Evolve

[The Anointed]

Continued from post #180.

According to the Genesis narrative, it is on the second day that the Lord calls for a "firmament" to be in the "midst of the waters" to divide the waters:

"And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under (or within) the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." (Genesis 1:6-8 KJV)

The term "firmament" according to the Creation account, is taken from the Hebrew: רָקִיעַ raqiya` raw-kee'-ah, which is defined by many scholars as an expanse, or the visible arch of the sky:—firmament, but a primitive root; “רָקַע raqa` raw-kah” means, to pound, hammer, to overlay (with thin sheets of metal):—beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.

The creation of the firmament is associated with the placement of some sort of structure, and in some modern Bibles many modern scholars translate the Hebrew word raqia as a "dome" or "vault". The Hebrew language appears to imply that the firmament is a firm, fixed structure (FIRMament, which can now be seen as the spherical cloud of comets (Icy vault) in which our solar system was created from the solar nebula cloud that was divided from the greater galactic nebula cloud.

"And God said, “Let there be lights within the firmament or vault to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

(Genesis 1:14-16 KJV) This verse says that the Sun, Moon, and Stars=planets of our solar system, are "within" the firmament. Therefore, the waters that are "above the firmament=dome/vault" must be above the Sun, Moon and Stars=planets of our solar system, revealing that the waters which are referred to in Psalms 148:4; "Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that [be] above the heavens," belong to the greater galactic nebula cloud which has become our Milky Way Galaxy.

The Oort cloud, or the Opik-Oort cloud, which is named after Jan Oort, is a spherical cloud that surrounds our solar system, a cloud of predominantly icy objects such as comets that are comprised of mainly hydrogen, oxygen=water, ammonia and methane, and extends up to about a light year from the sun and defines the cosmographical boundary of our Solar System and the region of the suns gravitational dominance. Here is the Firmament, the great spherical vault within which is found the sun, moons and planets of our solar system, the dome of ice above us.

Knowing that the planets of our solar system were already created before the sun came into existence when the hydrogen nuclei within the condensing solar cloud started fusing together to produce helium nuclei and a lot of energy thereby creating our sun, we must now ask the question, “Did life on earth begin to evolve before the creation of the sun?” As is recorded in the Bible. And can life exist without sunlight? Proof of this is to be found in the darkest depths of our oceans, where life has evolved over six miles beneath the surface where sunlight does not and cannot penetrate.

 

[SomeRandom]

The supposed Big Bang started the Universe as a hot murky soup of extremely energetic photons, which are the quantum of electromagnetic energy that was spewed out in the trillions upon trillions of degrees. Those photons are generally regarded as discrete elementary particles and are also called wave particles, but they are not particles at all, having zero mass and no electric charge, and yet carrying angular and linear momentum.

As this infinitely hot energy spread out, it cooled. One would expect, that those wave particles which are the quantum of the liquid like electromagnetic energy, would have continued to expand further and further away from each other in the expansion of the universal building material. But with the angular momentum of those waves, they collided with each other in nuclear fusion in the creation of the first basic sub-atomic particles. As the universal temperature dropped to some billions of degrees, the dark energy which was the expansion’s acceleration force, began to form into dark matter, hydrogen and helium, with trace quantities of lithium, beryllium, and boron.

The Universe stayed dark, without any luminous sources, until gravity, condensed the mainly hydrogen, with helium, and the trace quantities of lithium, beryllium, and boron, into the first stars. All stars, including these first- generation stars, act as chemical factories, synthesizing almost all of the elements that make up the world around us.

And God said, “Let there be light.” Which was not the light from the sun of this minor solar system within our Milky Way galaxy, which solar system would not be created for some nine billion years after the creation of those first massive stars that lit up the darkness of the bottomless pit, in which massive nuclear reactors the heavier elements were created.

When the original stars exploded as supernovae, and collapsed into a black hole, they spewed out much of the elements that those massive nuclear reactors had created, seeding the surrounding galactic gas cloud.

Subsequent generations of stars that formed in the surrounding Gas cloud, which were created from those elements, incorporated the elements that were created within them, and steadily increased the chemical abundances of their surroundings, which was the evolving Galaxy, that was anchored in space by the central Black Hole, around which, THE GALACTIC NEBULA had begun to revolve.

This is one scientific theory as to the creation of our solar system some 9 billion years after the creation of those first massive stars that lit up the darkness of the expanding space.

Whether or not a better theory than that which we have today will develop, time will tell.

This theory would appear to support the biblical statement, that the process of the division of the waters above from the waters below, [See Genesis 1: 6; KJV] or the division of the solar nebula cloud from the greater Galactic nebula cloud, began some five billion years ago, and that the whole process began with the division of the waters (cloud) above, from the waters (Cloud) below from which the entire Solar system was created. This took just a few hundred million years, about 400 million years in fact, and the creation of our entire solar system was completed by about 4.6 billion years ago.

It was from the galactic nebular cloud, which was the residue of the heaver elements that were exploded off with the great super nova, which was the death of one of those gigantic earlier generation Stars that our Milky-Way galaxy would be formed in the second creative period=day, as the active universal forces brought about a division of the Solar nebular cloud [The Waters Below] from the Galactic nebular cloud [The Waters Above].

The accretion of the galactic nebula disk, which was being attracted to the central Black Hole around which it had begun to orbit, transferred angular momentum outward as it transferred mass inward, it was this that caused our solar nebula to begin to rotate and condense inward, bringing a division of the solar cloud, from the galactic cloud, or the waters above from the waters below.

Within the greater galactic nebular cloud, which was slowly beginning to revolve around the Black Hole that anchored it in space, a piece of the larger cloud complex started to collapse about five billion years ago. The cloud complex had already been "polluted" with dust grains from previous generations of stars, so it was possible to form the rocky terrestrial planets as gravity pulled the gas and dust together, forming a solar nebula. As the cloud=waters of the solar nebula collapsed, its slight rotation increased. This is because of the conservation of angular momentum.

