Big bang and Evoluion

[mith]

alright but you're still dodging the question, where's the universe from if it's also alive?

[robsabba]

1. Living things cannot be created without any living tissue.

Assertion.

2. Living things on the Earth has a living tissue to start with.

True.

3. Living tissues from the outer space cannot reach the Earth.

Assertion. It may be possible for bacteria or bacteria like organisms to survive as spores and thus "seed" teh Earth.

As a result, living tissues of the Earth must come from the Earth.

Based on two assertions of yours that you have not backed up.

A life was born. The end must be a physical death.

What does this have to do with Earth being alive??

[mcar]

Who wrote the Bible? God's prophets.

[wildman]

The big bang was not an explosion. It was the creation of the universe, no less. It was the creation of time and space (which are intertwined together). Keep in mind that the name “Big Bang” is just a name and please don’t read too much into it.

At first, cosmologists thought that the idea of a creation was silly. The universe had to be steady state. However Hubble in the 1920s showed that the further away an object was, the greater the red shift (in other words how fast it was moving). This was led to the idea that the universe was small to begin and then expanded to the size we see today. This idea was roundly rejected by the cosmologist of the day. “Like sure,” the cosmologists said… “A Genesis like creation? That is sure likely” (heavy sarcasm).

However, if there was a Genesis like creation (a great burst of light and quarks), then the result would still be visible today in the form of back ground radiation in all directions. Lo and behold, in the 1960s this radiation was detected. Its temperature was exactly as predicted by the equations (4 degrees K). Since then other convincing proofs have come to light that this event actually happened.

Since this event happened pretty much exactly as written in Genesis (“Let there be light and there was light”). I think your difficulty with it has more to do with not understanding it then the actually facts of the big bang.

[kk23wong]

1. Living things cannot be created without any living tissue.

Assertion.

2. Living things on the Earth has a living tissue to start with.

True.

3. Living tissues from the outer space cannot reach the Earth.

Assertion. It may be possible for bacteria or bacteria like organisms to survive as spores and thus "seed" teh Earth.

As a result, living tissues of the Earth must come from the Earth.

Based on two assertions of yours that you have not backed up.

A life was born. The end must be a physical death.

What does this have to do with Earth being alive??

Please strick back to my Logical Proofs (by Chinese methodology).

Besides, your empty assertions by arrogance of so-called "expertise" is a major cause for the STONE AGES that we are suffering from now. Rapid urban epxansions without basic knowledge of maintaining the CYCLE (that perfectly run for billions of years) has shortened the life span of this planet in a great deal.

Seriously, forums are public forums.
We use them in the old days. We have them on internet, no differences from real life.
A platform for sharing ideas and publications.


For full size image: http://sites.google.com/site/teru382/publications/science/comparisons.jpg

Above is an illustration (to be more specific, a comparison) for the structural differences in-between the two: the Earth and a (esp. plant) Cell.

Biologists have to refer to the logical proofs first. The Earth MUST BE a biological entity.
Take a closer look into geology (layers/ -spheres of the Earth).
You will discover the ridgity of our technology soon (without spotting the connections among layers/-spheres).
Hidden cohesions have linked up all layers [neuroscience - nucleous poles (valcanoes) remains doubtful].

Then, take a closer look into "desertification".
A process cannot be reverted (since the eco-system is a unity).
Using your professionals, think of a question: What will it(we) be after 50-100 years (at max.)?

-further research is being carried out-
Teru Wong

[robsabba]

Please strick back to my Logical Proofs (by Chinese methodology).

First, your "proofs" are not logical. I doubt that Confucius would disagree with me.
Second, why should we use what you prefer? Is that how you apply your idea of a "platform for sharing ideas?"

Besides, your empty assertions by arrogance of so-called "expertise" is a major cause for the STONE AGES that we are suffering from now. Rapid urban epxansions without basic knowledge of maintaining the CYCLE (that perfectly run for billions of years) has shortened the life span of this planet in a great deal.

I am not the one making empty assertions. That is what you are doing. I have not mentioned my "expertise," nor am I responsible for rapid urban expansion. If you keep this tone up, btw, you will be arguing with yourself and no one else.

Seriously, forums are public forums.
We use them in the old days. We have them on internet, no differences from real life.
A platform for sharing ideas and publications.

Seriously.... what are you complaining about? I have not told you not to post here???

Above is an illustration (to be more specific, a comparison) for the structural differences in-between the two: the Earth and a (esp. plant) Cell.

That "model" is so superficial as to be completetly useless as a comparision. Cells have organelles. Cells have enzymes. Cells replicate by division. The nucleus is not just some sphere in the center of the cell... it is the control center and contains the hereditary database. How is this anything like the iron core of the planet??

Biologists have to refer to the logical proofs first. The Earth MUST BE a biological entity.

Again, this is nothing more than an Assertion. Sorry if that offends you.

[canalon]

Seconded everything above, but I would ask again:
You state that every living tissue must come from another living tissue. if the earth is alive where does it come from? If you do not answer that question, whatever else you may say will be useless as this seem to be the basic foundation of your theory.

[mith]

He said the earth came from the living universe, but he's dodging my question of where the universe comes from.

[kk23wong]

He said the earth came from the living universe, but he's dodging my question of where the universe comes from.

By referring to your question, I am thinking of "cell divisions". A mother cell (universe) gives birth (through cell divisions) to planets. Compare a planet with a plant cell.

By the way, the key here is "the Earth is a biolgical entity".
Have any one figure it out yet?

Amazing! When will you guys UNDERSTAND a simple logical explanation to illustrate the whole system of our universe?

I present you my logical proofs with a diagram below:



For full size image:
http://sites.google.com/site/teru382/pu ... _logic.jpg

Diagram above is only a game for CHILDREN.

Teru Wong

[canalon]

I must be dumb because I really do not see the link between your "proof" and ... hmm.. anything in fact.

As for the mother universe giving birth by "cell divisions" to planet you do not only stretch the analogy quite thin (like when you compare planets and cells by a mere similarity) you break it. As far as I know, during cell division, the mother and the daughter are if not completely identical, at least fairly similar, the universe does not resemble a planet. As for the idea of planet budding to multiply, I guess you should go to an astronomy forum just to suggest the idea. I am sure they will be entertained...

[mith]

look, if you can't answer the question say so. Don't just ignore my question 3 times.

[kk23wong]

I must be dumb because I really do not see the link between your "proof" and ... hmm.. anything in fact.

As for the mother universe giving birth by "cell divisions" to planet you do not only stretch the analogy quite thin (like when you compare planets and cells by a mere similarity) you break it. As far as I know, during cell division, the mother and the daughter are if not completely identical, at least fairly similar, the universe does not resemble a planet. As for the idea of planet budding to multiply, I guess you should go to an astronomy forum just to suggest the idea. I am sure they will be entertained...

Thank you very much for your reply.

I have just replaced a more clear diagram to illustrate my LOGICAL proofs.

Comparisons do not necessarily equal to the SAME.
It gives you inspiration how the entire system work only.
A nucleous can be a brain (much larger then ours). You have cellular structure on the Earth.

A logical direction for science. Logic? True- False- True? Please take a look at the diagram again.
A cheese board can be simple. Only one way to win the game.
(To win yourself by a / line. To win others by a line.)
Wisdom from the God. A teacher can be a mother-in-common.

Logic is not a game. It ends with a LINE. Time is linear.

Teru Wong