Login

Join for Free!
117527 members


Big bang and Evoluion

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby skeptic » Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:54 pm

Wong

I take it that means no.
skeptic
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:44 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby kk23wong » Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:28 pm

skeptic wrote:Wong

I take it that means no.


What make the Earth different?

Lives need a suitable environment and a SUBSTANCE to start with.
Simply cause-and-effects.


You think we MIRGRANT from other planet, biologists?
It's a blind spot to look upon ourself a seperate thing from the Earth.
"B-I-O-S-P-H-E-R-E"
A rock belongs to the rock. Who are we?

You have many papers in the universities.
You may have nothing in history.

I have one in history.

What makes the Earth different?
ALIVE.


Come catch me if you can.

Qualifications are not monopolies.
Your walls may be too high for academic freedom.

Wanna hide the truth from the PUBLIC?
Or you simply don't understand what I am talking about?

An universal hypothesis (theory).

Live have no secrets. Lives in different levels.

A fact does not affraid of being challenge.
An ultimate answer to all.
A war of extinctions.

Teru Wong
Use Smartphone to Find More Information On My Image
User avatar
kk23wong
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:53 pm
Location: Hong Kong, CN

Postby Jamal » Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:47 pm

So what your saying is that the bible is incapable of proving it self. And as to what you call "predictions" others look at them as insight. The sources that people claim to look at that can be so called "defended logically" is based on false research and not to mention that the logic of these scientist have been proved false.
Science has made us GODS even before we are worthy of being men. ~Jean Rostand
Jamal
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:36 pm


Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby kk23wong » Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:01 am

Jamal wrote:So what your saying is that the bible is incapable of proving it self. And as to what you call "predictions" others look at them as insight. The sources that people claim to look at that can be so called "defended logically" is based on false research and not to mention that the logic of these scientist have been proved false.


I am referring to "Evolution" as a natural process of "Growth" of the planet itself.

The Candle of Lives is actually "a-live".

From the point of view as a scientist, I strongly recommend you to think twice before you made any comment.

Teru Wong
Last edited by kk23wong on Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Use Smartphone to Find More Information On My Image
User avatar
kk23wong
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:53 pm
Location: Hong Kong, CN

Postby Jamal » Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:53 pm

Robsabba, To begin, saying that the big bang theory is accurate in and of its self is saying that you believe that man evolved from apes,evolution. Second, you can't discredit creation, just because you don't agree with it and presume it's inaccurate. That's being closed minded. If you have scientists that demonstrate and establish that the big bang theory is incorrect and refuse to at least verify for your self, then you don't really hold any ground and cant really say that its so called "rubbish". Third, my concentration is merely on evolution and the big bang only, but since you want to dispute geology (Niagara Falls) then ill entertain you. What you said about that is true BUT at the same time, if the earth is so OLD as scientist presume it is, Why is it that when scientist do their geology studies they find out and NOW are starting to acknowledge and disclose, that if the earth is as old as they claim it really is, as they dig farther and farther into the earth, they should be discovering rock that is older not younger.. Now I'm skeptical on the earth being EXACTLY 6000 years old, BUT, I KNOW it isn't millions of years old. This world is fairly young, and the earth supports that, such as; 1.Not enough mud on the sea floor, 2. Not enough sodium in the sea, 3.Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast, Not enough Stone Age skeletons, and plenty more. I made the mistake of saying scientific evidence points to a young Earth that's about 6000 years old, when I should have said, scientific evidence points to a young Earth, my apologizes.
Last edited by Jamal on Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Science has made us GODS even before we are worthy of being men. ~Jean Rostand
Jamal
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby Jamal » Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:05 pm

skeptic wrote:The 'evolution' of the non biotic universe is demonstrable through clear cut empirical evidence. As humans build bigger and bigger telescopes, we see further and further from the Earth. Since the speed of light is limited, this means we are looking further and further into the past. If we compare photographs of massively distant, and therefore way into the past, objects, with closer objects, we see the following differences. Distant in these examples means 8 to 11 billion light years away. Closer means less than 5 billion light years.