Just like a dancer who spins faster as she pulls in her arms, the cloud began to spin as it collapsed. Eventually, the cloud grew hotter and denser in the centre, with a disk of gas and dust surrounding it that was hot in the centre but cool at the edges. As the disk got thinner and thinner, particles began to stick together and form clumps. Some clumps got bigger, as particles and small clumps stuck to them, eventually forming planets or moons. Genesis 1: 6—9. As the heavenly cloud was gathered together in one place, dry land, or rather planets began to form. Near the centre of the condensing cloud, where planets like earth formed, only rocky material could stand the great heat. Icy matter settled in the outer regions of the disk along with rocky material, where the giant planets like Jupiter formed.

As the cloud continued to fall in, the centre would get so hot that it would eventually become a star and with a strong stellar wind, would blow away most of the gas and dust from which the planets of the solar system had been formed.

By studying meteorites, which are thought to be left over from this early phase of the solar system, scientists have found that the solar system is about 4.6 billion years old! As the solar nebula collapsed, the gas and dust heated up through collisions among the particles. The solar nebula heated up to around 3000 K so everything was in a gaseous form. The solar nebula's composition was similar to the present-day Sun's composition: about 93% hydrogen, 6% helium, and about 1% silicates and iron, and the density of the gas and dust increased toward the core where the proto-sun was: [PROTO SUN.]. The inner, denser regions collapsed more quickly than the outer regions.

PROTO-HUMANS WERE NOT HUMANS AND THE PROTO-SUN, WAS NOT YET OUR SUN.

Around Jupiter's distance from the proto-Sun the temperature was cool enough to freeze water (the so-called "snow line" or "frost line"). Further out from the proto-Sun, ammonia and methane were able to condense. There was a significant amount of water closer to the Proto-sun, but could not condense. When the solar nebula stopped collapsing it began cooling, though the core that would later form the Sun remained hot.

This meant that the outer parts of the solar nebula cooled off more than the inner parts closer to the hot proto-Sun. Only metal and rock materials could condense (solidify) at the high temperatures close to the proto-Sun. Therefore, the metal and rock materials could condense in all the places where the planets were forming. Volatile materials (like water, methane and ammonia) could only condense in the outer parts of the solar nebula.

Because the density of the solar nebula material increased inward, there was more water at Jupiter's distance than at the distances of Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune. The greater amount of water ice at Jupiter's distance from the proto-Sun helped it grow larger than the other planets. Although, there was more water closer to the proto-Sun than Jupiter, that water was too warm to condense. Material with the highest freezing temperatures condensed to form the chondrules that were then incorporated in lower freezing temperature material. Chondrules (from Ancient Greek chondros, meaning grain) are round grains found in chondrites. Chondrules form as molten or partially molten droplets in space before being accreted to their parent asteroids.

Any material that later became part of a planet underwent further heating and processing when the planet differentiated so the heavy metals sunk to the planet's core and lighter metals floated up to nearer the surface.

Because of its great compression, the core of the proto-Sun finally reached about 10 million Kelvin and after the planets of the solar system had been created, the hydrogen nuclei started fusing together to produce helium nuclei and a lot of energy. It was then that the proto-Sun "TURNED ON" and became our Sun, which produced the strong winds called T-Tauri winds named after the prototype star in the constellation Taurus.

These winds swept out the rest of the nebula that was not already incorporated into the planets. With most of the cocoon gas blown away, the new star itself becomes visible to the outside for the first time. This whole process took just a few hundred million years and was finished by about 4.6 billion years ago. At the distance of about one light year from the earth, is the great icy Dome, that is the boundary of the firmament of our heavens, in which the sun, moon, and planets of our solar system were created.

Knowing, and in accordance to the scriptures, that the planets of our solar system were already created before the sun came into existence when the hydrogen nuclei within the condensing solar cloud started fusing together to produce helium nuclei and a lot of energy thereby creating our sun, we must now ask the question, “Did life on earth begin to evolve before the creation of the sun?” As is recorded in the Bible. And can life exist without sunlight? Proof of this is to be found in the darkest depths of our oceans, where life has evolved over six miles beneath the surface where sunlight does not and cannot penetrate. This subject will be discussed at a later stage.

Uhh thank you.
But given your post history on this thread, I will wait for confirmation from the science boffins here.

 

[Polymath257]

The supposed Big Bang started the Universe as a hot murky soup of extremely energetic photons, which are the quantum of electromagnetic energy that was spewed out in the trillions upon trillions of degrees.

Not quite. There were other things than just photons.

Those photons are generally regarded as discrete elementary particles and are also called wave particles, but they are not particles at all, having zero mass and no electric charge, and yet carrying angular and linear momentum.

And why do you say they are not particles? They are the quantum particle for the E&M field.

As this infinitely hot energy spread out, it cooled. One would expect, that those wave particles which are the quantum of the liquid like electromagnetic energy, would have continued to expand further and further away from each other in the expansion of the universal building material. But with the angular momentum of those waves, they collided with each other in nuclear fusion in the creation of the first basic sub-atomic particles.

Um, no. The photons were not the origin of the neutrons that fueled the first fusion reactions. They were formed from the quark plasma that existed prior to this (along with the photons).

As the universal temperature dropped to some billions of degrees, the dark energy which was the expansion’s acceleration force, began to form into dark matter, hydrogen and helium, with trace quantities of lithium, beryllium, and boron.

More misunderstandings. Dark energy didn't become dominant until much later. And it was not relevant to nucleosynthesis (the formation of hydrogen, helium, etc).

The Universe stayed dark, without any luminous sources, until gravity, condensed the mainly hydrogen, with helium, and the trace quantities of lithium, beryllium, and boron, into the first stars. All stars, including these first- generation stars, act as chemical factories, synthesizing almost all of the elements that make up the world around us.

Again, not quite right. There was a period of (relative) darkness after the decoupling of photons with matter and the formation of the earliest stars, but the background radiation itself would have been luminous.

And God said, “Let there be light.” Which was not the light from the sun of this minor solar system within our Milky Way galaxy, which solar system would not be created for some nine billion years after the creation of those first massive stars that lit up the darkness of the bottomless pit, in which massive nuclear reactors the heavier elements were created.

Pit?

When the original stars exploded as supernovae, and collapsed into a black hole, they spewed out much of the elements that those massive nuclear reactors had created, seeding the surrounding galactic gas cloud.

Sort of, but there wasn't a 'galactic cloud' in the sense you are saying. There were stars and gases, just like what exist today.

Subsequent generations of stars that formed in the surrounding Gas cloud, which were created from those elements, incorporated the elements that were created within them, and steadily increased the chemical abundances of their surroundings, which was the evolving Galaxy, that was anchored in space by the central Black Hole, around which, THE GALACTIC NEBULA had begun to revolve.

Nope. The term 'galactic nebula' is quite archaic and suggests terminology from before when we knew galaxies had stars in them.

This is one scientific theory as to the creation of our solar system some 9 billion years after the creation of those first massive stars that lit up the darkness of the expanding space.

Whether or not a better theory than that which we have today will develop, time will tell.

This theory would appear to support the biblical statement, that the process of the division of the waters above from the waters below, [See Genesis 1: 6; KJV] or the division of the solar nebula cloud from the greater Galactic nebula cloud, began some five billion years ago, and that the whole process began with the division of the waters (cloud) above, from the waters (Cloud) below from which the entire Solar system was created. This took just a few hundred million years, about 400 million years in fact, and the creation of our entire solar system was completed by about 4.6 billion years ago.

Not at all what was likely to have happened. Instead, look at modern nebulae like the Orion or Eagle nebula to see the types of environments where stars like our sun form. There is NOT a 'separation' of the solar cloud from some galactic cloud. That just simply isn't what happens.

It was from the galactic nebular cloud, which was the residue of the heaver elements that were exploded off with the great super nova, which was the death of one of those gigantic earlier generation Stars that our Milky-Way galaxy would be formed in the second creative period=day, as the active universal forces brought about a division of the Solar nebular cloud [The Waters Below] from the Galactic nebular cloud [The Waters Above].

I'm boggled enough to not know how to respond to this. The whole claim is nonsense scientifically and shows a deep misunderstanding of what the Milky Way galaxy is and how long it has been around (far longer than the sun).

The accretion of the galactic nebula disk, which was being attracted to the central Black Hole around which it had begun to orbit, transferred angular momentum outward as it transferred mass inward, it was this that caused our solar nebula to begin to rotate and condense inward, bringing a division of the solar cloud, from the galactic cloud, or the waters above from the waters below.

Again, not even close to what actually happens. The scales of the solar system to the galaxy as a whole are way, way off.

Within the greater galactic nebular cloud, which was slowly beginning to revolve around the Black Hole that anchored it in space, a piece of the larger cloud complex started to collapse about five billion years ago. The cloud complex had already been "polluted" with dust grains from previous generations of stars, so it was possible to form the rocky terrestrial planets as gravity pulled the gas and dust together, forming a solar nebula. As the cloud=waters of the solar nebula collapsed, its slight rotation increased. This is because of the conservation of angular momentum.

None of this makes any sense scientifically. The formation of the solar system and the overall motion of the galaxy are NOT linked.

Just like a dancer who spins faster as she pulls in her arms, the cloud began to spin as it collapsed. Eventually, the cloud grew hotter and denser in the centre, with a disk of gas and dust surrounding it that was hot in the centre but cool at the edges. As the disk got thinner and thinner, particles began to stick together and form clumps. Some clumps got bigger, as particles and small clumps stuck to them, eventually forming planets or moons. Genesis 1: 6—9. As the heavenly cloud was gathered together in one place, dry land, or rather planets began to form. Near the centre of the condensing cloud, where planets like earth formed, only rocky material could stand the great heat. Icy matter settled in the outer regions of the disk along with rocky material, where the giant planets like Jupiter formed.

No, the center of the solar system is the sun, which has over 99% of the mass of the solar system. The planets orbit the sun. Any heat present was from the young sun.

As the cloud continued to fall in, the centre would get so hot that it would eventually become a star and with a strong stellar wind, would blow away most of the gas and dust from which the planets of the solar system had been formed.

Sorry, the order is way off here. Again, we can see systems today showing the formation of planets and stars and what you described is NOT what happens.

By studying meteorites, which are thought to be left over from this early phase of the solar system, scientists have found that the solar system is about 4.6 billion years old!

This much is correct.

Anyway, I can't continue. The rest is so confused and twisted away from the science that I'm not sure even how to address it. First clear up the mistakes above and then we can continue on.

 

[Polymath257]

Knowing that the planets of our solar system were already created before the sun came into existence

Actually, we know exactly the opposite.

when the hydrogen nuclei within the condensing solar cloud started fusing together to produce helium nuclei and a lot of energy thereby creating our sun, we must now ask the question, “Did life on earth begin to evolve before the creation of the sun?” As is recorded in the Bible. And can life exist without sunlight? Proof of this is to be found in the darkest depths of our oceans, where life has evolved over six miles beneath the surface where sunlight does not and cannot penetrate.

Well, I will say your take on this is original. But not based on any solid science.

 

[Polymath257]

How did the planets form? And what is that process called?
I recall very vaguely from physics class that it had something to do with gravity. But that’s about it.

Well, gravity helps the condensation of the gas and dust that the solar system (sun and planets) was made from. The planets themselves formed by a process of coalescence. Essentially, the dust particles adhered to each other. At first loosely (as we see today in asteroids), but as the size got larger, the gravity helps to compact and heat the forming planet (and the central star forms from the majority of the material). Once the proto-planet is large enough, gravity compresses it into a spherical shape.

We can see some of this happening around other stars today (Epsilon Eridanii, for example). We also see the remnants of this time in the asteroids (which was material left over, so to speak) and the cratering patters we see on the moon and Mars (which have less geological turnover than Earth).

 

[The Anointed]

Not quite. There were other things than just photons.



And why do you say they are not particles? They are the quantum particle for the E&M field.


Um, no. The photons were not the origin of the neutrons that fueled the first fusion reactions. They were formed from the quark plasma that existed prior to this (along with the photons).



More misunderstandings. Dark energy didn't become dominant until much later. And it was not relevant to nucleosynthesis (the formation of hydrogen, helium, etc).



Again, not quite right. There was a period of (relative) darkness after the decoupling of photons with matter and the formation of the earliest stars, but the background radiation itself would have been luminous.



Pit?



Sort of, but there wasn't a 'galactic cloud' in the sense you are saying. There were stars and gases, just like what exist today.



Nope. The term 'galactic nebula' is quite archaic and suggests terminology from before when we knew galaxies had stars in them.



Not at all what was likely to have happened. Instead, look at modern nebulae like the Orion or Eagle nebula to see the types of environments where stars like our sun form. There is NOT a 'separation' of the solar cloud from some galactic cloud. That just simply isn't what happens.



I'm boggled enough to not know how to respond to this. The whole claim is nonsense scientifically and shows a deep misunderstanding of what the Milky Way galaxy is and how long it has been around (far longer than the sun).



Again, not even close to what actually happens. The scales of the solar system to the galaxy as a whole are way, way off.



None of this makes any sense scientifically. The formation of the solar system and the overall motion of the galaxy are NOT linked.



No, the center of the solar system is the sun, which has over 99% of the mass of the solar system. The planets orbit the sun. Any heat present was from the young sun.


Sorry, the order is way off here. Again, we can see systems today showing the formation of planets and stars and what you described is NOT what happens.


This much is correct.

Anyway, I can't continue. The rest is so confused and twisted away from the science that I'm not sure even how to address it. First clear up the mistakes above and then we can continue on.

Hey mate, I simply quoted one the most accepted theories as to the creation of our Solar system from the Galactic nebula. The Accretion model as explained in the following link. If you do not like this scientific theory. then please put forward your own theory.

Where do you think the material from which or solar system came from, if not from the galactic nebula.

The Accretion Theory - Solar System Planets And Moons Section.

In this link which is not really the one that I was looking for but will suffice for now, it is written; "We could witness a system where, the entire universe is swallowed into a single black hole at an alarming speed, and a singularity appear." Not that I believe in a singularity, but that the universe is swallowed by the Ultimate Black Hole and ripped apart and reconverted to electromagnetic energy from which it was created and accellerated along the worm hole, or Einstein Rosen bridge to speeds far, far in excess to the speed of Light and spewed out in the trillions upon trillions of degrees, out of the White Hole, far beyond the cosmic horizon, where the old universe is resurrected.

Great Attractor - Wikipedia

As I have already said in post #178; "Can you prove that an atom has any physical qualities?

In fact, it has now been revealed that matter is no more than an illusion. Quantum physicists discovered that so called physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature.

If you observed the composition of an atom with a microscope you would see a small, invisible tornado-like vortex, with a number of infinitely small energy vortices called quarks and photons. These are what make up the structure of the atom. As you focused in closer and closer on the structure of the atom, you would see nothing, you would observe a physical void. The atom has no physical structure, we have no physical structure, physical things really don’t have any physical structure! Atoms are made out of invisible energy, not tangible matter.

Nothing is solid & everything is energy: scientists explain the world of quantum physics

Here is an excerpt from the above link.

The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a 'GREAT THOUGHT' rather than a great machine. The mind seems to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, but rather a creator and governor of the realm of matter. (R. C. Henry, « the mental world »; Nature 436: 29, 2005)

In 1935, Einstein and physicist Nathan Rosen used the theory of general relativity to elaborate on the idea of black holes and worm holes, proposing the existence of "bridges" through space-time. These bridges connect two different points in space-time, theoretically creating a shortcut that could reduce travel time and distance; Billions of light years to mere kilo-metres.

According to general relativity, the gravitational collapse of a sufficiently compact mass forms a singular Schwarzschild black hole. In the Einstein–Cartan–Sciama–Kibble theory of gravity, however, it forms a regular Einstein–Rosen bridge.

The gravitational collapse of a single star such as the minor star of our solar system, can only form a White Dwarf, Our sun will eventually burn up all its lighter elements and move on to the heavier material and blow out as a Red Giant, when this happens, it will expand outward and get so large that the orbit of the earth will actually be inside the sun, and the earth’s crust will be melted into an ocean of lava.

Eventually, there will be nothing there to burn and all that will be left of our sun will be a compact White dwarf of carbon and oxygen about the size of today’s earth, and a thimble full of material from the White Dwarf would weigh anything up to a ton.

A neutron star is what is left over when a very heavy star explodes. This explosion is called a Supernova, the gravitational collapse of those bigger stars, create a fast spinning body no bigger than the earth, which is so dense that even a thimble full of their material, would weigh anything up to about 100 million tons.

Atoms have a certain weight, but the weight is almost all in the nucleus. The nucleus inside an atom is so small that if you made a model of an atom that was the size of a large house, the nucleus would still only be the size of a grain of salt. An atom, apart from its nucleus, is almost all space.

In a neutron star, all of the atoms have been crushed together so tightly by the force of gravity that their nuclei are touching. If you can imagine the amount of space needed for a billion large houses to occupy, then reduce that to the space needed to house a billion grains of salt, which still weigh almost the same as the billion houses, then you have some idea as to what a neutron star is. But unlike a Black Hole neutron stars do radiate beams of energy.

As previously stated, according to general relativity, the gravitational collapse of a sufficiently compact mass forms a regular Schwarzschild black hole, which is a non-rotating black hole as opposed to a rotating Kerr black hole. Nothing can escape from a black hole, not even light, the mass within a black hole warps the fabric of space, as the internal mass increases by the objects falling into and being devoured by that gravitational anomaly, it begins to form a funnel like tunnel in space.

Any object going into a black hole would be ripped apart by the intense gravitational force inside the black hole and reconverted to the photons from which it was originally created.

In 1963, New Zealand mathematician Roy Kerr, calculated an exact solution for Einstein’s field equations representing a Kerr black hole. The special feature of a Kerr black hole is that it rotates. So far as scientists know, all objects in the universe rotate, including stars, so when the star collapses into a black hole, it’s likely that it too will rotate.

In Kerr’s solution, it’s actually possible for the electromagnetic energy from which this universe and all herein was created, the quantum of that energy, being photons, to travel through the rotating black hole and could come out of the white hole at the other side.

A worm Hole could theoretically be used as a method of sending information or travelers through space, unfortunately, physical matter which includes humans journeying through the space tunnels would appear to be an impossibility as there are strong indications that material objects travelling through a worm hole is forbidden by the law of physics.

But now that it has been discovered that Physical matter is but an illusion, and all is, but the eternal energy, perhaps one day new technology may develop a way to teleport bodies of energy along light beams and reconstruct them to their original form, with no damage done: ‘Beam me up Scotty?’ (The great rapture.)

Wormholes may not only connect two separate regions within the universe, they could also connect two different universes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Cosmological theories are formulated by scientists, and theories by definition, are the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists, who are prone to change their minds, leaving those who believed by faith alone, the original theory of those particular scientists, standing out on a shaky limb.

You could not be more wrong, not even if you tried.

By now, if you have actually read the thread, you should know why.
This nonsense has been adressed multiple times already by multiple people.

There are as many, if not more scientific theories as to the origin of our universe, as there are differing religious bodies, such as Christianity, Hindu, Abrahamic, Muslim, etc.

False.

 

[The Anointed]

You could not be more wrong, not even if you tried.

By now, if you have actually read the thread, you should know why.
This nonsense has been adressed multiple times already by multiple people.



False.

TM wrote.......You could not be more wrong, not even if you tried. By now, if you have actually read the thread, you should know why. This nonsense has been adressed multiple times already by multiple people.

By people like yourself, who cannot grasp the truth, which is, that a theory is only the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists who hold to the theory in question, which will remain no more than a theory until it can be proven to be an absolute fact, which you and your like minded mates cannot do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By people like yourself, who cannot grasp the truth,

No. Instead, by people who actually understand scientific terminology and how science actually works.
You don't have to take our word for it... Just go and look up the actual meanings of the words "facts", "laws", "hypothesis" and "theory" in a scientific context.

which is, that a theory is only the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists who hold to the theory in question, which will remain no more than a theory until it can be proven to be an absolute fact, which you and your like minded mates cannot do.

No. As explained at nauseum allready, theories never become facts nore can they ever be "proven" - only supported.

Facts are just observations and datapoints.
Laws DESCRIBE the facts​

Hypothesis attempt to EXPLAIN the facts in testable ways.
Theories are the graduation stage of hypothesis. A theory is thus an explanation of the facts which is a well-tested, well-established, confirmed hypothesis.


The sooner you understand what these words actually mean in scientific context, the better.

 

[Polymath257]

Hey mate, I simply quoted one the most accepted theories as to the creation of our Solar system from the Galactic nebula. The Accretion model as explained in the following link. If you do not like this scientific theory. then please put forward your own theory.

Sorry, but you are 'quoting' a misunderstanding of the scientific theories.

Where do you think the material from which or solar system came from, if not from the galactic nebula.

At the time the solar system formed there *was* no 'galactic nebula'. There were nebula, but the galaxy as a whole was pretty much like it is now.

As I have already said in post #178; "Can you prove that an atom has any physical qualities?

In fact, it has now been revealed that matter is no more than an illusion. Quantum physicists discovered that so called physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature.

No, that is wrong. There are not 'vortices of energy'. There *are* quantum wave functions.

If you observed the composition of an atom with a microscope you would see a small, invisible tornado-like vortex, with a number of infinitely small energy vortices called quarks and photons.

Simply false. The atoms do NOT look like little tornadoes, nor are quarks vortices in any sense of the word.

These are what make up the structure of the atom. As you focused in closer and closer on the structure of the atom, you would see nothing, you would observe a physical void. The atom has no physical structure, we have no physical structure, physical things really don’t have any physical structure! Atoms are made out of invisible energy, not tangible matter.

The problem is that 'physical' is *defined* as being what the atoms are. They are, almost by definition, physical structures.

The 'tangibility' of matter is a consequence of those quantum properties (mostly the exclusion principle). But the *physical* structure of an atom is that it has a nucleus made from protons and neutrons (which are, in turn, made of quarks and gluons) and an electron cloud (not a vortex) surrounding that nucleus.

The gravitational collapse of a single star such as the minor star of our solar system, can only form a White Dwarf, Our sun will eventually burn up all its lighter elements and move on to the heavier material and blow out as a Red Giant, when this happens, it will expand outward and get so large that the orbit of the earth will actually be inside the sun, and the earth’s crust will be melted into an ocean of lava.

Eventually, there will be nothing there to burn and all that will be left of our sun will be a compact White dwarf of carbon and oxygen about the size of today’s earth, and a thimble full of material from the White Dwarf would weigh anything up to a ton.

A neutron star is what is left over when a very heavy star explodes. This explosion is called a Supernova, the gravitational collapse of those bigger stars, create a fast spinning body no bigger than the earth, which is so dense that even a thimble full of their material, would weigh anything up to about 100 million tons.

Atoms have a certain weight, but the weight is almost all in the nucleus. The nucleus inside an atom is so small that if you made a model of an atom that was the size of a large house, the nucleus would still only be the size of a grain of salt. An atom, apart from its nucleus, is almost all space.

In a neutron star, all of the atoms have been crushed together so tightly by the force of gravity that their nuclei are touching. If you can imagine the amount of space needed for a billion large houses to occupy, then reduce that to the space needed to house a billion grains of salt, which still weigh almost the same as the billion houses, then you have some idea as to what a neutron star is. But unlike a Black Hole neutron stars do radiate beams of energy.

As previously stated, according to general relativity, the gravitational collapse of a sufficiently compact mass forms a regular Schwarzschild black hole, which is a non-rotating black hole as opposed to a rotating Kerr black hole. Nothing can escape from a black hole, not even light, the mass within a black hole warps the fabric of space, as the internal mass increases by the objects falling into and being devoured by that gravitational anomaly, it begins to form a funnel like tunnel in space.

Good so far.

Any object going into a black hole would be ripped apart by the intense gravitational force inside the black hole and reconverted to the photons from which it was originally created.

And here you go off track again. Objects are NOT created from photons. And, for example, a black hole will maintain the charge of whatever goes into it.

In 1963, New Zealand mathematician Roy Kerr, calculated an exact solution for Einstein’s field equations representing a Kerr black hole. The special feature of a Kerr black hole is that it rotates. So far as scientists know, all objects in the universe rotate, including stars, so when the star collapses into a black hole, it’s likely that it too will rotate.

Yes, agreed.

In Kerr’s solution, it’s actually possible for the electromagnetic energy from which this universe and all herein was created, the quantum of that energy, being photons, to travel through the rotating black hole and could come out of the white hole at the other side.

Yes.

A worm Hole could theoretically be used as a method of sending information or travelers through space, unfortunately, physical matter which includes humans journeying through the space tunnels would appear to be an impossibility as there are strong indications that material objects travelling through a worm hole is forbidden by the law of physics.

Too bad no white holes have ever been found (a white hole is very different than a white dwarf).

But now that it has been discovered that Physical matter is but an illusion, and all is, but the eternal energy, perhaps one day new technology may develop a way to teleport bodies of energy along light beams and reconstruct them to their original form, with no damage done: ‘Beam me up Scotty?’ (The great rapture.)

Again, based on faulty assumptions about matter.

Wormholes may not only connect two separate regions within the universe, they could also connect two different universes.

Theoretically, yes. But that has not been observed.

 

[gnostic]

The theory of evolution, without intelligent design, must eventually prove how a Universe of supposedly mindless matter, has produced beings with intrinsic ends, [in Kantian terminology, an end-in-itself] --------- self- replication capabilities, and “coded chemistry”? Until then it remains no more than a theory.

But the DESIGNER itself must be falsifiable first, before you can even consider the rest of ID premises and assumptions that the universe or world or life being “designed” by the DESIGNER.

It (the “Designer”) is no more falsifiable than the Cyclops or a pixie.

If the “Designer” exist, then you must show evidence that the Designer is a real entity that is or was responsible for designing the world and life.

No ID followers have been able to provide such evidence. Instead they danced around the Designer, making many unfounded and unsubstantiated claims, using circular reasoning (including the absurd debunked Watchmaker analogy), logical fallacies, half-truths, and bus-load of untruths.

Where are the evidence for the Designer?

 

[The Anointed]

But the DESIGNER itself must be falsifiable first, before you can even consider the rest of ID premises and assumptions that the universe or world or life being “designed” by the DESIGNER.

It (the “Designer”) is no more falsifiable than the Cyclops or a pixie.

If the “Designer” exist, then you must show evidence that the Designer is a real entity that is or was responsible for designing the world and life.

No ID followers have been able to provide such evidence. Instead they danced around the Designer, making many unfounded and unsubstantiated claims, using circular reasoning (including the absurd debunked Watchmaker analogy), logical fallacies, half-truths, and bus-load of untruths.

Where are the evidence for the Designer?

Which is irrelevant to the subject as to whether the theory of evolution has been proved beyond doubt to be a fact or whether it must remain as no more than a theory, until, and if ever, it can be proven to be factual.

Can you prove that the theory of evolution has been proven to be an absolute fact?

 

[gnostic]

Which is irrelevant to the subject as to whether the theory of evolution has been proved beyond doubt to be a fact or whether it must remain as no more than a theory, until, and if ever, it can be proven to be factual.

Can you prove that the theory of evolution has been proven to be an absolute fact?

Hey, you were the one who brought up, Intelligent Design, which isn't a scientific theory, but unfalsifiable model that is considered PSEUDOSCIENCE, by a majority of scientists.

It is relevant, if you were the one who brought up ID in the first place, since you wrote:

The theory of evolution, without intelligent design, must eventually prove how a Universe of supposedly mindless matter, has produced beings with intrinsic ends, [in Kantian terminology, an end-in-itself] --------- self- replication capabilities, and “coded chemistry”? Until then it remains no more than a theory.

Since when Intelligent Design ever "proven"? When was there any evidence for ID or its Designer?

The answer is no to both questions. Even Michael Behe, as the "expert witness", admitted as much about the absence of evidence for ID, in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case in 2005:

Q. [Rothschild] Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?

A. [Michael Behe] No, I argued for it in my book.

Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

A. That's correct.

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin's Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research?

A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.

Q. Now you have written for peer reviewed scientific journals on subjects other than intelligent design, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in those articles, you did report original research and data, at least in many of them, correct?

A. Yes.

(Source: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 12 (October 19), AM Session, Part 1)

I have highlighted Behe's answers in bold.

ID has never been published in scientific journal, HENCE, NO PEER REVIEW.

And that include no experiments, no calculations, no new data and no original research.

Experiments and data are essential requirements to every single scientific theories, and no ID authors and ID scientists have ever provided evidence or data for verification.

If you were to ask me, if there are evidence for Evolution, then yes, by multiple sources, eg biologists, geologists and all other related fields.

What evidence have Behe, and other members of Discovery Institute provided (eg, Stephen Meyer, Phillip Johnson (founder of ID), and Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, who were co-authors of Of Pandas And People, 1989)?

Absolutely none.

So until you can show evidence for DESIGNER and for ID, why would anyone think Intelligent Design to be relevant?

Why would the Theory of Evolution needs to include the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design in the theory?

 

[The Anointed]

Hey, you were the one who brought up, Intelligent Design, which isn't a scientific theory, but unfalsifiable model that is considered PSEUDOSCIENCE, by a majority of scientists.

It is relevant, if you were the one who brought up ID in the first place, since you wrote:


Since when Intelligent Design ever "proven"? When was there any evidence for ID or its Designer?

The answer is no to both questions. Even Michael Behe, as the "expert witness", admitted as much about the absence of evidence for ID, in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case in 2005:




(Source: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 12 (October 19), AM Session, Part 1)

I have highlighted Behe's answers in bold.

ID has never been published in scientific journal, HENCE, NO PEER REVIEW.

And that include no experiments, no calculations, no new data and no original research.

Experiments and data are essential requirements to every single scientific theories, and no ID authors and ID scientists have ever provided evidence or data for verification.

If you were to ask me, if there are evidence for Evolution, then yes, by multiple sources, eg biologists, geologists and all other related fields.

What evidence have Behe, and other members of Discovery Institute provided (eg, Stephen Meyer, Phillip Johnson (founder of ID), and Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, who were co-authors of Of Pandas And People, 1989)?

Absolutely none.

So until you can show evidence for DESIGNER and for ID, why would anyone think Intelligent Design to be relevant?

Why would the Theory of Evolution needs to include the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design in the theory?

Since when has the THEORY of evolution ever been proved?

 

[gnostic]

Since when has the THEORY of evolution ever been proved?

The Theory of Evolution have been tested, not proven.

Science (meaning science in general, not just talking about Evolution) rely on evidence, NOT PROOF, so in science, it is not about proving the hypothesis or theory, but testing them.

Proving isn’t testing.

What I find creationists seem incapable of learning, is that proof isn’t evidence. They (creationists as well as any one don’t have much education or experiences in science-related fields) frequently use proof and evidence, synonymously, when to both mathematicians and scientists, these two have very distinct meanings.

Knowing and understanding what they mean, will at the very least provide you some basics of what they mean.

As you would know, a hypothesis or a theory is a model that explain a particular natural phenomena you are investigating.

Proof is also a model, often communicated in the forms of mathematical statements...statement that you often see in science textbooks as mathematical equations or formulas, filled with numbers, variables and constants.

And when mathematicians and physicists (especially theoretical physicists) speak of “PROVING” or “DISPROVING”, they are not talking about evidence, they are talking about any equations. For instances, proving can involve simplifying a complex equation into simple one, or using multiple equations to derive a single equation, or do the opposite, using a single equation to make multiple equations, and so on. Proving is trying to mathematical solution to any problems.

So, for instance, Einstein’s famous equation - mass-energy equivalence is written as

E = m c^2​

Where c is a constant of the speed of light in a vacuum.

That equation is PROOF. That’s what a proof looks like, The Anointed.

What it isn’t...that equation isn’t evidence.

Evidence is anything that can be observed, measured, quantified or tested. Evidence is observation, that is testable.

Not all observation can be seen with your eyes, but the evidence can be real. You can use device that can detect, quantify or measure for you.

For instance. You cannot see radio waves, but you know they are real, because you can listen music or talk show on the radio. The evidence of radio waves, is that radio station will convert audio signals into electrical signals, which in turn convert electrical signal into radio signal. This radio signal is transmitted to radio tower that is then broadcast through the end.

Anyone with radio, can tune in to that radio frequency and listen to the broadcast, which captured radio signal with the radio antenna. The radio then convert radio signal back to electrical signals, and that electrical signals will convert into audio signals that is playback through speakers as sounds.

The same principle is used for TV station and TV set, mobile phones, wi-fi network, etc.

My point is that while radio waves or signals, cannot be seen, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t mean they don’t exist...all it need is a device that can detect the signals , use it, and convert into something that can be useful.

The radio signal analogy is example of observation using devices capable of being detected, measured and tested.

That’s what evidence is.

Science rely on evidence, not on mathematical proofs.

It is the evidence/observations that will either debunk or verify theory or hypothesis, not equations or formulas. It is the evidence that make or break a theory or hypothesis.

Don’t get me wrong. Proofs (maths) can be useful, but it isn’t what scientists are seeking.

 

[Valjean]

Which is irrelevant to the subject as to whether the theory of evolution has been proved beyond doubt to be a fact or whether it must remain as no more than a theory, until, and if ever, it can be proven to be factual.

Can you prove that the theory of evolution has been proven to be an absolute fact?

Since when has the THEORY of evolution ever been proved?

Anointed, are you a Bot? You keep talking about science and proof. We keep explaining why this is erroneous and shows no understanding of what science is or does. Then you repeat it... and repeat it and repeat it.

We don't believe things because they're proved. We believe things because the weight of evidence supports them.

Do you believe germs cause disease? Do you believe the Earth circles the Sun? If so, why? Neither has been proved, but what these two theories do have is overwhelming supporting evidence, perhaps not as much consilient evidence as the ToE, but a lot.

Evolution is an an observation -- a fact. The theory explaining its mechanisms -- the ToE -- is just that, a theory: the highest degree of confidence available to science.

 

[Astrophile]

According to Wikipedia scientist don't know which species is ancestral to homo so that's what makes me find evolution hard to believe. Is this irrational?

You appear to be presenting two different, and contradictory, arguments against evolution. First you asked,

Interesting, are there any major gaps from australopithecines to modern humans?

Then you said,

I just read this on Wikipedia it was interesting

"Determining which species of australopithecine (if any) is ancestral to the genus Homo is a question that is a top priority for many paleoanthropologists, but one that will likely elude any conclusive answers for years to come. Nearly every possible species has been suggested as a likely candidate, but none are overwhelmingly convincing.

Your question was whether there are any gaps in the fossil record between australopithecines and modern humans (it would be better to say 'the genus Homo'). Your quotation from Wikipedia, on the other hand, implies that there are no gaps between australopithecines and Homo; on the contrary there are too many species of Australopithecus that could fill the gap, and scientists can't be sure which is the right one.

 

[gnostic]

I would like to add, @The Anointed , that when scientists test any falsifiable explanatory models (eg hypotheses, theories), they are not only looking for evidence to test the models, they are also attempting to test the mathematical proofs (eg equations, formulas, constants, metrics, etc).

So evidence are not used only used to test the explanations and predictions, to determine which of these are true or false, they are also trying to determine which proofs are true or false, correct or incorrect.

In another words, equations and formulas (thus proofs) are subjected to scrutiny as much as any predictions or explanations in a model.

A proof is only a proposed mathematical solution that scientist has modeled the phenomena. There are chances that such equations could be wrong.

A scientist need to test their equations proofs), using evidence. And the evidence are used test the proofs - to either verify or refute the equations, formulas or metrics.

Hopefully, you will learn from my two replies that proofs are not the same things as evidence, and in the future, you wouldn’t repeat the misuse of the words, eg proof, proving, disproving.

 

[Polymath257]

Which is irrelevant to the subject as to whether the theory of evolution has been proved beyond doubt to be a fact or whether it must remain as no more than a theory, until, and if ever, it can be proven to be factual.

Can you prove that the theory of evolution has been proven to be an absolute fact?

No more so than the theory of gravity can be proved to be an absolute fact.

Nonetheless, it is a fact that there is gravity. In the same way, it is a fact that living things have evolved: they have changed over geologic time, including the development of new species.

The *theory* is an attempt to explain the *facts* that have been observed. No general theory can ever be absolutely proved because ALL scientific measurements have error bars: which means that we can only know that the results obtained are consistent with the theory or are inconsistent. in the latter case, we know that the theory is wrong. In the former case, it is always possible some new data will be inconsistent.

So, Newton's 'Law of Gravity' was an incredibly good theory: it gave (and continues to give) good predictions that can be verified. But, it is now known to not be completely correct: it fails to be precisely correct in many known situations. Those errors in Newtonian gravity have been 'explained' by General Relativity, which is a MUCH more accurate theory of gravity. We have never seen a violation of GR. But we do not and *cannot* know that it is absolutely true because it is possible that the next detailed observation will show it is inaccurate in some case.

In the same way, Darwin's ideas were a good theory concerning how species change over time. It was not perfect, though. For example, Darwin knew nothing about genetics: the whole subject of genetics didn't get started until after Darwin. So, a later, updated, theory, the Modern Synthesis, extended Darwin's ideas using what had been learned of genetics. We have continued to learn more, and the Modern Synthesis has also been modified in many ways to account for our broader understanding of molecular genetics.

Is our current theory of evolution 'absolute fact'? We cannot know. Just like with gravity, it is always possible some new data will come along that will require further modifications and extensions of our current ideas.

But, just like it is a fact that gravity exists, so too evolution (the change of species over time) is a fact. We are just debating increasingly details descriptions of HOW gravity works, or HOW species change.

 

[Astrophile]

There are past theories, which have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be factual. But there is no current theory that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a fact.

There was once a theory, that the planet earth was the centre of the cosmos, because the great minds of those days could see that everything in the universe revolved around the earth.

One of the great losses suffered by humanity occurred about 390 AD, when Theophilos, the Bishop of Alexandria, an anti-science fanatic, ordered the destruction of 'what was left' of one of the Seven Wonders of the World. The great library in which one of the most comprehensive collections of the accumulated knowledge of man had been gathered, with departments on Astronomy, Astrology, History, Mathematics, Medicine, poetry and all the arts etc,

This action, was the introduction to one of the darkest ages of man. Afraid of the terrible persecution by the universal church against any and all who would indulge in the Pagan practice of the scientific study into the workings of the universe, which results of that unholy act of heresy challenged the authority of the church and brought into disrepute their infallible sacred teachings, such as, the fact that their flat earth that was the center around which revolved the entire universe that was created only some ten thousand years ago and was created in six literal 24 hour days etc.

It was only when he was on his death- bed in the 16th century, that Nicolaus Copernicus dared to publish his sun-centered model of the universe and Galileo Galilei, who was constantly in conflict with the church, skillfully arguing with the church authorities for Copernicus views, finally died under house arrest as a prisoner of the Inquisition. Science has flourished in Christian society not because of those ignorant teachers, but in spite of them.

First, the geocentric theory was not that far wrong. The astronomers who believed in it were right in thinking that the planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) were moving in closed orbits around a central body. They were wrong in thinking that the Earth was the central body, but they were only 150 million kilometres wrong, which is hardly anything on astronomical scales. The geocentric theory was not a unified theory; it postulated various ad hoc hypotheses, such as epicycles and equants, but it succeeded in explaining the observed facts. At first the heliocentric hypothesis was not much better; it was only when Newton developed his theory of universal gravitation that the heliocentric model could become a unified theory.

Would you classify the 'Big Bang' theory as a fact?

That is a difficult question. At present it provides the best explanation for the observed facts, but, like all scientific theories it could be overthrown by new observations. In the absence of contrary evidence or a more comprehensive theory, I shall continue to accept it, but I probably shouldn't regard it as an established fact. Can you offer a cosmological theory that provides a better explanation for the observations or that makes testable predictions? If so, almost all astronomers would like to know about it.