Big Bang?

Go down

Big Bang?

Post  IzNotSpontaneous on Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:21 am

If the big bang created the universe, wouldn't that contradict the first law of thermodynamics which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed? how does that work? (and this is not meant to be a religious debate, just a simple question)
avatar
IzNotSpontaneous
Moderator
Moderator

Join date : 2008-12-03
Age : 21
Location : Kennett Square

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  Jon on Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:40 am

Ahh no... Sorry, that argument doesn't make sense because of E=mc^2.
The universe, according to the big bang, was created as just energy, but because of the above equation, energy can be converted to matter. When the universe was created, the raw energy was so powerful, but in conversion the matter that was created was on a much less magnitude. Because of the disproportionate ratio of energy:matter the universe is a lot less crowded today, as it takes a lot less matter to create energy and a lot more energy to create matter. This is why an atomic explosion can be created from a few pounds of nuclear material but a many-mile long collider at CERN can only create a few antimatter particles.

AND we can validate that large amounts of energy were present at the beginning of the universe because of CBR (cosmic background radiation), a large amount of photons that have the same extremely long wavelengths, which means, according to the theory of relativity and standard model of quantum physics, that they are very old (13.75 billion years, to be exact) and were all generated at the same time in a single, cataclismic event. This event would be the conversion of energy in to matter during the big bang.

So, yeah.

_________________

what is this I dont even dragon
avatar
Jon
Lawful Evil
Lawful Evil

Join date : 2008-11-13
Age : 22
Location : Tossing off a little number in the Caribbean

http://aicpolitickz.1forum.biz/

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  azer on Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:07 pm

This leaves us, of course, with the question of where all that energy came from...
avatar
azer
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

Join date : 2008-11-09
Age : 22
Location : Right behind you...

http://locker.palcs.org/~advtech/2009-2010/AEnsmenger/PAGE%201_E

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  IzNotSpontaneous on Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:16 pm

that was what I was thinking, any theories, Jon?
avatar
IzNotSpontaneous
Moderator
Moderator

Join date : 2008-12-03
Age : 21
Location : Kennett Square

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  Jon on Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:17 pm

azer wrote:This leaves us, of course, with the question of where all that energy came from...
And that is the root question, but it does not prove or disprove anything. There are theories to explain it and there are religious explanations, but none of these disprove the big bang; they merely say why it happened.

_________________

what is this I dont even dragon
avatar
Jon
Lawful Evil
Lawful Evil

Join date : 2008-11-13
Age : 22
Location : Tossing off a little number in the Caribbean

http://aicpolitickz.1forum.biz/

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  IzNotSpontaneous on Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:19 pm

It is true. But what really doesn't make sense to me is random chance theory, or whatever the theory that states that life was created by accident is called. I've read about that theory and heard that it is like 1 out of a trillion trillion trillion chance or something like that.
avatar
IzNotSpontaneous
Moderator
Moderator

Join date : 2008-12-03
Age : 21
Location : Kennett Square

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  Jon on Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:28 pm

IzNotSpontaneous wrote:It is true. But what really doesn't make sense to me is random chance theory, or whatever the theory that states that life was created by accident is called. I've read about that theory and heard that it is like 1 out of a trillion trillion trillion chance or something like that.
Ah, the anthropogenic problem: i.e. the constants of the universe are exactly suited to life. A purely scientific argument would be to say that life was suited to these constants, and not the other way round, therefore meaning that different life could evolve with different constants. Another argument would be that there are multiple (infinite!) universes, and at least one of them has to have the constants to support life. A religious argument (and there are many Christians who believe in the big bang) would be to say that the universe was started off perfectly synchronized by God who laid out the right situation at the beginning of time. I have heard this argument from many religious people and it still does not argue with the big bang; it merely says it was started off by a higher power. The only argument in contradiction with the Big Bang is the Book of Genesis itself.

And this is why the Big Bang boils down to a religious, and not scientific dispute. Some believe Genesis is a metaphor and others interpret it literally, and this phenomenon is at the core of the controversy.