1. Distant galaxies on average are smaller than closer galaxies.
2. Distant galaxies (via spectroscopy) can be shown to have a lot less in the way of heavy atoms than closer galaxies.
3. Distant galaxies are closer to each other, than galaxies nearer the Earth.
4. Distant galaxies collide with each other much more frequently than closer galaxies.

As we look at more and more distant objects, with better and better telescopes, we are looking further and further into the past, and hence towards a time much closer to the Big Bang. The results are consistent with a titanic explosion and an expanding universe ever since. In addition to the points above, which are clearly consistent with the universe being smaller and less developed in the past, we also have the observed fact that more distant galaxies are more red shifted than closer ones, strongly indicating that the universe is expanding.

The Big Bang theory predicts that the first stars were made of just hydrogen and helium, and were massive. Each would have lived a very short life and explosively collapsed to create a giant black hole. The black holes would be the core around which the galaxies collected. We cannot yet see these early stars, as they existed so long ago, they are over 12 billion light years away and below the sensitivity of our best telescopes. However, new telescopes are currently under construction, which should see them. Since true science is about testable prediction, I make this prediction. Within another 10 years, the first megastars will be seen, and spectroscopy will show they are made of almost nothing else except hydrogen and helium.

The Big Bang theory is the best model we have of the origin of the universe, and the evidence supports it very strongly.

I would love to know where you get your logic from, please link me...last I heard time does not stand still for anyone or anything..even outer space. That's like someone throwing a ball in the sky and taking a picture of it, and you look at that picture and saying it was taken in Argentinian..when you have no evidience to support that logic about that picture..
Science has made us GODS even before we are worthy of being men. ~Jean Rostand
Jamal
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby Jamal » Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:11 pm

kk23wong wrote:
skeptic wrote:wong

I do hope you are not being serious.

This is the science forum, and I am trying to express good science. What you are discussing is religion, and pretty damn way out religion at that. How about we stick to what can be demonstrated by empirical evidence?


Thank you very much for your reply.

I AM SERIOUS.

Otherwise, I will not spend so much time and efforts in expanding my hypothesis, "Planets are Living objects". It is the only solution and correct direction to explore our universe and the nature of all living objects.

Evolution by microorganisms into (1) animals & (2) plants. Former one is the reproduction process of the planet. Latter one come wih the evolution of the planet itself. Both are the life cycles of a planet (a living object).

Religion is only a branch derived from this one-sentence simply hypothesis (that may shock the world and become the most dominant theory in the future). Evolution is incomplete without my hypothesis.

Science out of imagination is dumb.
First, "Lives" are lives in different levels. Planets are higher level of lives. Their reproduction carried out inside their bodies.
Second, Time is linear. Space is multi-dimensional, so are we. As I used to say, "You can only see a man cutting an apple in front of the mirror with the time goes by." Have you seen a FIVE dimensional space? Scientists have too much imagination. Creativity is a pushing force in science. It does not equal to imagination.
Third, qualifications are not restrictions to a scientific discovery. Maybe the wall is too high for academic freedom. You don't even pay attention to the significance of my hypothesis.

History repeats itself. Old school thinking telling you that "the Earth is a flat land".
Gallieo is not the first one. I will not be the last one.
The EARTH is a consious living object. Planets are in a higher form of lives.

Science may not be good if it is out of your imagination.

Time will give all of us an answer.

Teru Wong

I agree to some degree, I mean if you think about it,The earth has living plants on it and last time I check they were a part of the earth. If the earth was not living how could it get old and start dieing, as it is now. Now as far as mars and other plants... evidence supports that life cannot be sustained in outer space.
Science has made us GODS even before we are worthy of being men. ~Jean Rostand
Jamal
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby Jamal » Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:14 pm

skeptic wrote:Universe

I am very happy to respond to you. Your question is sane, sensible, and valid, and deserves an attempt at an answer. Where did the energy of the Big Bang come from? Quite frankly, I do not know. I do not think any scientist really knows either.

