Facts don't.
Printable View
Facts don't.
There are two views of origins. One says that everything came about by natural causes; the other looks to a supernatural cause. In the case of the origin of the universe, either the universe had a beginning or it did not. If it did have a beginning, then it was either caused or uncaused. If it was caused, then what kind of cause could be responsible for bringing all things into being?
Evolutionary scientists have told us that the universe either came from nothing by nothing or that it was always here. One such theory is called the steady state theory and also calls for the universe to be constantly generating hydrogen atoms from nothing. In either case, holding to such beliefs has a high cost for the scientist, for both of these violate a fundamental law of science: the law of causality. Both views require that the scientist believe in events happening without a cause. Even the great skeptic David Hume said, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.? [David Hume, Letters ed. by J.Y.T. Greig (Oxford: Clarendon, 1932), vol. I, p. 187. Yet this absurd proposition is accepted by men who make their living by the law of causality. If the whole universe is uncaused, why should we believe that the parts are caused? If the parts are all caused, then what evidence could suggest that the whole is uncaused? Nothing in the principle of causality supports this conclusion. The evidence is just not there.
Rather, a great deal of evidence now supports the option that the universe had a beginning. Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has summarized the evidence in his book God and the Astronomers, saying, "Now three lines of evidence??the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, and the life story of the stars??pointed to one conclusion: all indicated that the Universe had a beginning." [Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: Warner Books, 1978), p. Ill.]
Now if we are speaking of a beginning of the universe??a movement from no matter to matter??then we are clearly in the realm of unrepeatable events covered by origin science.
[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]
stem cell research. stem cells: the origins of human life. we only go through the fetal stage once, and then we go through a repetitive cycle of growth until we die.Quote:
Origin science is not just another name for giving evidence to support creationism. It is a different kind of science. Origin science studies past singularities, rather than present normalities. It looks at how things began, not how they work. It studies things that only happened once and, by their nature, don't happen again. It is a different type of study that requires a different approach.
beginnings happen over and over, everything DOES happen again, it is just in cycles of life and death.
THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
The first law of thermodynamics says that the actual amount or energy in the universe remains constant??it doesn't change. The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of usable energy in any closed system (which the whole universe is) is decreasing. Everything is tending toward disorder and the universe is running down. Now if the overall amount of energy stays the same, but we are running out of usable energy, then what we started with was not an infinite amount: You can't run out of an infinite amount. This means that the universe is and always has been finite. It could not have existed forever in the past and will not exist forever into the future. So it must have had a beginning.
[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
It's a balancing act OF infinity.
there is just less infinite usable energy right now than there is infinite energy users.
it could be said that the effect is going from a 50-50 balance to a 40-60 to a 20-80. when the balance is so far off to the extreme, it reverses polarity and heads back to the other direction. when we hit 100% matter and 0% energy, we will suddenly snap back, everyone will die, and we'll be back at ground 0 again, perfect balance of all the infinite elements.
yes, im rambling nonsense here, but think about it.
the first law of thermodynamics is true circumstance, the second law is circumstantially true.
it's not that we are losing energy so much as it is that more energy is being used. when there is no energy left to be used, the users must then convert back into energy.
let's take a life and death approach.
life is energy user, death is energy creator.
but there is never more or less than 100%, it is just where that % is balanced, and how.
THE MOTION OF THE GALAXIES
Scientists argue that the universe is not simply in a holding pattern, maintaining its movement from everlasting to everlasting. It is expanding. It now appears that all of the galaxies are moving outward as if from a central point of origin, and that all things were expanding faster in the past than they are now. Remember that as we look out into space, we are also looking back in time, for we are seeing things not as they are now, but as they were when the light was given off many years ago. So the light from a star 7 million light years away tells us what it was like and where it was 7 million years ago.
??The most complete study made thus far has been carried out on the 200-inch telescope by Allan Sandage [as of 1990]. He compiled information on 42 galaxies, ranging out in space as far as 6 billion light years from us. His measurements indicate that the Universe was expanding more rapidly in the past than it is today. This result lends further support to the belief that the Universe exploded into being.? [Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: Warner Books, 1978), p. 95]
This explosion, sometimes called the Big Bang, was a beginning point from which the entire universe has come. Putting an expanding universe in reverse leads us back to the point where the universe gets smaller and smaller until it vanishes into nothing. So the universe, at some point in the distant past, came into being out of nothing.
[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]
Evidence that the universe began is the radiation "echo" which seems to come from everything. It was first thought to be a malfunction or static on the instruments. But research has discovered that the static was coming from everywhere??the universe itself has low-level radiation from some past catastrophe that looks like a giant fireball.
No explanation other than the big bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the Steady State theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed. [Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: Warner Books, 1978), p. 5]
Again, this evidence must lead one to conclude that there was a beginning of the universe.
The law of causality tells us that whatever happens is caused, so what caused the universe to begin? It is [speculatively] possible that this big bang is simply the latest in a series of explosions that destroy all evidence of what came before. But that only backs the question up a few steps to "What caused the first explosion?" It is also [speculatively] possible that the steady state theory is right, that the universe had no beginning and is creating hydrogen from nothing to maintain energy without running down. But this explanation is contrary to the evidence and the law of causality. Both of these answers are [speculatively] possible; neither is plausible.
Logically, if we are looking for a cause, which existed before the entirety of nature (the universe) existed, we are looking for n supernatural cause. Even ]astrow, a confirmed agnostic, has said as much: "That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact." [Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: Warner Books, 1978), p. 15, 18] Since he is speaking from the viewpoint of operation science, he probably means that there is no secondary cause, which can explain the origin of the universe. But with the recognition of origin science we can posit a supernatural primary cause that seems to be the most plausible answer to the question. Jastrow closes his book God and the Astronomers with these words:
??For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.? [Ibid., pp. 105-106]
[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
to the contrary, if this is just a cycle, if this happens repeatedly, we cannot know how long this has been happening, or what initiated the cycle!
all evidence is sucked into a singularity only to explode out again, completely annihilating any evidence of the past, between the last big bang and big crunch.
also assuming there is a big crunch.
Aren't you basing your conclusions on speculation rather that facts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf
the fact is im not a scientist, nor have i any means of observing the universe as a whole, beyond my individual perspective, and what little research i've done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
but is not research speculation until one takes it upon them self to try and test their research?
on matters pertaining to the big bang/big crunch, we have only speculation based on our observations of the movement of the stars.
is that not pure speculation?