_________________

what is this I dont even dragon
avatar
Jon
Lawful Evil
Lawful Evil

Join date : 2008-11-13
Age : 22
Location : Tossing off a little number in the Caribbean

http://aicpolitickz.1forum.biz/

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  IzNotSpontaneous on Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:35 pm

Jon wrote:
IzNotSpontaneous wrote:It is true. But what really doesn't make sense to me is random chance theory, or whatever the theory that states that life was created by accident is called. I've read about that theory and heard that it is like 1 out of a trillion trillion trillion chance or something like that.
Ah, the anthropogenic problem: i.e. the constants of the universe are exactly suited to life. A purely scientific argument would be to say that life was suited to these constants, and not the other way round, therefore meaning that different life could evolve with different constants. Another argument would be that there are multiple (infinite!) universes, and at least one of them has to have the constants to support life. A religious argument (and there are many Christians who believe in the big bang) would be to say that the universe was started off perfectly synchronized by God who laid out the right situation at the beginning of time. I have heard this argument from many religious people and it still does not argue with the big bang; it merely says it was started off by a higher power. The only argument in contradiction with the Big Bang is the Book of Genesis itself.

And this is why the Big Bang boils down to a religious, and not scientific dispute. Some believe Genesis is a metaphor and others interpret it literally, and this phenomenon is at the core of the controversy.
well, I believe in the big bang and a Christian. Anyway, that would be the finely tuned universe theory. Considering that there is (correct me if I'm wrong) absolutely no evidence for multiple universes, I would think it kind of ridiculous to even take that into account.

And with life and different constants and stuff and stuff, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about everything coming together so perfectly as to make a cell. what is it, 256 different basic proteins in the right order need to be created and aligned perfectly. And some stuff about amino acids, if I recall correctly, making up those proteins. All that working together in just the right way accidentally is what I think is ridiculous.
avatar
IzNotSpontaneous
Moderator
Moderator

Join date : 2008-12-03
Age : 21
Location : Kennett Square

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  Jon on Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:08 pm

IzNotSpontaneous wrote:
Jon wrote:
IzNotSpontaneous wrote:It is true. But what really doesn't make sense to me is random chance theory, or whatever the theory that states that life was created by accident is called. I've read about that theory and heard that it is like 1 out of a trillion trillion trillion chance or something like that.
Ah, the anthropogenic problem: i.e. the constants of the universe are exactly suited to life. A purely scientific argument would be to say that life was suited to these constants, and not the other way round, therefore meaning that different life could evolve with different constants. Another argument would be that there are multiple (infinite!) universes, and at least one of them has to have the constants to support life. A religious argument (and there are many Christians who believe in the big bang) would be to say that the universe was started off perfectly synchronized by God who laid out the right situation at the beginning of time. I have heard this argument from many religious people and it still does not argue with the big bang; it merely says it was started off by a higher power. The only argument in contradiction with the Big Bang is the Book of Genesis itself.

And this is why the Big Bang boils down to a religious, and not scientific dispute. Some believe Genesis is a metaphor and others interpret it literally, and this phenomenon is at the core of the controversy.
well, I believe in the big bang and a Christian. Anyway, that would be the finely tuned universe theory. Considering that there is (correct me if I'm wrong) absolutely no evidence for multiple universes, I would think it kind of ridiculous to even take that into account.

And with life and different constants and stuff and stuff, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about everything coming together so perfectly as to make a cell. what is it, 256 different basic proteins in the right order need to be created and aligned perfectly. And some stuff about amino acids, if I recall correctly, making up those proteins. All that working together in just the right way accidentally is what I think is ridiculous.
You are right, multiverses are just as metaphysical as religion itself. Really there is no way of knowing what came first using rational speculation.

However, as for the second statement, amino acids and lipids may form in small amounts of time in the right environment, the kind of environment that the Earth had when it was first created. Though it is unlikely that these will form in the right placement and order to create a basic life form (basically a lipid-protein capsule with DNA in the centre), there was plenty of opportunity in the Earth's several-billion-year (according to carbon dating) lifespan for this event to occur, and once it did, life was able to proliferate. Furthermore, instead of a fully working cell with a nucleus forming in the beginning, there were several steps. It is now believed by the scientific community that it took several examples of symbiosis to create the basic cell that we know today.