There is a hypothesis that the Big Bang came from the collisions of two 'branes', which are essentially other dimensional structures which are suggested by certain interpretations of super-string theory. Sadly, we cannot test this hypothesis at this point in time, so we will remain ignorant.

However, science does not have to provide exact answers to everything. Science is the study of the universe via the scientific method. That study is an on-going process, and knowledge continues to increase. There is no shame admitting the bits we do not yet know.

So we do not know how the Big Bang with all its energy came into being, apart from problematic hypotheses. However, the residue of the Big Bang can still be seen within the universe, and such things as the microwave patterns from the original titanic explosion can still be seen through our most sophisticated instruments. From this, and a wide range of other evidences, we can see that the Big Bang actually did happen, and we can measure and deduce the evolution of the universe after the Big Bang.

A real possibility is that there are many universes (the multiverse theory), and Big Bangs are happening all the time, creating new universes. Again, this is merely a hypothesis, as yet untested. Thus, we can only speculate.

To wong.

Your ideas are interesting, but like the multiverse theory, untested and thus only speculative. In science, the process that is required is to form a hypothesis (which you have) and then test it.

The process is to use the hypothesis to develop a novel prediction, which can be tested by novel real world experiments or observations. Such testing needs to be repeated many times, and scrutinised by experts who will try to disprove the hypothesis.

When the hypothesis has survived this process several times, it may be elevated to the form of a scientific theory. At that point, it gets taken seriously by scientists.

If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you must present a testable prediction, and then get it tested. Preferably a number of times. If you cannot do this, your ideas will languish in the archives of pseudoscience.

Skeptic, I see exactly what your saying, but again I have to ask where did these "branes" come from? My point is to, make a point, that, things just don't pop into exsistance. Everything has a place of origin and or birth. things just don't explode and form together like that. I have yet to see this demonstrated by scientist.
Last edited by Jamal on Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Science has made us GODS even before we are worthy of being men. ~Jean Rostand
Jamal
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby Jamal » Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:16 pm

kk23wong wrote:
skeptic wrote:To wong.

Your ideas are interesting, but like the multiverse theory, untested and thus only speculative. In science, the process that is required is to form a hypothesis (which you have) and then test it.

The process is to use the hypothesis to develop a novel prediction, which can be tested by novel real world experiments or observations. Such testing needs to be repeated many times, and scrutinised by experts who will try to disprove the hypothesis.

When the hypothesis has survived this process several times, it may be elevated to the form of a scientific theory. At that point, it gets taken seriously by scientists.

If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you must present a testable prediction, and then get it tested. Preferably a number of times. If you cannot do this, your ideas will languish in the archives of pseudoscience.


A theory may not be emerged in science laboratories. It always requires an inspiration.
Lives in different levels” is a new concept that can fully satisfy the occurrence of lives on the Earth. Thus, it explained the whole system of our universe.

Imagination has misled scientists and philosophers.
One must realize the facts below:
(1) Soul does not exist. The afterlife is just an imagination.
(2) Time is linear. Space is three-dimensional.
(3) No space arrivals.
(4) Live and Death is a natural process.
(5) Minds generated from brain. Science has explained “consciousness”.

No one will give up such an influential hypothesis.
Qualification is not an obstacle.
I am only 23. I am going to finish it in my lifetime.

Teru Wong

I liked that, agreed
Science has made us GODS even before we are worthy of being men. ~Jean Rostand
Jamal
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Re:

Postby Jamal » Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:19 pm

kk23wong wrote:
Jamal wrote:So what your saying is that the bible is incapable of proving it self. And as to what you call "predictions" others look at them as insight. The sources that people claim to look at that can be so called "defended logically" is based on false research and not to mention that the logic of these scientist have been proved false.


I am referring to "Evolution" as a natural process of "Growth" of the planet itself.

The Candle of Lives is actually "a-live".

From the point of view as a scientist, I strongly recommend you to think twice before you made any comment.

