrity; reverse engineering can only go as far as attempting to describe the source code without knowing it (and this is what knowledge is).
 
Cerulean said:
What kind of intelligence does matter possess in order to so brilliantly and perfectly assemble itself into such a system as today's universe?
Click to expand...

It doesn't require intelligence, that's just how nature works. Same reason why things fall toward each other under the influence of gravity or why magnetic opposites attract. Nothing intelligent is pushing them together. Take a look at quantum mechanics to get a basic idea of the behavior on matter. Leonard Susskind has some neat lectures posted on youtube by Stanford I believe.

Anyway, when you keep asking how things work, they become more detailed and intricate. But at the end, that's simply just how it works. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM You really have to have a different mindset to understand the natural world.
 
Stone Cold said:
From dictionary.com

the·o·ry 
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. [proposition=guess]
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. [proposed=guess]
3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. [not applicable]
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory. [wikipedia, music theory is "any statement, belief, or conception of or about music"= guess].
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles. [conception=guess]
6. contemplation or speculation. [speculation=guess]
7. guess or conjecture. [guess=guess]

A theory is an educated guess. Nothing more. Any claim to the contrary is ignorance or lies.
Click to expand...
Someone needs to look up "proposition", "statement", "principle", "explanation", and "rules". I don't think you'll find the word "guess" mentioned anywhere.

Here's the deal about a scientific theory: You PROPOSE something and you provide the TEST that proves or disproves it. It's really that simple, and yet your guesses are missing half the point.

Unlike, run-of-the-mill guesses and beliefs, theories make predictions that can be demonstrated to be either true or false. And when they do turn out to be false--a fantastic thing--you modify the model and propose new hypotheses. Nothing is written in stone; nothing is sacred. However, after enough corroborating evidence, some things get pretty frickin' convincing... to the point where you move on and make further predictions and test those. Ad infinitem.

As my Organismal Biology professor implored in a creationism debate 20 years ago: "Where's the Experiment?"

[Then he went on to show us how he mutated Chlamydomonas into Volvocales and back again--through multiple intermediate forms--thereby demonstrating the evolutionary progression from unspecialized/immortal/unicellular to differentiated/mortal/multicellular organisms. Piece o' cake. Meanwhile, his opponent cracked stupid jokes about cosmology that just proved he didn't know the first thing about thermodynamics.]
 
It doesn't require intelligence, that's just how nature works.
Click to expand...
But then that's like the question "why is there so much evil in this world?" Well if you ask that question, you are implying there is also good (there has to be!). And if there is good, there has to be a moral law giver.

"Nature works this way" or "that's just how nature works" -- what or who or how or why or where "told" it or gave it its function?

Take a look at quantum mechanics to get a basic idea of the behavior on matter. Leonard Susskind has some neat lectures posted on youtube by Stanford I believe.

Anyway, when you keep asking how things work, they become more detailed and intricate. But at the end, that's simply just how it works. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM You really have to have a different mindset to understand the natural world.
Click to expand...
Ok, thanks, I will look at the video when I can (video sharing sites are blocked on the network I am on). I appreciate your maturity.
 
Stone Cold said:
From dictionary.com

the·o·ry 
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. [proposition=guess]
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. [proposed=guess]
3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. [not applicable]
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory. [wikipedia, music theory is "any statement, belief, or conception of or about music"= guess].
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles. [conception=guess]
6. contemplation or speculation. [speculation=guess]
7. guess or conjecture. [guess=guess]

A theory is an educated guess. Nothing more. Any claim to the contrary is ignorance or lies.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that electronics theory is just a guess and has no basis for being excepted as reality? Also glad to see you use computers.
 
I hope these experiments lead to all kinds of breakthroughs, I don't particularly care for the religious debate.

Everyone's gonna have their own religious beliefs, I don't really think it has any place in this thread, this thread is solely about experiments that might be able to validate a theory, and/OR lead us to a better understanding of the universe as a whole.

Leave the religious mumbo jumbo out of it.
 
Cerulean said:
But then that's like the question "why is there so much evil in this world?" Well if you ask that question, you are implying there is also good (there has to be!). And if there is good, there has to be a moral law giver.
Click to expand...

Evil and good are subjective to ones view point and moral up bringing. Only logic can determine what's good and bad imo. Just as sex outside of marriage is a sin by most religions, being it sin makes it "evil." Other societies on the other hand believes in sharing everything including wives such as the swinger movement. Killing is also subjective to ones belief. Logic dictates that killing is wrong for a number of reasons, but in some religious societies killing in the name of the religion is actually commended. But back to the topic... I think this is a very big break through in terms of understanding physics. Just imagine the science that can come from this research.
 
Hearing uneducated noobs talk about how wrong scientists are is incredibly fun. I wonder how many of you "IT'S JUST A THEORY LOL" people have actually spent anymore time than basic high school/college courses studying science.

On topic, I'm glad this has been done. Knowledge is power.
 
Crafting succeeded! You have made:
Quark-Gluon plasma!

I don't know why everyone has to turn this into a religious/science argument. Nobody is creating a "big bang" here. It's creating conditions similar to what was theorized to exist shortly after the Big Bang was supposed to have happened. It's just an exotic form of plasma that's never been studied in a laboratory before now. Sheesh.
 
Lol. It's like everyone logged off their WoW accounts to participate in this thread. It reads like a script from the Big Bang Theory.
 
Regarding the question of where the Big Bang came from--and the seeming problem of something from nothing--I suggest watching this lecture. These and other questions are answered.

I got annoyed reading a lot of the responses here (particularly the ones proclaiming "it's just a theory"... seriously, get a fucking clue and learn the difference between scientific theory (and the scientific method) and philosophical theory (i.e., ideas (e.g., "Hey! I just had a thought..."))), so I apologize if this has already been addressed.
 
RevMen said:
A scientific theory, by definition, is a collection of ideas that explain all observable phenomena and is falsifiable. Scientific theories are constantly tested until they are disproved. Until they are disproved, they are considered the best available explanation for the set of phenomena they address.
Click to expand...

Your statements starts off with the absurd and and ends with a confession that a theory is a guess. The Theory of Evolution explains all observable phenomena? :rolleyes: Then you define "theory" as best guess (tentative explanation). People with competing theories might object to "best" in that definition. And, "best" doesn't mean good. Either way, you are still defining theory as a guess.

- a statement that postulates ordered relationships among natural phenomena
Click to expand...

"Postulates" means "guess." Postulate exactly means to assume without proof. Thank you for providing the definition for "theory."

"Theory of Evolution" means Evolution is not a confirmed fact. Hence, "just a theory." And, a rather lousy one at that.
 
luigi2000 said:
Halton Arp contends that redshift is caused mainly by an object's being young, and only secondarily because of its velocity. Big bang theory and all its supporting science is false.
Click to expand...

You are correct. The Big Bang is a term referring to the hypothetical rapid expansion of the universe in its early phases (as well as "inflation" which is superluminal Big Bang velocity, dreamed up to make some contradictions go away). But, there is absolutely no mechanism for this expansion, other than magic and wishes which has been given the cool sci-fi name "dark energy" ("dark" means it doesn't exist, ;) ).

If Big Bangers had any real substance to their wild beliefs, they wouldn't resort to calling subatomic collisions Big Bangs in the lab.
 
Powerage said:
Hearing uneducated noobs talk about how wrong scientists are is incredibly fun. I wonder how many of you "IT'S JUST A THEORY LOL" people have actually spent anymore time than basic high school/college courses studying science.

On topic, I'm glad this has been done. Knowledge is power.
Click to expand...

Even paying attention in high school physics, chemistry, and other science classes teaches you about the basics of the scientific method - what a scientific theory is, what a

I always attribute the "just a guess" people to a failure of U.S. schools. I suspect most of these people either got Ds in their HS science classes, or slept through them, or something.

I remember that Neil deGrasse was on the Colbert Report a while ago talking about how we need to teach science in schools and how it is undertaught. People don't understand the basics of science at all. But heck, a lot of people think the Sun revolves around the Earth. :rolleyes:
 
Stone Cold said:
But, there is absolutely no mechanism for this expansion, other than magic and wishes which has been given the cool sci-fi name "dark energy" ("dark" means it doesn't exist, ;) ).
Click to expand...
Argument from ignorance. 'Dark' in this context refers to that which cannot be directly observed. We can, however, infer the existence of both dark energy and dark matter through observation of their effect upon the rest of the universe.

Seriously. Watch the video I linked above. If you pay attention and actually try to understand, you may find that your misconceptions about physics slowly give way to comprehension. Please try.
 
GreenMonkey said:
Even paying attention in high school physics, chemistry, and other science classes teaches you about the basics of the scientific method - what a scientific theory is, what a

I always attribute the "just a guess" people to a failure of U.S. schools. I suspect most of these people either got Ds in their HS science classes, or slept through them, or something.

I remember that Neil deGrasse was on the Colbert Report a while ago talking about how we need to teach science in schools and how it is undertaught. People don't understand the basics of science at all. But heck, a lot of people think the Sun revolves around the Earth. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I was going to say the same thing. We learned about the scientific method since what, elementary school? It starts out with an educated guess: hypothesis. After personal testing and results, you can confirm/deny your hypothesis. The longer it withstands the trials of scientific testing and scrutiny by other people (which greatly reduces bias), the better the evidence supports the hypothesis, becoming a (classical) scientific theory. Keyword being "greatly," as it's an institution made by humans and totally eliminating bias is very slim. This is all basic HS/college level understanding. Also, Neil Tyson rocks. :D

People just like the sound of certainty to make themselves feel more secure. Back then, we had "laws" like Newton's laws of motion and gravity. Today, we would probably call them theories to be more thoughtful with what the institution is discovering.

For those who aren't convinced by the current evidence presented for the Big Bang Theory, show us a convincing theory with sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise.
 
Stone Cold said:
"Theory of Evolution" means Evolution is not a confirmed fact. Hence, "just a theory." And, a rather lousy one at that.
Click to expand...

What qualification do you have to judge the scientific validity of evolution? I will go out on a wild limb here and say none. There is not one respected biologist out there that does not believe in evolution. This is because biologists observe validations of the theory in all of their research. Evolution is the most important and most explanatory theory in all of biology and has been for the last 150 years. It has only been strengthened by 150 years of rigorous testing and even the development of fields that one could not even imagine when the theory was first proposed.

Evolution is as much a fact as gravity...which is also "just a theory."
 
BGK said:
What qualification do you have to judge the scientific validity of evolution? I will go out on a wild limb here and say none. There is not one respected biologist out there that does not believe in evolution. This is because biologists observe validations of the theory in all of their research. Evolution is the most important and most explanatory theory in all of biology and has been for the last 150 years. It has only been strengthened by 150 years of rigorous testing and even the development of fields that one could not even imagine when the theory was first proposed.

Evolution is as much a fact as gravity...which is also "just a theory."
Click to expand...

actually gravity is just a dyson placed in the center of the earth which is sucking through millions of microscopic holes in the surface of the earth to hold us down.

my plan is to stick it to the man, or in this case the dyson, and put my anti-gravity boots on.
 
I hope we are one step closer to finding the evidence that will support superstring theory or M-theory :D
 
I never get all these sciences vs. religeous debates.
Proving that some thing can be done in some way doesn't disprove anything. It just proves theres rules to things, which probably proves the exsistence of some kind of deity more. Originally scientist were religious people, science was called "natural philosophy". I don't really care either way, but proving there was a big bang or whatever doesn't disprove "god" or whatever. Just shows the method by which it was done. Plus neither debate is winnable. You can't disprove something that isn't supposed to have any way of detecting it. You can't prove it because it's supposed to be unbelievable. Its just a big waste of time.
 
Stone Cold said:
Your statements starts off with the absurd and and ends with a confession that a theory is a guess. The Theory of Evolution explains all observable phenomena? :rolleyes: Then you define "theory" as best guess (tentative explanation). People with competing theories might object to "best" in that definition. And, "best" doesn't mean good. Either way, you are still defining theory as a guess.



"Postulates" means "guess." Postulate exactly means to assume without proof. Thank you for providing the definition for "theory."

"Theory of Evolution" means Evolution is not a confirmed fact. Hence, "just a theory." And, a rather lousy one at that.
Click to expand...

I see you choose to skip my question.... Got cya ;)
 
Stone Cold said:
Your statements starts off with the absurd and and ends with a confession that a theory is a guess. The Theory of Evolution explains all observable phenomena? :rolleyes: Then you define "theory" as best guess (tentative explanation). People with competing theories might object to "best" in that definition. And, "best" doesn't mean good. Either way, you are still defining theory as a guess.



"Postulates" means "guess." Postulate exactly means to assume without proof. Thank you for providing the definition for "theory."

"Theory of Evolution" means Evolution is not a confirmed fact. Hence, "just a theory." And, a rather lousy one at that.
Click to expand...

Here's a good example. Let's say there's this random human male and people call him hundreds of names and he only responds to Steve. If you call him any other name, he doesn't respond. If you yell out Stevie, he might respond. If you yell out Steve-o, he hates you and ignores you. If you call him Richard (middle name) you have to be an aunt or somehow related. If you use the other dozen or so nicknames for him, he may or may not respond and if he does, it could change his behavior around you. So, by scientific theory, his name is Steve, in theory, with the constants that you need to be related to call him Richard and Steve-o illicits unwanted behavior in the reference we're calling "Steve". Now, other nicknames illicit different reactions so we'll need to test those further but for the moment we are content with "Steve" being his name as it all seems to revolve around that.

