How can you believe in evolution?

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

You are converting a small amount of the mass into energy. See, you can convert either matter or energy into the the other. Nothing is destroyed in the process, just converted.

This is where I've been trying to get at. It's one in the morning, and I'm not exactly thinking straight.

Ah, so your point is that the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is a constant - so where did it all come from if the universe is not eternal ?
Nice question

How does it logically lead to angels sitting on clouds playing harps though ?

Well, the universe had a beginning, and the energy/matter before it needed to hae a beginning too, since I do not like the idea of "our father energy".

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Everything you said only explains how energy is the constant in all of the Universe creation and/or destruction, etc.

There is no evidence of where this energy came from, however. What you have shown me does explain how something like the Big Bang could happen, and create a Universe. But as I was trying to say before, but mixed up my words (again, it's late) energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred. Correct? Converted, etc. We just don't know where all of the energy came from, and how it existed before the Universe as we know it, and anything that might of existed before it.

Those are the questions that lay in the bed of truth that we may never know.

As I already explained, that is a laymen's understanding of energy conservation. The truth is that NET energy cannot change in a closed system. Keep in mind that although energy is a scalar, it is a signed scalar. Therefore, it is possible for positive and negative energies to cancel each other. It just so happens that gravitational fields have negative energy. When you use the Friedmann equations to examine the net energy of the universe, you find that the total energy of a flat universe is exactly zero, as all positive and negative energies cancel. Using various triangulation techniques with distortions in the CMBR to observe curvature in the universe, it was found that the total integral curvature of space is either zero or damned close to it. Since exactly zero makes the most sense, it is very reasonable to simply accept that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. Because of this, there is no need to explain "where" the energy came from.

[Kenneth Baker]

Everything you said only explains how energy is the constant in all of the Universe creation and/or destruction, etc.

There is no evidence of where this energy came from, however. What you have shown me does explain how something like the Big Bang could happen, and create a Universe. But as I was trying to say before, but mixed up my words (again, it's late) energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred. Correct? Converted, etc. We just don't know where all of the energy came from, and how it existed before the Universe as we know it, and anything that might of existed before it.

Those are the questions that lay in the bed of truth that we may never know.

As I already explained, that is a laymen's understanding of energy conservation. The truth is that NET energy cannot change in a closed system. Keep in mind that although energy is a scalar, it is a signed scalar. Therefore, it is possible for positive and negative energies to cancel each other. It just so happens that gravitational fields have negative energy. When you use the Friedmann equations to examine the net energy of the universe, you find that the total energy of a flat universe is exactly zero, as all positive and negative energies cancel. Using various triangulation techniques with distortions in the CMBR to observe curvature in the universe, it was found that the total integral curvature of space is either zero or damned close to it. Since exactly zero makes the most sense, it is very reasonable to simply accept that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. Because of this, there is no need to explain "where" the energy came from.

Simply accepting, and exactly knowing, are two different things however.

So I still see it as a good explanation, with no definite answer though. Pretty close to zero =/= zero.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Well, the universe had a beginning, and the energy/matter before it needed to hae a beginning too, since I do not like the idea of "our father energy".

Jesus fucking Christ I've said it so many times it's insane. I keep repeating it over and over and over and it's like you people just tune it out completely. I've already said it at least twice on this thread and this will make time 3 (at least).

The net energy of the universe is ZERO.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Simply accepting, and exactly knowing, are two different things however.

So I still see it as a good explanation, with no definite answer though. Pretty close to zero =/= zero.

You don't understand. I said pretty close or exactly zero. You see, in science all of our measurements have this thing called margin of error. Zero happens to be within that very thin margin. This is supremely unlikely to happen unless the curvature is exactly zero.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Well, the universe had a beginning, and the energy/matter before it needed to hae a beginning too, since I do not like the idea of "our father energy".

Jesus fucking Christ I've said it so many times it's insane. I keep repeating it over and over and over and it's like you people just tune it out completely. I've already said it at least twice on this thread and this will make time 3 (at least).

The net energy of the universe is ZERO.

So your point is? We came from nothing? That would only strengthen the case for a designer.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

So your point is? We came from nothing? That would only strengthen the case for a designer.

How exactly does this strengthen the case for a designer? The fact that there needs to be very, very little in the way of any structure at all for the universe to come into existence STRENGTHENS the case for a creator? How?

[Kenneth Baker]

Simply accepting, and exactly knowing, are two different things however.

So I still see it as a good explanation, with no definite answer though. Pretty close to zero =/= zero.

You don't understand. I said pretty close or exactly zero. You see, in science all of our measurements have this thing called margin of error. Zero happens to be within that very thin margin. This is supremely unlikely to happen unless the curvature is exactly zero.

But, you also neglect that unlikely still means that it could not be zero. Like you stated, nothing is concrete. So that could be the answer, it truly could be. But do you honestly truly know that it is exactly zero? No, you just like to back up the calculations and say it's extremely possible, so just go with it.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

So your point is? We came from nothing? That would only strengthen the case for a designer.

How exactly does this strengthen the case for a designer? The fact that there needs to be very, very little in the way of any structure at all for the universe to come into existence STRENGTHENS the case for a creator? How?

Okay, so now evolutionists are actually saying that the universe came from emptiness, without cause, without substance. And somehow it manage to come into existence and produced energy and matter?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

But, you also neglect that unlikely still means that it could not be zero. Like you stated, nothing is concrete. So that could be the answer, it truly could be. But do you honestly truly know that it is exactly zero? No, you just like to back up the calculations and say it's extremely possible, so just go with it.

The problem is that, outside of pure logic and mathematics, you could apply this nonsensical super skepticism to EVERYTHING. Earlier you pretty much said that gravitation had been "proven" to within your liking. Well, there's as much reason to believe that the net energy of the universe is zero as there is to accept gravitation.

[Kenneth Baker]

But, you also neglect that unlikely still means that it could not be zero. Like you stated, nothing is concrete. So that could be the answer, it truly could be. But do you honestly truly know that it is exactly zero? No, you just like to back up the calculations and say it's extremely possible, so just go with it.

The problem is that, outside of pure logic and mathematics, you could apply this nonsensical super skepticism to EVERYTHING. Earlier you pretty much said that gravitation had been "proven" to within your liking. Well, there's as much reason to believe that the net energy of the universe is zero as there is to accept gravitation.

That's why I think it's all down to belief.

Get my drift now?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Okay, so now evolutionists are actually saying that the universe came from emptiness, without cause, without substance. And somehow it manage to come into existence and produced energy and matter?

I'm pretty sure that evolutionary biologist have nothing to do with cosmology.

We know that particles spontaneously pop into and out of existence all the time. This explanation for the origins of the universe does not violate any of our currently known physics in the least, it is the most economical of all explanations, AND it is the one supported by all the evidence. Your platitude-filled attempt at a rebuttal is completely intellectually bankrupt.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

That's why I think it's all down to belief.

Get my drift now?

I get that you're trying to promote a brand of epistemic relativism that seems to declare all beliefs about the universe to be equally valid, which is absolute nonsense.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Okay, so now evolutionists are actually saying that the universe came from emptiness, without cause, without substance. And somehow it manage to come into existence and produced energy and matter?

I'm pretty sure that evolutionary biologist have nothing to do with cosmology.

We know that particles spontaneously pop into and out of existence all the time. This explanation for the origins of the universe does not violate any of our currently known physics in the least, it is the most economical of all explanations, AND it is the one supported by all the evidence. Your platitude-filled attempt at a rebuttal is completely intellectually bankrupt.

Which means then that the universe came into existence from something- matter or energy or whatever- right?

[Kenneth Baker]

That's why I think it's all down to belief.

Get my drift now?

I get that you're trying to promote a brand of epistemic relativism that seems to declare all beliefs about the universe to be equally valid, which is absolute nonsense.

Wrong.

I think you should believe in what you want, and be happy with it.

Thanks for playing though.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Which means then that the universe came into existence from something- matter or energy or whatever- right?

No, it doesn't. Quantum fluctuations in vacuum producing an expanding Lorenzian 4-manifold with a very high initial scalar field density in a false vacuum violates NONE of our current physics. Absolutely none.

[Tawny Port]

He's been described as "the best Bang since the Big One" by Eccentrica Gallumbits, and as "one hoopy frood" by others.

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Which means then that the universe came into existence from something- matter or energy or whatever- right?

No, it doesn't. Quantum fluctuations in vacuum producing an expanding Lorenzian 4-manifold with a very high initial scalar field density in a false vacuum violates NONE of our current physics. Absolutely none.

So the universe came into existence from nothing.

EDIT: You might want to know that "nothing" cannot have density. And is it a vacumn or false one?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

So the universe came into existence from nothing.

EDIT: You might want to know that "nothing" cannot have density.

I didn't say "nothing" has density, smartass. The early universe after the initial event wasn't "nothing." There was a scalar vacuum field. Perhaps you confused by the word vacuum and don't understand that it doesn't mean the same thing in theoretical physics as you think it does. You also seem to be ignoring that the net energy of the universe is zero, meaning that the total sum of energy is still "nothing" to use your vague terminology on you.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

So the universe came into existence from nothing.

EDIT: You might want to know that "nothing" cannot have density.

I didn't say "nothing" has density, smartass. The early universe after the initial event wasn't "nothing." There was a scalar vacuum field. Perhaps you confused by the word vacuum and don't understand that it doesn't mean the same thing in theoretical physics as you think it does. You also seem to be ignoring that the net energy of the universe is zero, meaning that the total sum of energy is still "nothing" to use your vague terminology on you.

And what was before the initial event?

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

So the universe came into existence from nothing.

EDIT: You might want to know that "nothing" cannot have density.

I didn't say "nothing" has density, smartass. The early universe after the initial event wasn't "nothing." There was a scalar vacuum field. Perhaps you confused by the word vacuum and don't understand that it doesn't mean the same thing in theoretical physics as you think it does. You also seem to be ignoring that the net energy of the universe is zero, meaning that the total sum of energy is still "nothing" to use your vague terminology on you.

And what was before the initial event?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

And is it a vacumn or false one?

The early scalar field had to be a false vacuum, or else there couldn't be a tunneling even to a lower state, and thus there'd be no radiation. The current scalar field may or may not be a "true" vacuum. Let's hope that it is, because it not being one could be very bad for us.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

And what was before the initial event?

Well, this particular explanation has it as a quantum vacuum.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And what was before the initial event?

Well, this particular explanation has it as a quantum vacuum.

According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.

According to my (limited) knowledge, I woulod think that this is a form of energy?

[Varecia]

Well, the universe had a beginning, and the energy/matter before it needed to hae a beginning too, since I do not like the idea of "our father energy".

Jesus fucking Christ I've said it so many times it's insane. I keep repeating it over and over and over and it's like you people just tune it out completely. I've already said it at least twice on this thread and this will make time 3 (at least).

The net energy of the universe is ZERO.

Yes, the big bang explains how all particles that make energy and matter began to enter their current state. There is some indication that dimension is associated with the same particles. This would indicate that the universe did not have an explosion somewhere in it, but that the universe exploded. This is all very interesting debate for a nerd like me, but I would like to bring up another important issue. The big bang theory does not state WHY or HOW the big bang happened, just THAT it happened. It has stayed in common use because it has been useful in continuing research. Asking how and why to try and dismantle the theory doesn't really apply here.

What made it happen? Maybe it was god. Maybe it was something that happened in a parallel universe that follows different rules than ours.

As for evolution and spontaneous biological generation, they sound much more plausible when you add more finicky details to the explanation. Much unlike when women explain why they lust for Eddy Cullen.