khalhokage:
Yes, it's been awhile since one of you showed up.

Op I have no motivation to argue with you, at least not until you learn what a theory is, and also do a little bit more comprehensive research on what you want to argue about because wherever you got your contact info from you obviously didn't understand it.

Gluthatione:
Johydon22, tauraus other great sciencelander I summon u I know u will have a sth to say about this

Gluthatione:
Big bang is the explosion leading to the formation of universe,that is the cosmic event that mark the beginning of time and rapid enpansion of space for the visible universe.
Now this is the reason i will never believe in big bang theory

1 What causes the explosion in the first place & what formed it?

2 Why is it still expanding ?

3 Out of several trillions of planet in the universe why is it that life is thriving in just only one of them ? Even in our own galaxy there are 200-400 billions planets no evidence of life in them.

4 Now as complex as universe is,do you think it is possible for universe to have created itself and life randomly formed on earth as evolutionists claimed?

Now lets talk about evolution which is the change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.
Now the first protein which is building block of life how does it
formed?(Abiogenesis).Don't tell me it formed by chance 'probabilistic calculations' because experimentally this is highly impossible.

Great guys out there what do you say about this ,do you believe in evolution and big bang theory.What do you say about this?

Gluthatione:
Big bang is the explosion leading to the formation of universe,that is the cosmic event that mark the beginning of time and rapid enpansion of space for the visible universe.
Now this is the reason i will never believe in big bang theory
1 What causes the explosion in the first place & what formed it?
2 Why is it still expanding ?
3 Out of several trillions of planet in the universe why is it that life is thriving in just only one of them ? Even in our own galaxy there are 200-400 billions planets no evidence of life in them.
4 Now as complex as universe is,do you think it is possible for universe to have created itself and life randomly formed on earth as evolutionists claimed?
Now lets talk about evolution which is the change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.
Now the first protein which is building block of life how does it formed?(Abiogenesis).Don't tell me it formed by chance 'probabilistic calculations' because experimentally this is highly impossible.
Great guys out there what do you say about this ,do you believe in evolution and big bang theory.What do you say about this?

Gluthatione:
...

Gluthatione:

1 What causes the explosion in the first place & what formed it?

Gluthatione:
Great guys out there what do you say about this

Gluthatione:
Big bang is the explosion leading to the formation of universe,that is the cosmic event that mark the beginning of time and rapid enpansion of space for the visible universe.


A contradiction exists here which you may not be aware of. The accused cannot also be jury, much less judge in a case against itself. How can it be that you believe the big bang led to the formation of the universe (stars and planets) according to your fact-appearing sentence above, and yet you don't believe it, per your points below? Which then is which? An irrelevant point, but I just thought you should know.

My personal disagreement with the idea of a big bang or nova is not in the theory itself, it's in the claims by academia that the universe will die a heat death once all the stuff which got flung out at that event run out of their heat. It is supported, supposedly, by the so-called "laws" of thermodynamics. The big band theory is one of the many academic theories which is close to the truth because, and thank goodness, they have a correct working premise upon which they have drawn the conclusion of an orginating big bang. Their premise is non other than what is clearly observable in space as forming nebulae. My favourite one is the ring nebula because it presents itself to us for viewing from a most perfect angle, "top-down". A perfect example of its profile view would be the dumb-bell nebula.

'Heavenly bodies' are formed by no other way. Space is coalesced or compressed into a hot dense sphere and at the limit of compression of space, by space itself, an equatorial explosion/bang/nova occurs and the dense sphere becomes a ring out of which other bodies are fashioned. However, in the case of the ring nebula, a close observation reveals that the cause of the nova is still there, please look up this fact yourself. It's not going anywhere. Closer to home, you can see this truth in our solar system's planets with rings. Those rings will eventually be wound up to form a moon, as suns do same to form planets and super suns do same to form galaxies. The source of creation has creative rules which are consistent and predictable.

So, yes and no. A big bang IS the cause and birth place of all celestial bodies. No, all current forming nebulae do not have their source in an original or singular big bang which occurred ages ago. The acedemia has this one half correct. What is missing is their lack of acceptance that any point in space can be the beginning of the source of a new big bang and this makes a case for the presence of creative intelligence behind it all.

If I need to hear the sound of clapping, I do not need to go to the market to buy materials to generate the sound. At any point in space, I can simply, well, clap my hands.

Creation is intelligently organised, intelligently. It is anything but a collection of happy random coincidences, despite all attempts to convince people otherwise. Galactic suns, solar system suns, planets and moons naturally centre wave fields which prevent them from crashing into each other. I'm not sure where people get that "crashing" notion from.


Now this is the reason i will never believe in big bang theory
1 What causes the explosion in the first place & what formed it?
Condensation of space itself.
2 Why is it still expanding ?
For the same reason that animals send away their offspring when developed, to make room for new offspring. Notwithstanding that some of our local system's planets are not really planets or natural, the outer planets all started where mercury now is. As they grew older, they got pushed away to make way for new planets. It's that simple. It's not entropy or whatever they call the rundown process, its ever continuous creative activity.
3 Out of several trillions of planet in the universe why is it that life is thriving in just only one of them ? Even in our own galaxy there are 200-400 billions planets no evidence of life in them.
Who told you there is no life on them? NASA? Even our moon is occupied, and I'm not referring to the Russian, American (which they do not control anymore) and Nazi bases there. Who do you suppose are the Gods of the bible and many other faith-books? What do you suppose a "pillar of cloud by day and fire by night" means?.
4 Now as complex as universe is,do you think it is possible for universe to have created itself and life randomly formed on earth as evolutionists claimed?

Absolutely not! Once a planet moves to an optimum distance from the sun, cools down and is atmospherically readied by universe management folks, "life" is seeded. All bodies are purposefully designed in "heavenly labs" if I may, and seeded where appropriate.

Now lets talk about evolution which is the change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.
Now the first protein which is building block of life how does it formed?(Abiogenesis).Don't tell me it formed by chance 'probabilistic calculations' because experimentally this is highly impossible.

You are right. Neither is it made by a magic-wand waving-God either.

Great guys out there what do you say about this ,do you believe in evolution and big bang theory.What do you say about this?

johnydon22:

Same holds true for many evidences pointing towards evolution but we must not claim absolute truth has been reached, further studies may prove us very wrong.

LoJ:

I had not read your post before answering. If not I would have refrained from posting. I think you did a better job explaining to him those issues. However if I may add on this sentence for the sake of the readers,

Inasmuch as Evolution Theory has grey areas where it needs to be perfected, Evolution, natural selection, among others are scientific facts that have been observed and that are reproducible. So yes, in the future there might be greater understanding, new theories, but in no way Evolution as a fact can be disputed.

Greetings to you dear Johnydon22.

SirWere:

You do confuse me sometimes

LoJ:
Hello SirWere, how far?
I did not understand your last post. Please enlighten me.
Greetings

SirWere:
You are a theist, correct?

LoJ:
I don't know. What is a Theist?

LoJ:

I don't know. What is a Theist?

SirWere:
belief in the existence of a god or gods,
specifically of a creator who intervenes in
the universe.

LoJ:

Thank you for your answer.

I believe in nothing (religiously speaking). I only follow my experiences and come to my own conclusions. I went from the simple fact that, if there is God, he must have provided a simple and universal way to relate to him. To cut a long story short, my experiences proved and still prove to me, that there is God. It can be defined as God, energy, higher being, or whatever suits anyone.

But I don't see the relationship with evolution.

Thank you for your remarks.

Greetings.

SirWere:
Do you believe in a divine hand controlling your destinies, saving lives and stuff

johnydon22:


Ok let us treat many of these misconceptions we have here.. But now you have to remember, science does not require belief because it is not a dogma. it is a systematic approach through consistent study to arrive at a truthful approximation but never claim at any point that absolute truth has been reached but recognizes chances of being wrong. that intellectual humility gives room for improvements and stands scientific method of enquiry out amongst others.

So if the Big Bang or evolution theory is untrue whether you believe it or not won't make it true, if these models are proven beyond reasonable doubt and established as a known scientific fact, you need not believe it because it doesn't change if it's true.

