|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:03 am
http://www.geneticanomaly.com/RPG-Motivational/slides/bigbang.html
I think this sums up my biggest problem with our so-called "science". Specifically, the complete inability to logically justify many of the things which are taken as basic assumptions. In truth, I have consistantly found it easier to logically justify magic and the paranormal than to validate some of the most baisic assumptions of modern science.
Though not a Christian, I must admit that to me, Creationism makes greater logical sense than spontainious genesis. Quite simply, everything cannot have an earlier origin. Eventually, you would have to reach a point of The Begining. That is to say, an event which was preceded by no other. At this moment, there would exist things for which there was no prior origin, there being no earlier time period from which they could originate. At present, science cannot justify the existance of these "first states", and yet by scientific reasoning, they must exist.
Discuss?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 3:40 am
Quote: Big Bang Theory - The Premise The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago.
Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something.
After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory. By focusing on the blatant hyperbole, you are missing the point. Specifically that science, which teaches us that nothing can exist without origin, is completely incapable of identifying the origin of anything. By the very principles of science, a theory which does not hold true for all cases to which it may be applied is unsound. Thus, it is my scientific conclusion that scientists know nothing about the nature of matter or energy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:41 pm
By saying Spontaneous Genesis, I am not referring to a specific theory, but to a base assumption of science. Specifically that science (at least, the science I was taught) tells us that all things must have an origin, and yet then we are expected to believe, as much on faith as any religion, that the origin of all things can be traced back to a single point of matter and energy...which, it appears, we must consider to have always existed. Essentially, we have a glaring contradiction here. We say that everything comes from something, but that there was a first something that really did come from nowhere at all. If I could see one example of a situation in which the big bang did not contradict the scientific need for everything to have an origin, I could better believe that science is on the right track, and not simply making wild assumptions based on their limited perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:04 pm
It's nice to see input so quickly after I post, this has rarely happened in this guild for me... And Pardon me for being so ignorant in my earlier post. I've never really been one who posessed much interest in science I'm afraid to say, but I am willing to listen to ideas or breakthroughs in the field.Personally, the only field I am interested in is psychology, but in clinical applications. I am glad that there is someone who is able and willing to catch my mistakes and point them out to me. heart
I am quite persuaded by your view on this matter, though I am trying to remain as neutral as possible at the moment. however I must thank you for being so much more receptable than the preceding man of science I encountered in this guild. Although I must ask, as you are a physicist, what exactly does this title encompass? Because I simply don't know. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:30 pm
So in a bit more normal terms, would it be safe to say that you study how electrons travel through different materials or lattices in order to find the material with which one can create nanotechnology circuitry? Please correct me if I am wrong. But I am interested to know how one studies this. How does one study electron movement in these molecular configurations?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