Teru Wong

Now what I'm saying is, This process can not just decide to come to an halt it will continue on and on.. so I should see monkey evolving somewhat.
Science has made us GODS even before we are worthy of being men. ~Jean Rostand
Jamal
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:36 pm

Re:

Postby robsabba » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:18 pm

Jamal wrote:Robsabba, To begin, saying that the big bang theory is accurate in and of its self is saying that you believe that man evolved from apes,evolution.

One has nothing to do with the other. But, yes I do accept evolution. Since we are apes, we of course evolved from apes.

Jamal wrote:Second, you can't discredit creation, just because you don't agree with it and presume it's inaccurate. That's being closed minded. If you have scientists that demonstrate and establish that the big bang theory is incorrect and refuse to at least verify for your self, then you don't really hold any ground and cant really say that its so called "rubbish".

I am not being close-minded, nor am I trying to discredit anything. That is what you are doing. I accept Big Bang cosmology as the best scientific explanation for the origin of the universe. Is there a reason you do not?

Jamal wrote:Third, my concentration is merely on evolution and the big bang only, but since you want to dispute geology (Niagara Falls) then ill entertain you. What you said about that is true BUT at the same time, if the earth is so OLD as scientist presume it is, Why is it that when scientist do their geology studies they find out and NOW are starting to acknowledge and disclose, that if the earth is as old as they claim it really is, as they dig farther and farther into the earth, they should be discovering rock that is older not younger..

Again, you are the one disputing geology, not me. Please be specific on your issues with geology. When it comes to sedimantary rock, yes (unless there is folding or uplifting, which leave taletale signs) the further down the layer is, the older it is. This is called Stratigraphy.


Jamal wrote:Now I'm skeptical on the earth being EXACTLY 6000 years old, BUT, I KNOW it isn't millions of years old. This world is fairly young, and the earth supports that, such as; 1.Not enough mud on the sea floor,

There is something called Subduction, which is part of plate tectonic theory. This means that the ocean floor is continuously being replaced.

Jamal wrote:2. Not enough sodium in the sea,

Nonsense. The concentration of most ions in the ocean are at a state of Equilibrium. That means, there is no net change in concentration over time. In fact, if you use non-equilibrium calculations, you get many different "ages" depending on which ion you look at. This is why you cannot use such calculations as any kind of "clock." This does not stop "creation scientists" from lying about it, though.

Jamal wrote:3.Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast, Not enough Stone Age skeletons, and plenty more.

The earth's magnetic field has flipped many times over history. Therefore, it cannot be used as a "clock."

Jamal wrote:I made the mistake of saying scientific evidence points to a young Earth that's about 6000 years old, when I should have said, scientific evidence points to a young Earth, my apologizes.

No, the evidence , as I said earlier, is for a very old planet.
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby kk23wong » Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:18 pm

Jamal wrote:
kk23wong wrote:
Jamal wrote:So what your saying is that the bible is incapable of proving it self. And as to what you call "predictions" others look at them as insight. The sources that people claim to look at that can be so called "defended logically" is based on false research and not to mention that the logic of these scientist have been proved false.


I am referring to "Evolution" as a natural process of "Growth" of the planet itself.

The Candle of Lives is actually "a-live".

From the point of view as a scientist, I strongly recommend you to think twice before you made any comment.

Teru Wong

Now what I'm saying is, This process can not just decide to come to an halt it will continue on and on.. so I should see monkey evolving somewhat.


A Living Earth

1. No living things can be created without any living tissue.
2. No living things can be created with non-living tissues only.
3. We can create living things with living tissues only.

4. All living things have living tissues.
5. The Earth has living tissues.
6. The Earth is a living thing.

7. No living things arrived from space up to now.
8. There are living things on the Earth.
9. All living things on the Earth come from the Earth.

10. As a result, the Earth created all of us (by birth).

Life has a start. There must be an end.

Evolution is an on-going process. Evolution may not be endless.
"Regeneration" of the Earth is not infinite. Our "life cycles" will eventually come to an end.
"Aging" is a natural process of lives cannot be reverted.

Teru Wong
Last edited by kk23wong on Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Use Smartphone to Find More Information On My Image
User avatar
kk23wong
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:53 pm
Location: Hong Kong, CN

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron