A Brief History Of Existence (at Yume's request)

**bradybaker** · 04-04-2005 10:08 PM

Ok Yume. You asked for it. So get your dictionary ready and try to keep an open mind. I’ll try to simplify as much of it as I can, but if you have any questions after reading it, ask away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you probably know, the theory proposed by science to explain the early formation of the universe is called the Big Bang. The basic idea is that Einstein’s general theory of relativity can be combined with large scale observations (red shift of galaxies, correlation function of galaxies) of today’s universe to extrapolate the conditions of the universe at any time, past or present.

Since the temperature and density of the universe is dropping today, it is reasonable to assume that in the past, the temperature and density was much higher. This assumption was confirmed in the 60s when the cosmic background radiation (CMB) was first detected. The Big Bang model of the universe necessitates the existence of this phenomenon, and sure enough, the CMB is there.

According to the Big Bang theory, about 13.7 billion years ago, the universe was in a state of unimaginable density with enormous temperatures. As for the first 10^-33 seconds of the universe, Einstein’s physics cannot currently offer a compelling model (His theory of gravity predicts that there would have been a gravitational singularity, a point where density becomes infinite, but this conflicts with major ideas of quantum mechanics). To remedy this problem, I will soon discuss a theory to explain the first instant of existence, and the instants that preceded it.

So, from this tiny, tiny, incredibly dense state of existence (at 10^-33 seconds after ‘creation’, the universe was about the size of a marble), the universe began to expand at an unbelievable rate (exponentially, fuelled by a false vacuum). But it is important to remember that this wasn’t a typical ‘explosion’. It was not like an explosion in an empty room, it was like an explosion in which the room itself expands outward from that very small, infinitely dense space. This period of rapid expansion is commonly referred to as ‘inflation’.

Soon after the inflationary period, the universe began to cool, the four elementary forces of physics emerged (gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear. Current theory suggests that at such high densities, temperatures and over such small spaces, these forces are actually the same, and the 4 separate forces that we observe today are actually one in the same), and the first elementary particles began to form (quarks, protons, etc.). These eventually gave rise to the first atomic particles, hydrogen and helium.

Over time, gravitation drew these atoms together and ‘clumps’ of hydrogen and helium began to form. These regions slowly became more and more dense. Hmm…can you think of something that is really just a super-dense clump of hydrogen and helium? If you said “the Sun”, pat yourself on the back. So, these dense regions eventually grew so dense that nuclear fusion began to take place spontaneously in the core, resulting in the first stars.

However, these weren’t your average stars. These were MASSIVE stars. As such, they consumed their nuclear fuel (hydrogen) relatively quickly and exploded in probably the largest supernovae that the universe has ever witnessed.

But the great thing about stars exploding is all the cool stuff that they produce. Moments before they burst, the pressure is so incredible that the star is able to fuse other atoms together to produce all new elements. This is how (most) of the elements we know of today (yes, even the stuff that you are made of, carbon, oxygen, etc) were formed, and they continue to be formed each time a star explodes.

So, jump ahead a few billion years, after this process has happened a few million times and you get a place like this. Massive amounts of stars and other matter has clustered together to form what we call ‘galaxies’.

Then one day, in the galaxy that we refer to as ‘The Milky Way’, a star exploded, maybe even exactly where you are sitting now. From this supernova, a nebula was formed full of all kinds of funky shit; carbon, hydrogen, iron, gold, chlorine, boron, etc. Then, through the same process that formed the massive stars, clumps of this stuff began to form right here where our solar system sits. Most of the material gathered in the center and came to be known as the ‘Sun’. It was the only body large enough to sustain a nuclear reaction in its core.

The rest of the material gathered into smaller clusters, known to us as planets, moons, asteroids and comets.

NOTE: Evidence for the Big Bang: Hubble law expansion, CMB, abundance of primordial elements (i.e. H, He), galactic evolution, quasar distribution.

So, there it was, the planet that we live on today. But it was just a rock back then, pretty barren, with no life to speak of. Lucky for us, the elements of life are floating around pretty much everywhere and amino acids (the basic building blocks of life) are found all over the place. After some chance happenstance (probably with a bolt of lightning or static electrical shock) some amino acids were joined to form the first ever RNA molecule. A molecule that, by natural chemical processes, could replicate itself.

(If you wish, I can go into much deeper detail regarding the formation of this molecule)

Depending on your definition of life, this molecule could actually be considered the first form of life on earth. But fortunately for us, this molecule could not replicate itself perfectly; the proteins which help to fix and control mutation had not yet developed, so each new RNA molecule would be significantly different from its ‘parent’.

So, after a few million years of random mutation, this molecule eventually evolved into a single celled organism with many complex chemical reactions taking place. It is important to remember that every living being is nothing more than a multitude of complex chemical reactions taking place simultaneously.

Next, fast forward through a hundreds of millions of years of physical and cultural evolution and BANG! Here we are. Sitting at our computer, discussing such ideas through a system of communication we call the “Internet”. If you want me to, I suppose I could walk you through some of this evolution, but I would rather refer you to this very interesting article titled, “Testing Darwin”. Please read it and direct any questions you may have to me.

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11711

Ok, now comes the really tricky part. The $1,000,000 question is, “What caused the Big Bang?”. An ill-informed theist may be tempted to use this opportunity to justify their belief in God. But not so fast, we wouldn’t want to jump to any conclusions would we?

To test if you are actually reading this 1,700 word post, Yume, I’ve devised this test. If you are reading this, please put the phrase “Wow, that took a long time to read”, at the beginning of your response.

There are a number of theories on this topic, some more convincing than others. One states that the universe is actually a, rather large, “virtual particle”. In quantum physics, it is a known fact that subatomic particle can and do pop into existence spontaneously (i.e. without cause) quite regularly. Also, it’s very possible (although highly improbable) that a hydrogen atom, a water molecule, or even a fish, could spontaneously pop into existence through the same process.

Likewise, it is possible that an entire universe could pop into existence without cause. And given enough time, the improbable becomes inevitable. So it’s only natural that one day it would happen. However, this raises pesky questions about where and when it “popped” from (Although, the argument that God created the universe raises the question, “then who created God?”). At some point in the future, I’ll type up a fascinating article that I have on the subject.

Here’s an excerpt: “All matter plus all gravity in the observable universe equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because it is, fundamentally, nothing.”

Anyways, I’d rather present to you my personal favourite explanation for ‘creation’. Behold, the Ekpyrotic scenario. To get the gist of it, first you’ll need a basic understanding of string theory…

Imaging you’re looking at a clothesline from a distance of 30 feet. It would appear to you as a 1-dimensional object, simply a line in space. However, if you moved closer, say 5 feet away, you would notice that it actually has 2 dimensions, length and width (i.e. the line has perceivable thickness. Now, if you move even closer, you will notice that the clothesline is actually 3-dimensional. It has length, width and depth.

Unfortunately, this is as many dimensions that you or I can see (along with time, the 4th dimension). One implication of string theory, however, is that there are actually 11 dimensions. Seven of which are too small (or too large) to be observed by the human senses alone.

So, back to the ekpyrotic scenario, this model posits that the observable universe is actually a 4-dimensional “brane” (the term used for an n-dimensional plane) floating around in higher dimensional space along with many other such branes. (Picture a bunch of bedsheets blowing in the wind).

At some point in the past, the universe (our visible brane) was completely empty and void of matter and energy. Then, this brane collided with a parallel brane resulting in a massive explosion, creating all matter and energy that we observe today. From our brane, this process would look like a ‘big crunch’ followed by a ‘big bang’ (sound familiar? It’s not hard to see where the ekpyrotic model leaves off and the more conventional evolution of the universe, which I previously explained, picks up). Trillions of years later, the branes would have gradually returned to their previous state of emptiness and another collision would hit, restarting the entire process. This process has been happening for an infinite amount of time stretching into the past. So basically, there was no ‘beginning’ of the universe, it is infinite in both past and future.

I apologize for blowing your mind.