That being said, i'll address these points not to make you believe them but to teach what they really are.



Now the first answer to this was outrightly given in the Big Bang cosmological model which is known as a singularity .. A very small almost atomic sized but infinite dense and hot point.

And by the way the Big bang wasn't an explosion but more so a rapid inflation

what brought about the singularity is a subject of immense study of which string theory intends to answer soon.

there are many prospects to the answer one should bear in mind.

-Dark matter
-Quantum fluctuation (which still happen till today in this universe)



Dark energy is causing the inflation



Now this i must say is rather disappointing. . . We do not even have the technology it takes to probe planets within our own solar system for signs of life.

Up till today man has recently launched a probe for the purpose of probing traces of organic compounds and life or mars which has not even reached the planet yet.

there are 8planets and 5mini planets and more than a 100 moons just in our solar system and we don't even have the technology to check them for life yet and you are talking about our galaxy and the universe?

The nearest star system to us the alpha centauri is 4light years away, which means 9trillion km multiplied by 4..

our present technology (fastest space probe we have) will take more than 160,000 years to reach it, so how can you possibly check if it has life?

we cannot even reach the closest star system to us not to talk of billions of stars and planets in our galaxy let alone more than 200,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe.

so how can you ask 'why life only thrives on 1 when you have never reached or possess the technology that can check the others?

we are tiny creatures, the universe is very big we have not even probed for life in the nearby planets and moons inside this solar system talk more of checking other star systems let alone dreaming of ever leaving this galaxy of 100,000 light years diameter.

this question was rather disappointing... We have no idea where there is life or not because we still are not advanced enough to possess technologies that can travel outside our system..

earth is just a tiny rock out of billions of trillion others ...so don't hold your breathe on that


The universe itself is random and chaotic, there is complexity in every interaction. as long as two values interact to give a result, it will be more complex than the original interacting values.

The universe is not planned neither does it have a schedule, galaxies slam into galaxies, planets into planets and even stars into one another, asteroids can crash down on earth and our galaxy is even on a collision course with Andromeda.

the universe is complex from interactions of different values but random in it's manifestations.



The bolded words are starkly ignorant, stop making confident assertions without looking hard enough.

even though research about how life began on earth is still going on as we speak, protein molecules has been created in the laboratory by recreating the early stage of earth and a meteor impact.

One of these is the Miller-Urey experiment a chemical experiment that simulated earth's early conditions and surprisingly complex amino acids were formed in the experiment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

also many discovered in meteorites

Like Murchison Meteorite

This meteorite, that fell near Murchison, Australia on 28 September 1969, turned
out to contain a variety of organic molecules including:

purines and pyrimidines

polyols — compounds with hydroxyl groups on a backbone of 3 to 6 carbons
such as glycerol and glyceric acid . Sugars are polyols.

the amino acids listed in this table. The amino acids and their relative
proportions were quite similar to the products formed in Miller's experiments.

also The ALH84001 meteorite.

Astronomers, using infrared spectroscopy, have identified a variety of organic
molecules in interstellar space, including
methane (CH 4 ),
methanol (CH 3OH),
formaldehyde (HCHO),
cyanoacetylene (HC 3N) (which in spark-discharge experiments is a precursor to
the pyrimidine cytosine).
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
as well as such inorganic building blocks as carbon dioxide (CO 2), carbon
monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH 3), hydrogen sulfide (H 2S), and hydrogen cyanide
(HCN).

and yes through random meteor showers that bombarded the earth in it's early state, complex proteins compounds can also arrive as i have shown with instances of such meteors discovered in this present age

Please please that you never knew amino acids have been recreated in the lab or can be recreated should not have given you the alacrity to infer they are impossible to recreate.

I am sure i have corrected that naive impression.

We are still studying grasp well enough the origins of life, and this noble acts of study has not claimed perfection yet but progresses has been made in this sense.

and with time our questions will definitely get answered through consistent study...



What i say is that humanity is on a quest to answer many questions that plagues us, and the only way we can do this is through careful study, consistent and empirical scrutinization in order to arrive at a truthful approximation..

The Big bang model has many cosmological observations pointing towards it.

-Cosmic mircowave background radiation
- Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
-Expansion.. And many others.

Same holds true for many evidences pointing towards evolution but we must not claim absolute truth has been reached, further studies may prove us very wrong.

which is why i do not subscribe to any theory on the origin of the universe or life yet, i do not see the need to dogmatize it rather i see need to keep an open mind to push for more critical studies so we can reach a near truth.

I hope this helps your enquiry

johnydon22:


Ok let us treat many of these misconceptions we have here.. But now you have to remember, science does not require belief because it is not a dogma. it is a systematic approach through consistent study to arrive at a truthful approximation but never claim at any point that absolute truth has been reached but recognizes chances of being wrong. that intellectual humility gives room for improvements and stands scientific method of enquiry out amongst others.

So if the Big Bang or evolution theory is untrue whether you believe it or not won't make it true, if these models are proven beyond reasonable doubt and established as a known scientific fact, you need not believe it because it doesn't change if it's true.

That being said, i'll address these points not to make you believe them but to teach what they really are.



Now the first answer to this was outrightly given in the Big Bang cosmological model which is known as a singularity .. A very small almost atomic sized but infinite dense and hot point.

And by the way the Big bang wasn't an explosion but more so a rapid inflation

what brought about the singularity is a subject of immense study of which string theory intends to answer soon.

there are many prospects to the answer one should bear in mind.

-Dark matter
-Quantum fluctuation (which still happen till today in this universe)



Dark energy is causing the inflation



Now this i must say is rather disappointing. . . We do not even have the technology it takes to probe planets within our own solar system for signs of life.

Up till today man has recently launched a probe for the purpose of probing traces of organic compounds and life or mars which has not even reached the planet yet.

there are 8planets and 5mini planets and more than a 100 moons just in our solar system and we don't even have the technology to check them for life yet and you are talking about our galaxy and the universe?

The nearest star system to us the alpha centauri is 4light years away, which means 9trillion km multiplied by 4..

our present technology (fastest space probe we have) will take more than 160,000 years to reach it, so how can you possibly check if it has life?

we cannot even reach the closest star system to us not to talk of billions of stars and planets in our galaxy let alone more than 200,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe.

so how can you ask 'why life only thrives on 1 when you have never reached or possess the technology that can check the others?

we are tiny creatures, the universe is very big we have not even probed for life in the nearby planets and moons inside this solar system talk more of checking other star systems let alone dreaming of ever leaving this galaxy of 100,000 light years diameter.

this question was rather disappointing... We have no idea where there is life or not because we still are not advanced enough to possess technologies that can travel outside our system..

earth is just a tiny rock out of billions of trillion others ...so don't hold your breathe on that

The universe itself is random and chaotic, there is complexity in every interaction. as long as two values interact to give a result, it will be more complex than the original interacting values.

The universe is not planned neither does it have a schedule, galaxies slam into galaxies, planets into planets and even stars into one another, asteroids can crash down on earth and our galaxy is even on a collision course with Andromeda.

the universe is complex from interactions of different values but random in it's manifestations.



The bolded words are starkly ignorant, stop making confident assertions without looking hard enough.

even though research about how life began on earth is still going on as we speak, protein molecules has been created in the laboratory by recreating the early stage of earth and a meteor impact.

One of these is the Miller-Urey experiment a chemical experiment that simulated earth's early conditions and surprisingly complex amino acids were formed in the experiment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

also many discovered in meteorites

Like Murchison Meteorite

This meteorite, that fell near Murchison, Australia on 28 September 1969, turned
out to contain a variety of organic molecules including:

purines and pyrimidines

polyols — compounds with hydroxyl groups on a backbone of 3 to 6 carbons
such as glycerol and glyceric acid . Sugars are polyols.

the amino acids listed in this table. The amino acids and their relative
proportions were quite similar to the products formed in Miller's experiments.

also The ALH84001 meteorite.

Astronomers, using infrared spectroscopy, have identified a variety of organic
molecules in interstellar space, including
methane (CH 4 ),
methanol (CH 3OH),
formaldehyde (HCHO),
cyanoacetylene (HC 3N) (which in spark-discharge experiments is a precursor to
the pyrimidine cytosine).
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
as well as such inorganic building blocks as carbon dioxide (CO 2), carbon
monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH 3), hydrogen sulfide (H 2S), and hydrogen cyanide
(HCN).

and yes through random meteor showers that bombarded the earth in it's early state, complex proteins compounds can also arrive as i have shown with instances of such meteors discovered in this present age

Please please that you never knew amino acids have been recreated in the lab or can be recreated should not have given you the alacrity to infer they are impossible to recreate.

I am sure i have corrected that naive impression.

We are still studying grasp well enough the origins of life, and this noble acts of study has not claimed perfection yet but progresses has been made in this sense.

and with time our questions will definitely get answered through consistent study...



What i say is that humanity is on a quest to answer many questions that plagues us, and the only way we can do this is through careful study, consistent and empirical scrutinization in order to arrive at a truthful approximation..

The Big bang model has many cosmological observations pointing towards it.

-Cosmic mircowave background radiation
- Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
-Expansion.. And many others.

Same holds true for many evidences pointing towards evolution but we must not claim absolute truth has been reached, further studies may prove us very wrong.

which is why i do not subscribe to any theory on the origin of the universe or life yet, i do not see the need to dogmatize it rather i see need to keep an open mind to push for more critical studies so we can reach a near truth.

I hope this helps your enquiry

Gluthatione:

No 2 question .u said dark energy is what is still causing d inflation.Pls can u shield more light about dark energy, dark matter and even blackholes.

Since u didn't subscribe to any of these theories, what's ur stand then, are u a theist,an antheist, agnostics or free thinkers?

note this :With d recent technology it will take 30 000 years to reach alpha centuari not 160000 years as u stated above. Mark Zuckerbag announced 3 days ago that he is teaming up with Stephen Hawking and one other guy to build a nano space Craft that will take 20 years to reach alpha centuari.

I still have many questions I will be back soon.
Once again thanks very much.

Gluthatione:
No 2 question .... blackholes.

johnydon22:


Same holds true for many evidences pointing towards evolution but we must not claim absolute truth has been reached, further studies may prove us very wrong.

which is why i do not subscribe to any theory on the origin of the universe or life yet, i do not see the need to dogmatize it rather i see need to keep an open mind to push for more critical studies so we can reach a near truth.

donnffd:


Hi Johnydon, i wasnt going to say anything on this thread because the OP lack some basic understanding about the scientific method, and great response by the way, but this part of your post got me thinking...so i wanna ask you, what do you define as absolute truth? and what makes you think that science doesnt have an open mind towards Evolution?

and also, if every single evidence that has been found points to Evolution, doesnt that mean Evolution is the closest to absolute truth Why do you feel science would be very wrong on that?

johnydon22:


Science does not aim at establishing immutable dogmas, the scientific method recognizes chances of being wrong and this doubt of self prompts unending studies which improves the quality of truth.

Evolution is a universal Fact as every natural manifestations are always developing and evolving ranging from the stars to simple plants to the universe itself.

But our understanding of this observed Facts is where out short comings are...

Absolute truths entails that there is nothing more to be known about that particular enquiry as a precise truth has been reached therefore curtails need for more study since the knowledge is already perfected.

This has never been the scientific method, it never at any point claims absolute truth has been achieved but recognizes chances of being wrong which fuels it's studies in development of the already approximated truths.

Science is self correcting and this is why it remains the most reliable way of truthful deductions..

donnffd:


I don't argue with that, I am wondering why you wish to sit on the fence when it comes to Natural selection when we are closer than ever before...do you think there is any proof right now that would disprove the idea that the earth revolves around the sun?, would you say you won't subscribe to the idea until a better theory comes and disproves it?...please note I am not saying science is dogmatic, and anyone who understands the scientific method has to be open minded, but some aspects of science right now are so rock solid, that it would take a miracle to overturn them on their head. E.g Heliocentric model, Germ theory, and Natural selection...if you disagree, I want to hear your view