There have been arguments using statistical analysis, namely from Michael Behe and William Dembski (the leaders of the Intelligent Design Movement) but these arguments only consider either eukaryotic cells or prokaryotic ones. They require a set of all 21 amino acids and full genetic material. They fail to consider that things more like viruses, which possess the most basic organization principles, may have come first. The likelihood of these organisms evolving independently is much greater due to their lower complexity, and it is entirely possible that they were able to build up eventually in to cells.

So the formation of life "in the beginning" was not a single, perfectly choreographed and incredibly impossible event that occurred in a second, but a chain of much less unlikely events that occurred throughout time, taking billions of years to amount to even the most primitive form of life extant today.

_________________

what is this I dont even dragon
avatar
Jon
Lawful Evil
Lawful Evil

Join date : 2008-11-13
Age : 22
Location : Tossing off a little number in the Caribbean

http://aicpolitickz.1forum.biz/

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  IzNotSpontaneous on Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:14 pm

Jon wrote:
IzNotSpontaneous wrote:
Jon wrote:
IzNotSpontaneous wrote:It is true. But what really doesn't make sense to me is random chance theory, or whatever the theory that states that life was created by accident is called. I've read about that theory and heard that it is like 1 out of a trillion trillion trillion chance or something like that.
Ah, the anthropogenic problem: i.e. the constants of the universe are exactly suited to life. A purely scientific argument would be to say that life was suited to these constants, and not the other way round, therefore meaning that different life could evolve with different constants. Another argument would be that there are multiple (infinite!) universes, and at least one of them has to have the constants to support life. A religious argument (and there are many Christians who believe in the big bang) would be to say that the universe was started off perfectly synchronized by God who laid out the right situation at the beginning of time. I have heard this argument from many religious people and it still does not argue with the big bang; it merely says it was started off by a higher power. The only argument in contradiction with the Big Bang is the Book of Genesis itself.

And this is why the Big Bang boils down to a religious, and not scientific dispute. Some believe Genesis is a metaphor and others interpret it literally, and this phenomenon is at the core of the controversy.
well, I believe in the big bang and a Christian. Anyway, that would be the finely tuned universe theory. Considering that there is (correct me if I'm wrong) absolutely no evidence for multiple universes, I would think it kind of ridiculous to even take that into account.

And with life and different constants and stuff and stuff, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about everything coming together so perfectly as to make a cell. what is it, 256 different basic proteins in the right order need to be created and aligned perfectly. And some stuff about amino acids, if I recall correctly, making up those proteins. All that working together in just the right way accidentally is what I think is ridiculous.
You are right, multiverses are just as metaphysical as religion itself. Really there is no way of knowing what came first using rational speculation.

However, as for the second statement, amino acids and lipids may form in small amounts of time in the right environment, the kind of environment that the Earth had when it was first created. Though it is unlikely that these will form in the right placement and order to create a basic life form (basically a lipid-protein capsule with DNA in the centre), there was plenty of opportunity in the Earth's several-billion-year (according to carbon dating) lifespan for this event to occur, and once it did, life was able to proliferate. Furthermore, instead of a fully working cell with a nucleus forming in the beginning, there were several steps. It is now believed by the scientific community that it took several examples of symbiosis to create the basic cell that we know today.

There have been arguments using statistical analysis, namely from Michael Behe and William Dembski (the leaders of the Intelligent Design Movement) but these arguments only consider either eukaryotic cells or prokaryotic ones. They require a set of all 21 amino acids and full genetic material. They fail to consider that things more like viruses, which possess the most basic organization principles, may have come first. The likelihood of these organisms evolving independently is much greater due to their lower complexity, and it is entirely possible that they were able to build up eventually in to cells.

So the formation of life "in the beginning" was not a single, perfectly choreographed and incredibly impossible event that occurred in a second, but a chain of much less unlikely events that occurred throughout time, taking billions of years to amount to even the most primitive form of life extant today.
First thing, if your willing to look, there is a lot of evidence for Christianity. Second thing, what conditions did the early earth have that allowed those things to be created? Third thing, how much more simple is a virus than a cell and would it be possible to find out if there were early viruses just like we found those old single-celled organism thingies?
avatar
IzNotSpontaneous
Moderator
Moderator

Join date : 2008-12-03
Age : 21
Location : Kennett Square

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  azer on Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:18 pm

I do not think that the book of Genesis necessarily conflicts with the big bang theory, I just believe that big bang theory makes little sense from a purely atheistic viewpoint.
avatar
azer
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

Join date : 2008-11-09
Age : 22
Location : Right behind you...

http://locker.palcs.org/~advtech/2009-2010/AEnsmenger/PAGE%201_E

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  IzNotSpontaneous on Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:55 am

i agree
avatar
IzNotSpontaneous
Moderator
Moderator

Join date : 2008-12-03
Age : 21
Location : Kennett Square

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  Jon on Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:43 am

Azer: well, the big bang makes perfect sense according to physics, but what started it is unknown. There is no scientific evidence about universes colliding or a multiverse, just as there is no truly scientific evidence for God creating the Universe. Instead, both explanations are matters of faith.

IzNotSpontaneous: The earth had a few things going for it: a) the right distance from the sun b) the right size and c) a constant bombardment by comets that enriched it with foreign matter. All of these conditions allowed amino acids and basic biomolecules to form. As for the virus, a virus is much less complex than a whole eukaryotic cell. Its genetic material may be a few hundred base-pairs long, and it has no organelles (i.e. ribosomes, mitochondria, nucleus). Furthermore, they may replicate by RNA, which is much more compact and less complex than DNA. We have no fossil evidence for the buildup of cells (cells alone are too small), but we do have evidence today of examples of more primitive organisms merging to form larger ones. It is now believed that the mitochondrion was originally independent before it became part of eukaryotic cells, as it possesses its own genome and shares proteins with more primitive life-forms. In addition, some cells have been found with smaller life-forms within them, serving the purpose of plating, mitochondria, and flagella: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixotricha_paradoxa

_________________

what is this I dont even dragon
avatar
Jon
Lawful Evil
Lawful Evil

Join date : 2008-11-13
Age : 22
Location : Tossing off a little number in the Caribbean

http://aicpolitickz.1forum.biz/

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  IzNotSpontaneous on Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:18 am

but still, a virus to a cell, we still hardly know how a cell works. and what about DNA? millions of 4 different letters making up the whole function of the cell. I don't think that the chances of everything being so perfectly fine-tuned could be all that accidental. The cell seems wayyyyy so complicated.

It is like a book being written in the sand because the waves washed up so perfectly as to make it. If you saw paragraphs and pictures written/drawn in the sand, you would assume that it was created by some one. I feel the same about a cell, it is too complicated for nature.
avatar
IzNotSpontaneous
Moderator
Moderator

Join date : 2008-12-03
Age : 21
Location : Kennett Square

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  Jon on Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:00 pm

IzNotSpontaneous wrote:but still, a virus to a cell, we still hardly know how a cell works. and what about DNA? millions of 4 different letters making up the whole function of the cell. I don't think that the chances of everything being so perfectly fine-tuned could be all that accidental. The cell seems wayyyyy so complicated.

It is like a book being written in the sand because the waves washed up so perfectly as to make it. If you saw paragraphs and pictures written/drawn in the sand, you would assume that it was created by some one. I feel the same about a cell, it is too complicated for nature.
A virus, as I have explained already, is much less complex than a cell. A better analogy would be some driftwood being tossed and turned and corroded in the waves, and washing up in the shape of a person. Unlikely, but possible.

_________________

what is this I dont even dragon
avatar
Jon
Lawful Evil
Lawful Evil

Join date : 2008-11-13
Age : 22
Location : Tossing off a little number in the Caribbean

http://aicpolitickz.1forum.biz/

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  BobShmob on Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:43 pm

Especially if you gave it millions of years (possibly billions- I don't know how long exactly).
avatar
BobShmob
$p4mm3r
$p4mm3r

Join date : 2008-12-03
Age : 21
Location : In your head

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  IzNotSpontaneous on Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:39 pm

the unlikely-hood of it seems so small that it doesn't make much sense, to me anyway. The odds are, the water will destroy, not carve it. my point is, nature is against life, not for it. It is so much more likely for nature to destroy life than to create it. at any second life on this earth could theoretically be destroyed.
avatar
IzNotSpontaneous
Moderator
Moderator

Join date : 2008-12-03
Age : 21
Location : Kennett Square

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  eklipse13 on Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:23 pm

I think that the book in the sand analogy is more accurate, jon, because DNA is not a piece of wood shaped like a person. It is more like a book.

_________________

Your local friendly dragon!
avatar
eklipse13
Moderator
Moderator

Join date : 2008-11-19
Age : 22
Location : I am a figment of my own imagination, which is a floating entitiy in space.

http://eklipse13.deviantart.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  IzNotSpontaneous on Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:30 pm

IzNotSpontaneous wrote:It is like a book being written in the sand because the waves washed up so perfectly as to make it. If you saw paragraphs and pictures written/drawn in the sand, you would assume that it was created by some one. I feel the same about a cell, it is too complicated for nature.
I forgot something in it. A word would be like a virus and it would have to turn into a paragraph. The paragraph would be a cell. The paragraph would have to turn a book which would be a human. The ocean (being the universe) doesn't work that way. That is how I see it
avatar
IzNotSpontaneous
Moderator
Moderator

Join date : 2008-12-03
Age : 21
Location : Kennett Square

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  Jon on Wed Jul 14, 2010 12:43 pm

Urgh. What I said pertaining to this was that multiple words would, over time, come together and form a paragraph. Multiple paragraphs would come together and form a page. But the analogy breaks early on. As soon as you have life, you have survival of the fittest, which would favor things that became increasingly complex, meaning that the formation of a book, over the years, would be inevitable.

The unlikelihood is actually not that unlikely, I could probably find some statistical analysis, talking about the likelihood of the first events in evolution.

_________________

what is this I dont even dragon
avatar
Jon
Lawful Evil
Lawful Evil

Join date : 2008-11-13
Age : 22
Location : Tossing off a little number in the Caribbean

http://aicpolitickz.1forum.biz/

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  IzNotSpontaneous on Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:33 pm

if viruses came first, and viruses reproduce by infecting cells, and there are no cells, how does that work? and the point of the analogy was that nature is not in favor of life. The odds are sooooo much greater that it would destroy life than create it. nature gets more simple, as life progresses, it gets more complicated, in that way it defies nature
avatar
IzNotSpontaneous
Moderator
Moderator

Join date : 2008-12-03
Age : 21
Location : Kennett Square

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  Jon on Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:12 pm

IzNotSpontaneous wrote:if viruses came first, and viruses reproduce by infecting cells, and there are no cells, how does that work? and the point of the analogy was that nature is not in favor of life. The odds are sooooo much greater that it would destroy life than create it. nature gets more simple, as life progresses, it gets more complicated, in that way it defies nature
As I said, something more like viruses came first. Please read my original arguments before responding to newer ones...

_________________

what is this I dont even dragon
avatar
Jon
Lawful Evil
Lawful Evil

Join date : 2008-11-13
Age : 22
Location : Tossing off a little number in the Caribbean

http://aicpolitickz.1forum.biz/

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  okohokonu on Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:02 pm

This isn't really that relevant anymore since you guys are talking about cells, but I thought it might add an interesting dynamic to the conversation:


In Stephen Hawkings' "Universe in a Nutshell," or it might be the other one, I forget, he states that what happened or may have happened before the Big Bang, assuming the Big Bang did happen, is not relevant to life anymore because of the drastic effects of the Big Bang: creating a universe and obliterating anything that might have been in the way. Thus, if God created the Big Bang, shaping it before it happened so that it would create life, we wouldn't know because the Big Bang was such a ridiculous change to the then-nonexistent universe. For all we know, time and space did not even exist before the Big Bang.

Or something like that.

It was on that general idea, anyways. Wink
avatar
okohokonu
Regular Member
Regular Member

Join date : 2008-11-10
Age : 22
Location : Umm, my house/my chair/wherever I happen to be when I am online?

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  IzNotSpontaneous on Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:41 pm

umm... God created time and space. He existed outside of time b/c he is infinite (something that I really can't grasp) so yeah, before the universe, there was no time or space.

I looked him up and he has a very interesting view on "religion" and the universe. Something about there being a God that created a universe governed by science and that God doesn't interfere...

I really don't get what Hawking is trying to say in that. ok, so if there was something before it, it was disrupted? and we wouldn't know whether God shaped the big bang? I am not following this
avatar
IzNotSpontaneous
Moderator
Moderator

Join date : 2008-12-03
Age : 21
Location : Kennett Square

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Bang?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum