Compacting universe before big bang?

[Asmodean Prime]

i'll get back to you on that

it's a big and complicated subject

[Asmodean Prime]

another bone of contention is concerning the law of conservation.  actually, this seems to agree with what God said, that after his 6 day period of creation, it was finished, so nothing new (in terms of matter, was being created anymore),

but although scientists use this law to explain the current working of things, they also say that the laws of physics break down at the point of the big bang, which seems a convenient way to opt out of a serious consideration of the contunuity of these natural laws, or rather, the creation

i know this is only a general, not in depth posting, but it shows i think that at least my concept of our origins is no less valid than yours

none of us can prove or disprove our own or the others system

so i might be right, right?

[Jassman]

actually, this seems to agree with what God said, that after his 6 day period of creation

There are a lot of contradictions and outright impossibilities in Genesis. I will start a thread when I have more time.

[Whitney]

another bone of contention is concerning the law of conservation.  actually, this seems to agree with what God said, that after his 6 day period of creation, it was finished, so nothing new (in terms of matter, was being created anymore),

If you were talking about the second law conflicting with evolution (seems to be a fairly common claim recently) here is an article from talkorigns which explains why there is no conflict...why that law doesn't even apply.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

[McQ]

You guys might want to clarify that you're talking about the same thing. "Law of Conservation"
"Second Law"

What the hell do you mean? LOL!

Shortcuts are dangerous, they lead you into brick walls sometimes.

[McQ]

another bone of contention is concerning the law of conservation.  actually, this seems to agree with what God said, that after his 6 day period of creation, it was finished, so nothing new (in terms of matter, was being created anymore),

but although scientists use this law to explain the current working of things, they also say that the laws of physics break down at the point of the big bang, which seems a convenient way to opt out of a serious consideration of the contunuity of these natural laws, or rather, the creation

i know this is only a general, not in depth posting, but it shows i think that at least my concept of our origins is no less valid than yours

none of us can prove or disprove our own or the others system

so i might be right, right?

The only thing you're showing right now is a fairly significant lack of understanding of physics, biology and chemistry. You didn't specify what law of conservation you're talking about. Are we to assume it is the Law of Conservation of Energy? If so, it has no bearing whatsoever on Evolution!

You also seem to confuse human origins with the origin of the universe. That's ridiculous. They're not the same thing.

Additionally, the bible is not a science textbook, and any decent, respectable bible scholar ought to know that.  

You're all over the place with your theories. Stick to one thing at a time. Evolution and Big Bang Theories have nothing to do with one another!

[Asmodean Prime]

McQ

No, what im trying to say is that evolutionists and secularists use a set of laws to explain the universe, but are then basically forced to abandom them to explain the big bang. i know its a concise posting, not much detail.

also, as you probably know, research into quantum physics is revealing a great deal of disturbing probabilities, rather than dependable, observable laws which we can depend on for every understanding of the universe and its workings.

also, a general consensus exists that there is not enough matter in the universe to account for the distribution of galaxies, and their different rotations.

the constant speed of light concept is being challenged seriously by some scientists,

in short, i know its not detailed, i'm saying that the more scientists find out, the more perplexed and uncertain they are about their long held beliefs, and are having to question or even abandon them.

basicially, we have a lot to learn.

i will try to elaborate a more on these points in the future, but you can research the points ive hinted on quite easily.

science is not the god people thought it was, basically

theres a lot of interesting things to find out in the points ive made

[Jassman]

McQ

No, what im trying to say is that evolutionists and secularists use a set of laws to explain the universe, but are then basically forced to abandom them to explain the big bang. i know its a concise posting, not much detail.

also, as you probably know, research into quantum physics is revealing a great deal of disturbing probabilities, rather than dependable, observable laws which we can depend on for every understanding of the universe and its workings.

also, a general consensus exists that there is not enough matter in the universe to account for the distribution of galaxies, and their different rotations.

the constant speed of light concept is being challenged seriously by some scientists,

in short, i know its not detailed, i'm saying that the more scientists find out, the more perplexed and uncertain they are about their long held beliefs, and are having to question or even abandon them.

Yep, we don't know everything about this strange universe around us. Yet.

science is not the god people thought it was

You can't take something that we currently don't know and say "Aha! So science doesn't know everything!" Science requires objective reasoning and time to explain the universe. Just because we don't know something now, doesn't mean we won't in the future, or even the near future for that matter. Taking something that science has failed to explain, injecting "God did it." and moving on has never helped in the past. It's just an easy cookie-cutter answer to fill in all of the holes in our understanding.

People at one point thought that Earth was flat.

Using the scientific method, we have proven that the flat earth concept is false.

People at one point thought that Earth was the center of the universe.

Using the scientific method, we have proven that the geocentric model is false.

And so on, and so on...

[McQ]

McQ

No, what im trying to say is that evolutionists and secularists use a set of laws to explain the universe, but are then basically forced to abandom them to explain the big bang. i know its a concise posting, not much detail.

No, cosmologists don't have to abandon current theory to explain the Big Bang. The most recent developments, even the ones from a decade ago, like the discovery of the cosmic background radiation, only lend further credence to it.

also, as you probably know, research into quantum physics is revealing a great deal of disturbing probabilities, rather than dependable, observable laws which we can depend on for every understanding of the universe and its workings.

Actually, QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) is the most verified, scientifically accurate and proven theory of natural phenomena there is. It successfully merges Quantum interactions with Special Relativity. And even if cosmologists don't yet have a Grand Unification Theory (GUT) that will answer the Big question, this is a nice step towards it. The problem comes when someone says, "We don't know this yet. It must be God." Rather than saying, "Let's keep searching." The advancements science has made to this point were ALL unknown at some point, and religious leaders always invoked God, and scientists always kept looking until they found the truth. It will be no different with GUT.

also, a general consensus exists that there is not enough matter in the universe to account for the distribution of galaxies, and their different rotations.

Not enough space (no pun intended) or time to go into this can of worms, but see my above point on "keep searching" vs. "It must be God". Trust me, God doesn't explain this seeming inconsistency.

the constant speed of light concept is being challenged seriously by some scientists,

Another topic that needs to be discussed on its own.

in short, i know its not detailed, i'm saying that the more scientists find out, the more perplexed and uncertain they are about their long held beliefs, and are having to question or even abandon them.

No, that's incorrect. They are actually finding out more and more that they are correct, and headed in the right direction. Your assertion is just plain wrong.

basicially, we have a lot to learn.

I agree.

i will try to elaborate a more on these points in the future, but you can research the points ive hinted on quite easily.

science is not the god people thought it was, basically

theres a lot of interesting things to find out in the points ive made

No one, not any scientist, or any sane person, said science was a god. Neither does it care about god, or replacing god. That's a fallacious statement. Additionally, I need no more research on any of these topics. I'm quite up to date on everything you've talked about, and up to date on some things we haven't gone into yet, like Evolutionary Biology, or just plain old Genetics. I sincerely and with no malice, suggest you take some real university level classes in these topics and stop reading the I.D. propaganda. It's wrong and easily refutable.

[Aullios]

Regarding the law of conservation of energy and its relation to the Big Bang...

I really enjoy reading about cosmology; I'd say it's kinda like a pet interest of mine.  Lately I've been reading The Whole Shebang by Timothy Ferris.  The author describes a theory in which our universe bubbles out of a previous universe.

Standard big bang cosmology looks kinda like this:
----Initial Singularity
-----------/\
T--------/---\
I-------/-----\
M-----/--------\
E----/-----------\
     Volume of Universe

In this theory, it would look more like this:
 
--(existing universe)
--____--____
T------/--\
I-----/-----\
M---/-------\
E--/----------\
     Volume(of our universe)

A cosmological model like this one could be explained as a singularity exploding in the previous universe (which may be the 11 dimensional universe described in M-theory) in order to create our current 4 dimensional one.   It's an interesting and very plausible hypothesis that eliminates the need to violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy because any matter that "was created" in our universe merely came from the previous one.

The problem with this theory, of course, is where the previous universe came from, which either creates a previous big bang or a very big infinity of universes jumping out of previous universes forever.

Edited because my initial pictures were even uglier than the ones you see now.

[iplaw]

Yep, we don't know everything about this strange universe around us. Yet.

Nor will we ever according to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

[McQ]

Regarding the law of conservation of energy and its relation to the Big Bang...

I really enjoy reading about cosmology; I'd say it's kinda like a pet interest of mine.  Lately I've been reading The Whole Shebang by Timothy Ferris.  The author describes a theory in which our universe bubbles out of a previous universe.

Standard big bang cosmology looks kinda like this:
----Initial Singularity
-----------/\
T--------/---\
I-------/-----\
M-----/--------\
E----/-----------\
     Volume of Universe

In this theory, it would look more like this:
 
--(existing universe)
--____--____
T------/--\
I-----/-----\
M---/-------\
E--/----------\
     Volume(of our universe)

A cosmological model like this one could be explained as a singularity exploding in the previous universe (which may be the 11 dimensional universe described in M-theory) in order to create our current 4 dimensional one.   It's an interesting and very plausible hypothesis that eliminates the need to violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy because any matter that "was created" in our universe merely came from the previous one.

The problem with this theory, of course, is where the previous universe came from, which either creates a previous big bang or a very big infinity of universes jumping out of previous universes forever.

Edited because my initial pictures were even uglier than the ones you see now.

Great book! One of my all-time favorites. I read it in 1996, I believe. The first year it was published. Did you read a revised version, Allios?

[iplaw]

Yep, we don't know everything about this strange universe around us. Yet.

Nor will we ever according to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

[Aullios]

Great book! One of my all-time favorites. I read it in 1996, I believe. The first year it was published. Did you read a revised version, Allios?

No, I'm reading the original version.  I'm about 3/4 of the way through it right now.. I just finished the section on string theory.  It's interesting to read about a theory that so quickly became supplanted by an even more complete theory (M-Theory).

I don't have access to many newer books because I live in Nowhere, Bible Belt, GA and the library is quite underfunded.

[iplaw]

Damn double posts!!!!!!!!