Now, let's say someone comes along with a birth certificate that says his legal name is "Steve". Well now we have to repeat the above testing again to confirm previous results and after doing diligent research and experimentation (actually asking his mom) then you decide his name is Steve and move on. This does not mean that Steve is the answer or a finite solution. Only that it's the best theory present... scientifically speaking.. as that's where all the evidence points.

Experimentation doesn't always result or even start trying to disprove something nor do results automatically confirm something. It's just one step in the long chain of figuring out Steve.

Back on topic, I like the idea of protons and neutrons melting for some reason. It makes me hungry for ice cream for some reason.

Of course, my THEORY is that dark matter is just Bose-Einstein condensate material. Hence it captures all light going into it and emits no reflection yet has mass and could naturally occur in pockets in deep space outside of the faintest warmth of a star.

Oh.. and for those wondering why it's being called a Big Bang type experiment. Ask a physicist to explain something 'in layman's terms' about what the LHC is doing on any given day. My bet is, they'll say something about phase transitions and theories and objects moving at M but the reporter will just stare blankly until the scientist sighs, gives up the actual explanation, and resorts to "We're recreating things as they might have occurred in the moments after the Big Bang" to which the reporter smiles and THEN starts writing up the sound bite and the researcher walks away depressed.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
1In other words time is an illusion.
So are you saying before the big bang was the universe and time is just in "replay" mode eternally?

Here you are comparing apples and oranges. Your point is that the universe always existed. Then what is the point of the big bang theory then?2 It is because the EVIDENCE that is gathered is that the universe had a beginning. Time is linear and has a beginning.
And for all purposes that was the nanosecond the big bang happened.



Again you are saying it always existed and didn't have beginning.
3All scientific investigation produced a theory that says it did. What is scientific about your point of view hmm?
Click to expand...

I've labeled your incorrect assumptions 1, 2, and 3.

First, you misconstrue what I say into "time is an illusion". I am sorry if I did not make myself clear; time is certainly not an ilussion, however, it is intrinsically linked with space. Time and space go hand in hand and thus they directly affect each other. However, thinking of time and space as linear, or lines, is incorrect because space is curved or warped; therefore, time must be as well. This is has been known since Einstein's theory of relativity.

Your second assumption is plain wrong. It's an argument of semantics, not one the scientific community actually has. Again, this is pop science: science read translated through editors, news reporters, and the likes.

And three follows two: it is a wrong assumption. This is why conversations about the Big Bang and the Universe produce little to no results because pop-science gets in the way of actual science. I can not have a conversation with someone who doesn't actually know what he/she is talking about. If you were truly "curious", you would research and read about these things, not come onto a forum spouting stuff you heard in the latest tabloid.
 
For the laymen. Scientific Theories are called theories so that people don't call them facts and not challenge them. Einstein, Newton, Hawking. They want or should want people to disprove them.
 
The way to deal with bone-headed religious types in cases like this is that to point out that, by their own declared standards, God is "just a theory". Lots of people think God is the right answer, but recent, peer reviewed experimental data is a bit thin.

Funny how Gods' interactions with "His Creation" have varied inversely with our ability to test them, eh?
 
I'm fine with steering this topic towards the "origin of the universe" ..... just after I respond to RevMan :p ;)

BravO))) said:
The big bang theory is not how the universe is created, but more of why is the universe the way it is. What was before the big bang can not be researched for the fact there is no "reminiscence" of the time before the big bang. One of the theories of the big bang is that it will expand to a point, then contract to a single point like the beginning. I wonder if this is a cycle, and if so, is the big bang and the universe an endless cycle therefore infinite.
Click to expand...

The big bang or whatever happened a while ago is significant. It reminds us that there must be a beginning. You propose that there is an infinite sequence of events? This would mean that the big bang is an effect to some prior cause. Is that what you are getting at?

RevMen said:
No, we would not agree on that. Remember when I said that in one line of thinking all of the universe could be considered atmosphere?


But no such point exists. Space is not empty of atoms. There are hydrogen atoms scattered from here to any point in the galaxy. And even if we arrive at an objective definition, both the atmosphere and space still exist. Our objective definition, that we created ourselves, does not define what exists and what does not, it defines what words we use to describe each place. Nature doesn't care about what we choose to call atmosphere and what we choose to call space.


And where between those two events is the line? The line that you say exists defines what is real and what is not. The implications of this line are far greater than what words we use to describe things. Your line is based on the difference between reality and imagination, and is completely independent of our knowledge of it.

Putting your micro/macro line on the atmosphere example means that whatever's in the atmosphere exists, and whatever is beyond it does not exist; that the edge of the universe is on the edge of the atmosphere.

Putting your micro/macro line on the gender example means that anyone who is female exists, and anyone beyond the male line does not exist, except in the imaginations of females.

You believe very strongly that this line exists, yet have no evidence whatsoever, and even declare that no person can know. How can you know so much about something yet declare that no one can know anything about it? How can you have so much faith in the existence of this line while dismissing the millions of research hours put into shaping the modern theory of evolution?

What is the difference between micro and macro evolution? It seems like a pretty simple question that you should be able to answer objectively.

How much different can a dog get from a wolf before nature puts on the brakes?

What natural mechanism enforces the division between micro and macro evolution?
Click to expand...

I doesn't matter whether you call the outer space atmosphere or not, there is a HUGE difference between outer space and the atmosphere we live in. The line's location doesn't matter.

I think you are getting confused on what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that "Macro-evolution doesn't exist, just like air in the atmosphere doesn't exist." I am not saying that! All I am saying is that there is a distinction between outer space and earth's atmosphere. And that our failure to define a line has no bearing upon the distinction between earth's atmosphere and outer space. Same goes for macro/micro.

If you want a line, fine, I'll give you a pseudo-definition for now. Though I might see flaws with the definition (bear with me as this is a working definition subject to change): Micro is what's observable and repeatable (hence scientific). Macro is what isn't observable and not supported by the fossil record. This in addition to the basic understanding that "Macro" is large changes, while "Micro" is small changes.

I'd have to get into taxonomy before I get into better definitions. The funny thing is, is that taxonomy has boundaries and lines, though they aren't always easy to define either. You like to ask questions like: "how far does it take before a cat could be considered a dog." The line isn't easily defined and the "limits" vary from animal family to animal family. And perhaps the limit is the family, or maybe genus, or somewhere between. I can't say. If I were a taxonomist, I could help better with a definition. Perhaps the working definition of "what's observable" to "what's not observable" can help one see the distinction, without knowing the limits.

gigatexal said:
wow some close minded people here thinking that religion and science can't get along. This probably stems from some who believe that creation was ex-nihilo which is completely bogus imho. God who is omniscient works within laws he just knows them a lot better, things were created from something.
Click to expand...

Religion and science should always get along. Curious, do you believe that God is limited by the laws of nature?

satsunada said:
You're right, it doesn't happen on accident. However you list a flag version of evolution considering Liberia was created by freed slaves from the US and local tribesman from pre-Civil War US efforts. It was a manner of escape for free blacks to get home to Africa. The locals didn't have a concept of a flag but the freed blacks did and so in an effort to honor their ties and show mutual heritage, they took the US flag colors and modified them to represent their new country. Even the name of the country symbolizes what was going on. It was also an effort at protection since viewing the colony as American would prevent French and British interference in the efforts to start this.

Changes occur, even now we're seeing them with the increase in natural breast size of women over the last 2 or 3 decades. You also don't believe cows were always lazy beasts of burden? We bred them to be what they are. Same with most domesticated animals.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the history lesson. I didn't know that. (I'm not being sarcastic). I also agree with everything else you're saying too.
 
Topweasel said:
For the laymen. Scientific Theories are called theories so that people don't call them facts and not challenge them. Einstein, Newton, Hawking. They want or should want people to disprove them.
Click to expand...
This. Even the term "Law" has fallen out of favour, which is why you will never hear of the Law of Evolution or the Law of Relativity. Not because they don't have as much rigour as the so-called Laws of Motion, Thermodynamics, Conservation of Momentum, ... but because they are subject to scientific challenge.
 
Parmenides said:
Religion and science should always get along. Curious, do you believe that God is limited by the laws of nature?
Click to expand...
Ugh. Can we get off this train please? God limits himself by being infallible, omnisicent, and omnipotent. You can't be all of those things and yet change nature on a whim. That would mean you failed to correctly predict something.

Go away and let us keep smashing things together until we find out what's really up, kay?
 
If there was a beginning, in order for the universe to be what it is today there would have to been matter existing in the first place. With matter you also have gravity, time, and energy which would mean that it has always existed. Without the universe there can not be physics. Without physics there can not be a universe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top