So, there you have it. A brief, slightly muddled history of existence according to Brady F. Baker (and a multitude of the world’s leading physicists, cosmologists and evolutionary biologists). Although they would probably cringe at how I described it.

Please post any questions that you have.

**wasup** · 04-04-2005 10:12 PM

Hey, I don't have time to read that now, but I'll edit this post later when I have time to read it.

**dream-scape** · 04-05-2005 12:11 AM

Wow, that took a long time to read

bradybaker, just wondering what your reaction is to scientists who criticize Big Bang cosmologists who cling to the theory despite its shortcomings and evidence to the contrary? Who criticize that the theory is basically held together at the seams by a few assumptions that become ever questionable.

Also don't take this the wrong way, but you seem to hold fast to the BB theory no differently than a theists holds to their theories.

**bradybaker** · 04-05-2005 01:47 AM

There are many theories apart from the BB that attempt to explain how we are here. I was not trying to say "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED!!!!". Yume asked me to present a logical alternative to creationism. I beleive that I've accomplished that, would you disagree?

In truth, the Ekpyrotic scenario is meant as more of a 'replacement' model to the BB and inflation than a 'prequel' because it meshes with string theory quite nicely. But that would've taken many more words to explain. As always, there are competing theories. Thats the beauty of the process. Life thrives in the presence of competition as does science.

And don't take this the wrong way, but before you start talking trash about the Big Bang, make sure you have a solid base of knowledge.

As for 'holding fast to the BB theory no differently than a theist holds to their theories', let's not start this debate. Or let's at least hold off until Yume has had a chance to chime in.

**dream-scape** · 04-05-2005 02:28 AM

Originally posted by bradybaker
And don't take this the wrong way, but before you start talking trash about the Big Bang, make sure you have a solid base of knowledge.

Please brush up on your reading comprehension skills. You take everything so personally as a direct attack on yourself. This serves no purpose.

I was not trashing anything, and I was kindly asking a very legitimate question, which by the way is being asked by a number of people the in scientific community who get similar answers to the one you just gave, ie, getting the door shut in their face.

**wasup** · 04-05-2005 02:32 AM

On the defense of Bradybaker... he just was commenting that you were questioning the validity of the big bang theory... "talking trash" was a perfectly acceptable response.

Anyways let's keep this discussion civil

**bradybaker** · 04-05-2005 02:44 AM

Originally posted by dream-scape
I was not trashing anything, and I was kindly asking a very legitimate question, which by the way is being asked by a number of people the in scientific community who get similar answers to the one you just gave, ie, getting the door shut in their face.

I was kindly suggesting to inform yourself of the facts before questioning the validity of such arguments. As you may have read, I was quite open to the possibility of other explanations. The door is not shut.

If you take issue with any of the statements I made in my original post, please let's discuss.

**dream-scape** · 04-05-2005 03:51 AM

I am not all that interested in discussing the origins of this universe as it is irrelevant to more important issues.

I was merely interested in your position and response to those scientists who argue against the BB theory for a number of reasons, the top ones being many who argue for it are arguing for a single big bang for a single finite universe, which you have answered with the Ekpyrotic scenario, which might be called a "bang... bang.. bang.. theory" if you feel humorous. To me that stands in opposition of the BB theory, which you have already said it is really more like a replacement for the BB theory.

Other arguments they make are the BB theory rests largely on the assumption that the redshift seen from stars is the result of the Doppler Effect; and if this assumption is not true, the entire theory basically falls apart.

Another argument is that there are celestial bodies which exist and have been discovered that cannot exist according to the BB theory. They point to a number of things, among them "supercluster complexes", the size of which it would have taken at least 100 billion years to create they estimate, while the BB theory states the universe is much much younger than that.

And a number of other points as well... you are no doubt intelligent and are capable of looking up arguments on the other side as well, if you should feel compelled.

**bradybaker** · 04-05-2005 04:51 AM

Originally posted by dream-scape+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dream-scape)</div>

I am not all that interested in discussing the origins of this universe as it is irrelevant to more important issues.[/b]

Such as...? I get the impression that you really don't like me very much.

Originally posted by dream-scape@
I was merely interested in your position and response to those scientists who argue against the BB theory for a number of reasons

My official position is fully in support of such scientists. Without scrutiny, doubt, and constant analysis it would just be....a religion.

<!--QuoteBegin-dream-scape
To me that stands in opposition of the BB theory, which you have already said it is really more like a replacement for the BB theory.

Well, the beautiful thing is that the ekpyrotic scenario meshes very well with the observations within the BB Inflationary model and String theory at the same time. The term 'replacement' is a bit misleading, I apologize for using it. The \"bang\" still happened, it's just the reasons behind the bang that are being 'replaced'. Instead of an false vacuum fuelling the expansion of in infinitely dense point in space and time, it is a collision of branes in higher dimensional space that triggers the 'bang' in empty space.

Of course there are many unknowns in this theory as well. For example, what exactly would happen if two brames were to collide is still very understudied, and the force relationships between such branes are still unknown as of this point it time.

It is, however, very promising that string theory is beginning to reveal possible explanations for the biggest unsolved problems in cosmology.

Originally posted by dream-scape
Other arguments they make are the BB theory rests largely on the assumption that the redshift seen from stars is the result of the Doppler Effect; and if this assumption is not true, the entire theory basically falls apart.

I have never come across any research that would suggest that the 'theory' of red shift is incorrect. They teach that concept in high school physics, its not exactly controversial. In fact, it is one of the many observations that imply the age of the universe to be 13.7 billion years. The consistency of these observations is generally a very good sign.

As for these 'supercluster complexes', I'll look around and get back to you.

**Yume** · 04-05-2005 05:39 AM

As a fellow debator I feel I owe you a perfect explanation on how that theory is less likely than my belief that God created the earth. That cannot be achieved in the time given to me currently and since I will be gone for a while it may be a good sum of time to refute your argument. A bland 5 minute argument would not be fair to you since you have created this interesting read for me. I am glad you did this with less negativity than normal. I will be travelling, but when I am free I will make this a priority on the list of things to do on DV for me.

**dream-scape** · 04-05-2005 06:46 AM

Originally posted by bradybaker
I have never come across any research that would suggest that the 'theory' of red shift is incorrect. They teach that concept in high school physics, its not exactly controversial. In fact, it is one of the many observations that imply the age of the universe to be 13.7 billion years. The consistency of these observations is generally a very good sign.

That is even further troubling when one considers the mass supercluster complexes, which could not have possibly formed in only 13.7 billion years.

It has been shown and observed by a number of astrologers that there are stars with very high redshift values (thought to be receding rapidly and located at a great distance) which are known to be connected with galaxies that have a very low redshift and are thought to be close by. I don't think they want to disprove redshift theory, but want to show that is cannot be applied on a galactic scale. To some this means the BB theory completely falls apart. To others this means that redshift in cosmology should be rejected, but not the BB theory... that is the basis for the BB theory needs to be rethought.

Here is a website that I came across that lays out a few counter arguments to the BB theory:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020803151341/...l.net/skeptica/

Though specifically on redshift, you might find this article more interesting:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020818195635/...e/redshift.html

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-dream-scape

I am not all that interested in discussing the origins of this universe as it is irrelevant to more important issues.

Such as...? I get the impression that you really don't like me very much.[/b]

I get that same feeling from you sometimes, like you feel everything I write is somehow a personal attack on you

Issues more important than the origin of this universe? There are many but here are a few: the Darfur genocide happening right now; my personal growth and well being; the well being of people around me; the happiness and well being of my family; the suffering throughout the world.

Nothing against you, but it is just my own belief that arguing over the origins of this universe is irrelevant to helping to make the world a better place.

In any case, I am not in opposition of the theory you have put forth that the universe is beginning-less and endless, being "born" and then "dying" and thus giving birth again, infinitely in the past and future. In fact this is pretty much in complete agreement with the cosmology that the spirituality I most closely follow has been teaching for thousands of years.

However, I rarely debate or argue about it, as it is also viewed as being irrelevant to more important issues of the world. I agree with that. Supposing we had a drawn out argument, and one of us came out the victor and the other the loser, supposing a victor and loser could even emerge, now knowing the origin of the universe, I would be in no better or worse position to help people than I was before.

**Lucius** · 04-05-2005 08:51 AM

Issues more important than the origin of this universe? There are many but here are a few: the Darfur genocide happening right now; my personal growth and well being; the well being of people around me; the happiness and well being of my family; the suffering throughout the world. [/b]

I agree with that part. I say knowing the origin of the universe is not really that relevant at all. Its impossible to know the complete truth anyway. Instead, one could just focus on the above, I think that would make everybody happier.

And we all know this tug-o-war never ends, so its only tiring for all parties involved. Besides this, I am saying nothing on the subject, however Brady put down quite the amazing post which deserves respect for the effort he put into it.

**Peregrinus** · 04-06-2005 01:21 AM

Wow, that took a long time to read

Hey Brady, it sounds like you're fairly well read on the Ekpyrotic model. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time in recent years to investigate the details of the newer models being developed, so I've got a question for you. Does the Ekpyrotic model advance any explanation for the imbalance between matter and antimatter in the universe or the origin of anisotropies in the CBR (and the consequent nonuniform matter distribution)? The Big Bang model is fairly moot on these points except to suggest that some event early in the history of the universe "tipped the scales" to the side of matter so to speak and that the anisotropies must have derived from structure of the Big Bang itself. Of course, in a closed system, I cannot possibly imagine what scale tipper could be. The concept of universal creation by collision seems like it could be amenable to some sort of explanation.

**bradybaker** · 04-06-2005 02:41 AM

Originally posted by Yume
I will be travelling, but when I am free I will make this a priority on the list of things to do on DV for me.

Excellent.

dream-scape: Just an observation, I'm not slamming any doors here, but those websites are over 10 years old. That's really old, especially considering the pace at which cosmology is advancing these days.

Furthermore, the first website in particular doesn't seem to understand the concept of space-time very well when they state that expanding space is a 'non-sensical concept'. Labelling space as 'immaterial\", he forgets that gravity is really just a warping of space and time. Also, if space is infinite and eternal, as he suggests, what of the CMB?

Originally posted by dream-scape
Issues more important than the origin of this universe? There are many but here are a few: the Darfur genocide happening right now; my personal growth and well being; the well being of people around me; the happiness and well being of my family; the suffering throughout the world.

Nothing against you, but it is just my own belief that arguing over the origins of this universe is irrelevant to helping to make the world a better place.

In any case, I am not in opposition of the theory you have put forth that the universe is beginning-less and endless, being \"born\" and then \"dying\" and thus giving birth again, infinitely in the past and future. In fact this is pretty much in complete agreement with the cosmology that the spirituality I most closely follow has been teaching for thousands of years.

However, I rarely debate or argue about it, as it is also viewed as being irrelevant to more important issues of the world. I agree with that. Supposing we had a drawn out argument, and one of us came out the victor and the other the loser, supposing a victor and loser could even emerge, now knowing the origin of the universe, I would be in no better or worse position to help people than I was before.

Originally posted by Lucius
I agree with that part. I say knowing the origin of the universe is not really that relevant at all. Its impossible to know the complete truth anyway. Instead, one could just focus on the above, I think that would make everybody happier.

And we all know this tug-o-war never ends, so its only tiring for all parties involved. Besides this, I am saying nothing on the subject, however Brady put down quite the amazing post which deserves respect for the effort he put into it.

I respect your opinions, but find that position unfortunate. People will always be suffering, people will always be happy and sad regardless of your intervention, you will grow personally whether you choose to embrace it or not. Instead of worrying myself with the petty squabbles of humanity, I'd rather spend my time asking big questions and trying my damndest to get answers...or at least something close, the answer must be in the attempt. Maybe I'll switch my major to theoretical psychics....that'd be fun.

Peregrinus:
Unfortunately, I have not come across any explanation of baryogenesis proposed by the ekpyrotic scenario. That is definitely a shortcoming of the Big Bang theory and personally I think it's one of the most intriguing questions in modern cosmology.

In my humble opinion, it seems that the relationship between antimatter and matter could suggest that everything in fact equals nothing. -1, 0 and 1 existing simultaneously...we just happen to live in the positive. Just a thought though...

**dream-scape** · 04-06-2005 06:18 AM

Getting OT on the "Issues more important than the origin of this universe" now, so as to not distract from your thread bradybaker, I have instead forked it off into a new thread in philosophy, as it is getting into an entirely different topic more philosophical and moral in nature.

Now back to carrying on with this topic.

**Yume** · 04-10-2005 01:26 AM

“Wow, that took a long time to read”,

That is what you say after you read The US Constitution, Don Keito, or The Communist Manifesto.

I did actually type up many arguements and infact my post that I would have done would have been longer. I would bet my life on it if I decided to post it. Last night I was online at 2 AM typing to my best friend. We are like two peas in a pod. Our friendship will never end. We started getting into many philisophical debates. I still have to give him my written up argument on the topic does time really exist. He doesn't believe either semantics or any scientifically proven way is the real explanation for the earth really existing. After talking to him I really felt pointlessness to argue "The Big Bang" because it could be true. My belief in God could be true. We could all be correct in some way because the ultimate truth on the earth's creation could be in one humans perspective. We can't say which human yet and we may never. In fact after we die we could still continue to never know whether we continue to exist or not. To argue something that I do consider possible now seems pointless to me. I have now decided that since you or I cannot for certain say how the universe was created or how existance came to be there is no way that either of us claim to be correct. We can debate over and say each other is wrong, but we cannot truly back up our claims if the thing we say is wrong is still possible. I guess we will just continue to flick the spinner on a wheel of possibilities changing the size of the reds, blues, and yellows over and over with new shred of evidence we take on as truth. I acknowledge that "The Big Bang" could be possible, but I still see that a Supreme Being creating the world as more logical.

**bradybaker** · 04-11-2005 01:35 AM

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>

I did actually type up many arguements and infact my post that I would have done would have been longer. I would bet my life on it if I decided to post it.[/b]

....You're kidding right?

<!--QuoteBegin-Yume
We can debate over and say each other is wrong, but we cannot truly back up our claims if the thing we say is wrong is still possible.

The most sensible comment I've ever seen you make.

I acknowledge that \"The Big Bang\" could be possible, but I still see that a Supreme Being creating the world as more logical.[/b]

I'd still like to hear some support of that position. Lack of understanding of alternative theories does not justify dismissing them.

**Yume** · 04-12-2005 01:56 AM

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

....You're kidding right?[/b]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha!

You wish.

Originally posted by bradybaker@
The most sensible comment I've ever seen you make.

were you doing the last time I said it? There is also the fact considering that I never said you were wrong because you didn't believe in a God. I just believe you are more likely incorrect than I was.
<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
I'd still like to hear some support of that position. Lack of understanding of alternative theories does not justify dismissing them.

I understand other theories just fine. I know of many ways the earth was created outside of a supreme being creating it. I just see a guiding force that can control how it wants a world to be created according to it's will instead of random things that do not obtain thought in my opinion (I.E. rocks, stars, etc.) that form together to create what is now us and the world that we live on. I see that it is more likely that aliens could be watching us from the sky in UFO's more likely than the theory of the "Big Bang" because there is a force there that I know that has free will. Like I have said I acknowledge things like our world warped here from other universes or we really came from rocks and they changed their chemical makeup to create us possible, but I still see a supreme being more likely.

**bradybaker** · 04-12-2005 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Yume
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha!

You wish.

No, no I don't wish. In fact, I'd really like to read your \"many arguments\" contained in your \"much longer post\" that you would \"bet your life on\". Could you humour me and post it? Since you've already typed it up, it wouldn't be too much trouble.

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>

I know of many ways the earth was created outside of a supreme being creating it.[/b]

Originally posted by Yume@
like our world warped here from other universes

<!--QuoteBegin-Yume
or we really came from rocks and they changed their chemical makeup to create us

Yeah, I see the existence of a divine creator much more probable than those retarded ideas too (Well, almost). I hope you aren't trying to pass those off as 'scientific theories'.

I just have 2 questions that I'd like you to respond to.

1) Why do you choose to accept Creationism, which is supported by ancient stories alone?
2) Why do you choose to dismiss several scientific theories (ie. Big Bang, Ekpyrotic) that are supported by direct observational evidence?

**Mickeys_Elbow** · 04-12-2005 07:20 PM

Originally posted by bradybaker

1) Why do you choose to accept Creationism, which is supported by ancient stories alone?
2) Why do you choose to dismiss several scientific theories (ie. Big Bang, Ekpyrotic) that are supported by direct observational evidence?

Good point

**Yume** · 04-13-2005 06:27 AM

Originally posted by bradybaker
No, no I don't wish. In fact, I'd really like to read your \"many arguments\" contained in your \"much longer post\" that you would \"bet your life on\". Could you humour me and post it? Since you've already typed it up, it wouldn't be too much trouble.

I do not want to post evidence against something that I see as possible. Even though isn't what I believe to be most possible disproving it for the sake of debate just doesn't seem worth it right now. I owe a lot to The Superstring Theory. It has saved me many times in different discussions. I could combine it with theism, but really I do not feel like it. This topic fun as it is there is a point I will go to. I actually also know more proving \"The Big Bang\", but like I said that is really not the direction I feel like heading.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

Yeah, I see the existence of a divine creator much more probable than those retarded ideas too (Well, almost). I hope you aren't trying to pass those off as 'scientific theories'.[/b]

[sarcasm]Of course I do[/sarcasm]

I know more ideas than I'd like to, but that is another story. I know a man who said that religious leaders and world renouned scientists are working together and debating on how our existence came to be just to keep us from his version of how the earth was created.

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
I just have 2 questions that I'd like you to respond to.

1) Why do you choose to accept Creationism, which is supported by ancient stories alone?
2) Why do you choose to dismiss several scientific theories (ie. Big Bang, Ekpyrotic) that are supported by direct observational evidence?

1) It is not on stories alone. If that was true then I would never have religious beliefs. I have chosen to be religious because of the feeling I get when I pray. I feel an entity other than my own filling my body with love and compassion. Whenever I think of my God I always seem to be more clear-headed. Whenever I pray to God I can feel he is there with me. He tells me not what to do in words, but gives me instincts on how I should live my life. I do not always follow those instincts, but not every person has always been perfect either. I can say that even the Rabbi I look up to has always listened to the feeling that she gets from God. God is a being yes, but it is a being that can be everywhere (This is where my idea of the Superstring theory blends into my Theistic religion) that is watching, testing, and protecting you. If I believed in The Torah alone I would not survive as a Jewish human. True theists who believe in a supreme being out of choice really can see how their God or Goddess affects their lives everyday. I can see how my God influences me to do good things. This is not my concience. It feels as the entity is giving my concience and myself the list of things it wants me to do. The Torah could be completely untrue, but as a creator of morals it seems to have done its job in my eyes. I see the Torah as true because everything in there is comprehendably possible.

I also see the fact that because these practices have been going on so long that there must be some truth behind it whether there is a God or not. The fact that my religious lineage has gone back farther than I could trace (I went back many generations) has given me much validity. If you say that everyone has been brainwashed or manipulated over time I would like to see evidence proving it. I think that thiests like myself have a feeling that God is there with them past what they can see. Sometimes your 5 senses aren't the only things you should rely on.

2) I do not dismiss theories. I have gone on a journey for myself to different places around the world talking to different people about "The Big Bang". I still see it as possible, but through my own studies I have found with years of thinking that with my common sense and research I came to the conclusion on how it was less likely than a supreme being creating the earth. I still like to think about it and recheck thing by thing, but every time I have I always came to the conclusion that Creationism is more likely. I will not see "The Big Bang" as impossible.

In reality you can call me a Jungian Darwinistic Jewish Human if you want to label my belief on how the world works into categories.

Now I have a few questions for you Brady.

1) Why do you see theories proved by observational evidence automatically correct?
2) When you do an experiment do you take in every factor into consideration? I mean every factor that can possibly change a situation.
3) If someone else does an experiment how can you be sure they did not have errors even with repeated trials?
4) Why do you dismiss the possibility of Creationism even though it is possible?

**bradybaker** · 04-13-2005 06:53 AM

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>

1) Why do you see theories proved by observational evidence automatically correct?[/b]

I don't.

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>

2) When you do an experiment do you take in every factor into consideration? I mean every factor that can possibly change a situation.[/b]

No.

Originally posted by Yume
3) If someone else does an experiment how can you be sure they did not have errors even with repeated trials?

I can't.

<!--QuoteBegin-Yume@
4) Why do you dismiss the possibility of Creationism even though it is possible?

I don't.

<!--QuoteBegin-Yume
I do not want to post evidence against something that I see as possible. Even though isn't what I believe to be most possible disproving it for the sake of debate just doesn't seem worth it right now. I owe a lot to The Superstring Theory. It has saved me many times in different discussions. I could combine it with theism, but really I do not feel like it. This topic fun as it is there is a point I will go to. I actually also know more proving \"The Big Bang\", but like I said that is really not the direction I feel like heading.

Originally posted by Yume
I know more ideas than I'd like to, but that is another story. I know a man who said that religious leaders and world renouned scientists are working together and debating on how our existence came to be just to keep us from his version of how the earth was created.

Sigh. I've had enough of this crap. Go away.

CT · 04-13-2005 11:19 PM

Once again Yume thinks he's winning arguments by plainly denying every singly fact that the other brings to back up his arguments, while not providing any himself with and just posting replies with an attitude of "I'm right, I dont feel like explaining but I'm just right"

Yume, from now on please stay out of discussions if you dont intend to put any effort in proving your point with solid arguments and facts of your own, and keep your ill-informed opinions (Even though you CLAIM to know so much, we never see or notice anything of it) to yourself.

**Kaniaz** · 04-14-2005 07:21 PM

Yeah, Yume, you are just wasting everyone's time.

**ElijahJones** · 04-17-2005 05:32 AM

Wow, that was an exceptionally long rendition of an old Carl Sagan video. It was shorter when I watched it on Nova twenty years ago. I cannot knock anyone for being studious and interested in thinking. But I have to agree with someone who earlier said that the Darfur crisis was of more importance than variations on the BB theory.

I really believe we could cut out all funding on BB research for the next one hundred years and apply it to world peace, and science in the long run would suffer no real setback.

The problem with many of these grand theories is that there are assumptions being made and some of them are so archane that you would not even come close to knowing them without a Phd in physics or mathematics. So physicists (of whom I know personally about 12) and mathematicians (of whom I know personally about 30) work together to use tensor calculus to build a model of how they think gravity works on the largest scales.

It agrees very well with observation and so the story brady tells us is close to the best we have for now. Well, friends I have to stand in there for my brothers and sisters of another faith. Myself being agnostic and leaning toward atheism for various reasons, I still find one good neighbor who happens to be a Baptist to be worth much more than a scientist who would rather run over my cat than slow his Lexus down in my neighborhood.

Priorities have caused every revolution that has ever happened on earth and priorities ill cause the next one. Am I angry, yeah a bit... but really what is more important? Spending billions on the next unobservable 23 dimensional theory of everything or feeding and clothing some suffering human beings? Money is a finite asset and right now we cannot afford to do both.

Just to take this in a totally different odd direction I wonder if any of you are familiar with the topic called foundation of mathematics, in which a man named Kurt Godel proved some pretty amazing results. These results suggest limitations to what humans can possibly know. Will we know enough to know when the limit is reached or will we continue spending money on finding ET and scanning the microwave background radiation when children are suffering from malnutrition?

Priorities..... and choices....., that can easily lead to a series of bifurcations resulting in chaos.

I think I have said all I care to in the philosophy sections. In my mind what is more important is plainly obvious, that humans refuse to do it is also painfully clear.

EJ

Thread: A Brief History Of Existence (at Yume's request)

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

A Brief History Of Existence (at Yume's request)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions