The big bang the god particle and the universe

[laura_charlotte]

Wouldn't that require multiple floods if only Noah and his family survived upon the ark?

If the earth was without form and void, then if darkness was upon the face of the deep wouldn't that suggest the entire surface of the earth was covered under a body of water?

The reason I ask is due to the verse 9 that the dry ground didn't appear until after LORD brought the the cloud of gas over the earth called a firmament. Can it be explained how dry land could have appeared if the surface of the earth wasn't covered under water?

Understood, I want you to have a read and reply of this first though. It examines in some detail about evidence of the floods from a historical perspective. Secular scientists are beginning to believe that at least in China, something huge happened - and right around the same time the bible mentions the flood of Noah took place too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...at-the-flood-was-real/?utm_term=.260b3631d9ee

 

[Tintin]

The flood in ancient China was massive, but in terms of impact it was a local flood. We have the fossil record and the topography of earth to show us that the Flood of Noah's time was global by nature.

 

[Zmouth]

Understood, I want you to have a read and reply of this first though. It examines in some detail about evidence of the floods from a historical perspective. Secular scientists are beginning to believe that at least in China, something huge happened - and right around the same time the bible mentions the flood of Noah took place too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...at-the-flood-was-real/?utm_term=.260b3631d9ee

Really really kewl, thank you. Would you mind if I im'ed you.

Its seems obvious, the points appear distinctively symmetrical.

 

[laura_charlotte]

Really really kewl, thank you. Its seems obvious, the points appear distinctively symmetrical.

You're welcome.

I disagree that you need to contrast designed vs non-designed things. Isn't it true that intelligence bringing forth intelligence (in general) is a tried, tested, and daily proven concept?

You could call it a scientifically proven idea. It happens all the time. We all do it, our world is built around man-made information systems based on intelligent code. Intelligence produces intelligence. Non-intelligence producing something intelligent isn't observed anywhere. Even in nature. Everything is full of information. Anything that gives birth to something else is packed full of DNA, and complex systems beyond anything man has made.

If something cannot be shown plausible scientifically, why embrace that idea over something that can?

Accepting intelligent design opens two possibilities - an infinite regression of designers, or an eternal one.

Non-intelligence seems to me to be betting against reason, and the odds are at this stage seemingly impossible (never demonstrated plausible), possibly the future may present a scenario where the odds are improbable... but in any case, it's a bet against reason.

​

 

[Zmouth]

You're welcome.

I disagree that you need to contrast designed vs non-designed things. Isn't it true that intelligence bringing forth intelligence (in general) is a tried, tested, and daily proven concept?

You could call it a scientifically proven idea. It happens all the time. We all do it, our world is built around man-made information systems based on intelligent code. Intelligence produces intelligence. Non-intelligence producing something intelligent isn't observed anywhere. Even in nature. Everything is full of information. Anything that gives birth to something else is packed full of DNA, and complex systems beyond anything man has made.

If something cannot be shown plausible scientifically, why embrace that idea over something that can?

Accepting intelligent design opens two possibilities - an infinite regression of designers, or an eternal one.

Non-intelligence seems to me to be betting against reason, and the odds are at this stage seemingly impossible (never demonstrated plausible), possibly the future may present a scenario where the odds are improbable... but in any case, it's a bet against reason.

​

So using your interpretation of Genesis, how does the concept of intelligent life bringing forth intelligent life hold up?

I am not sure if you are trying to associate the issue of non-living/living matter to non-intelligent/intelligent life but I will await and you have you interpret Genesis relative to the concept you stated.

 

[BeyondET]

So I am one who is fascinated with science and also with outer space though I lack the intelligence to fully understand it all my friend who is a very scientific kind of guy told me a couple years ago about a discovery called the god particle. If I remember and understand correctly the god particle was always there and was in fact the direct link to mass and gravity the big bang and all creation and scientists say the fact the god particle existed and made something out of nothing proves god is not needed.

But there are so many flaws with this theory, first off say the god particle really was just always there, that in itself disproves it's existence or at least it way of existence because in this universe that we live in never once has anything simply come from nothing it always had to be made born created or evolved in some way or manner to say this particle simply always existed defies the laws of this universe. I am a very firm believer in cause and effect, if say the god particle is the cause and everything we see is the eventual effect it still doesn't explain how that cause was in existence when everything else was an effect.

In other words while every other thing in this universe had to be made created or born in some way it's extremely unbelievable that a single particle didn't have to and is the one exclusion to laws of this universe. Now scientists can argue about God in the same way however our faith and belief in God is not limited to this universes laws while their god particle is. The big bang theory is no longer considered a theory to many scientists as they believe it is now fully proven but say I am right about my view of the god particle what made the god particle and what made that thing that made the god particle and so on and so forth eventually it's like how there is never truly the number 0 you will always have an infinite amount of 0.1 at the end there has to be a source but the issue is if there is a source then it only proves the existence of an all knowing eternal being not disproves it

Well that is because somebody coined the Higgs particle as the God particle using the wrong analogy saying from nothing, when in reality it's just a more finite particle God created for His purposes of creation. It tickles me when people lump all scienctist as being of a atheist view.

[video=youtube;tcHz3o4t6Rk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcHz3o4t6Rk[/video]

 

[BeyondET]

You're welcome.

I disagree that you need to contrast designed vs non-designed things. Isn't it true that intelligence bringing forth intelligence (in general) is a tried, tested, and daily proven concept?

You could call it a scientifically proven idea. It happens all the time. We all do it, our world is built around man-made information systems based on intelligent code. Intelligence produces intelligence. Non-intelligence producing something intelligent isn't observed anywhere. Even in nature. Everything is full of information. Anything that gives birth to something else is packed full of DNA, and complex systems beyond anything man has made.

If something cannot be shown plausible scientifically, why embrace that idea over something that can?

Accepting intelligent design opens two possibilities - an infinite regression of designers, or an eternal one.

Non-intelligence seems to me to be betting against reason, and the odds are at this stage seemingly impossible (never demonstrated plausible), possibly the future may present a scenario where the odds are improbable... but in any case, it's a bet against reason.

View attachment 164020
​

Interesting, though in IMO that picture was made by a die hard cave dweller, coming up with a away to say look it's only been "938 of what" I'm guessing even the author of the photo was to scared to even say years.. lol

man from dirt is correct look at what makes up dirt that is what we are made from all those things that make up dirt in stages just like the human development today in child birth, take a soup filled round egg and a tadpole creature swimming up stream to mix with that soup to form man. dirt to bone to flesh a process 1,2,3.. it's not just some luck that calcium carbonate that is the stuff that make up our bones but also deep sea coral as well as other animals with bone structures it's all made from the same thing calcium carbonate.

 

[laura_charlotte]

The principal of intelligent design and humans that apply that principal are distinct categories. Birds apply it, bee's apply it, human's apply it. It's not unique to humans. It's a proven principal. The alternative is entirely absent. It doesn't mean non-intelligence is impossible, but if we follow the evidence it's not a valid option. We can ignore the evidence and hope, but that's not reasonable in my mind.

The creation of the universe is something we can't observe. Evidence is that it had a beginning. When we begin to speak about timelessness we're trying to explain extra-dimensional ideas, which restricts us, and Creation ex nihilo is an idea that's only applicable in that context, and towards a thing or being that transcends matter, space-time etc.

I think birds are intelligent, less intelligent than us, but still have intelligence. I don't think it needs defining. An intelligent thing can make decisions, apply information etc. I believe a human comprises 3 distinct parts, body, soul, (mind, will, emotions), and spirit. I believe animals have a soul, they're conscious, can make choices. Dogs definitely have their own personalities, contemplate decisions etc. Apply information based on consequences, I don't think dogs have a spirit, which is a deeper part to who a human being is. I would say intelligence is an attribute of the soul.

 

[Bladerunner]

You're welcome.

I disagree that you need to contrast designed vs non-designed things. Isn't it true that intelligence bringing forth intelligence (in general) is a tried, tested, and daily proven concept?

You could call it a scientifically proven idea. It happens all the time. We all do it, our world is built around man-made information systems based on intelligent code. Intelligence produces intelligence. Non-intelligence producing something intelligent isn't observed anywhere. Even in nature. Everything is full of information. Anything that gives birth to something else is packed full of DNA, and complex systems beyond anything man has made.

If something cannot be shown plausible scientifically, why embrace that idea over something that can?

Accepting intelligent design opens two possibilities - an infinite regression of designers, or an eternal one.

Non-intelligence seems to me to be betting against reason, and the odds are at this stage seemingly impossible (never demonstrated plausible), possibly the future may present a scenario where the odds are improbable... but in any case, it's a bet against reason.

View attachment 164020
​

And the good thing about your chart is .................Noah's Ark as is measured in Genesis 6 could easily carry all the land dwelling species. Happy Days

 

[pottersclay]

[h=3]s Anyone Up There? Looking for Clues[/h]

On Friday's edition of The Connection, Skip Heitzig continues in our series of teachings called The Biography of God. How do we know that God exists and isn't a fabrication or projection of our own imaginations? In the message "Is Anyone Up There? Looking for Clues," Skip gives us some evidence that points to the existence of God.

​

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[pottersclay]

The Connection Radio Broadcast with Skip Heitzig | SkipHeitzig.com


If you can play this it might answer some questions. One of my favorite teachers here so please enjoy.

 

[Zmouth]

A scientific theory is not an immutable fact.

Do you even know what a immutable fact is? It is easy to believe something is true or believe it isn't true, but faith requires some form of substance upon which one's belief is based.

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: Heb 6:18


The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theory as follows:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially.
For example;

• no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory); or
  
• no new evidence will demonstrate living things are not made of cells (cell theory); or
• no new evidence will demonstrate that matter is not composed of atoms; or
  
• new evidence will demonstratethat the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...
  

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.
Source: http://nationalacademyofsciences.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[SUP]____________________________________________
[/SUP]​

The National Center for Science Education offers the explanation of terms as follows;
Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
• Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
• Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Source: National Center for Science Education

https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work​

 

[posthuman]

A scientific theory is not an immutable fact.

Do you even know what a immutable fact is?

sounds to me like she got it right and that you agree with her:

Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

all mere semantics aside

 

[laura_charlotte]

And the good thing about your chart is .................Noah's Ark as is measured in Genesis 6 could easily carry all the land dwelling species. Happy Days

Thankyou. As always!

 

[Moko]

So I am one who is fascinated with science and also with outer space though I lack the intelligence to fully understand it all my friend who is a very scientific kind of guy told me a couple years ago about a discovery called the god particle. If I remember and understand correctly the god particle was always there and was in fact the direct link to mass and gravity the big bang and all creation and scientists say the fact the god particle existed and made something out of nothing proves god is not needed.

But there are so many flaws with this theory, first off say the god particle really was just always there, that in itself disproves it's existence or at least it way of existence because in this universe that we live in never once has anything simply come from nothing it always had to be made born created or evolved in some way or manner to say this particle simply always existed defies the laws of this universe. I am a very firm believer in cause and effect, if say the god particle is the cause and everything we see is the eventual effect it still doesn't explain how that cause was in existence when everything else was an effect.

In other words while every other thing in this universe had to be made created or born in some way it's extremely unbelievable that a single particle didn't have to and is the one exclusion to laws of this universe. Now scientists can argue about God in the same way however our faith and belief in God is not limited to this universes laws while their god particle is. The big bang theory is no longer considered a theory to many scientists as they believe it is now fully proven but say I am right about my view of the god particle what made the god particle and what made that thing that made the god particle and so on and so forth eventually it's like how there is never truly the number 0 you will always have an infinite amount of 0.1 at the end there has to be a source but the issue is if there is a source then it only proves the existence of an all knowing eternal being not disproves it

The God particle is what the media called it, because that's what the media do: they sensationalize everything. The real name for it is the Higgs-Boson, and it's the particle which gives matter mass.

 

[Moko]

How can this so-called god particle come into existence by itself? If you take a bunch of nothing and wait a billion years you will still have a bunch of nothing because there wasn't something to make it out of in the first place.

You certainly have more intelligence than this misguided friend of yours.

It might be as you say that there may not truly be a number 0 because the probability of this god particle and how it came into existence is less than zero.

I am in full agreement with your well written estimation.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding among religious people about what science actually says regarding the big bang. We don't say that "something came out of nothing". That is not a claim any of us make. In fact, it is a claim that all of us dispute vehemently. The first law of thermodynamics states that no energy in the universe can be either created or destroyed. So, to say that "something came from nothing", is a direct violation of that law.

The big bang is actually a lot more complex.

If you think back to your science classes in high school (that might be an unfair request considering your age, so I apologize in advance if you can't quite remember), to when you learned about the forms of energy. If you recall, there is chemical, electrical, gravitational etc. But essentially, all energy falls into two broad categories: kinetic, and potential. This is where things get a little complicated.

At the point of the big bang, much of the potential energy that exists, was released, and kinetic energy was born. Hitherto, only potential energy had existed. Which is why, when we talk about the beginning of the universe, what we mean is the moment that all that potential energy was released.

People ask "well what was before it?" 'What caused it to be released?" "What caused the big bang?"

But that's an impossible question. Because the universe as we know it, has potential energy, and kinetic energy. It has mass, and motion, and time, and space. "Before" the big bang, the universe was not like that at all. It was hot, dense, motionless, potential, timeless (you cannot have time if there is no energy conversion, motion and space), and so to talk about "before the big bang" is to talk about something that doesn't exist. The very concept of "before", is a concept rooted in the perception of time. But if there is no time, how can there be a "before"?

 

[Pie]

If I remember and understand correctly the god particle was always there and was in fact the direct link to mass and gravity the big bang and all creation and scientists say the fact the god particle existed and made something out of nothing proves god is not needed.

I'm confused. Someone is claiming that the Higgs boson is past eternal? That's news to me.

You are right to be skeptical. Be careful when reading scientific literature targeted to a laymen audience. They often use language to make highly technical topics more accessible by using analogies and metaphors. This can sometimes make what they are saying incredibly misleading. For example, many often use the word "nothing" in an inaccurate way. Nothing literally means the absence of anything. It is not an vacuum of fluxing energies, or empty space that we refer to as nothing. But they often do. I'm not saying you should avoid these things, but don't be quick to accept their conclusions ESPECIALLY those with sensationalist headlines.

 

[Base12]

The "Ye shall be as Gods" Particle is the main ingredient in the Forbidden Fruit.

It's what "puffs up" Matter.

In other words the Higgs Boson is Leaven.

Big Bang = Introduction of Leaven

Matthew 13:33
"Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened"

Leaven mixed with Fruit produces Alcohol or Dark Energy.

The Serpent tempted Adam and Eve with it in order to cause their "eyes" to be open, collapsing the Wave Function and producing the Big Bang and fall into our Entropy laced Universe.

Adam and Eve were the first beings to collapse the Wave Function...

[video=youtube;DfPeprQ7oGc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc&t=221s[/video]

 

[Dagallen]

The big bang theory is possible because nothing is impossible with the creator. However the big bang theory has no real evidence that support, that's why it's still a theory. As far as living particle being in the soil of the earth, has already been proven, just as the same living particles has been proven to dwell in the physical body and in the blood stream, as the living particles in the soil and body are the same living particles, which backs the biblical text if how God used the living particles from the soil and created the body of flesh, from the dust of earth you came and to the dust of the earth you shall return. We are not the soil of the earth itself, God used the living particles in the soil, therefore we came from the soil of the earth but we are not the soil itself. As the living particles is in the body, if I cut myself, I bleed, God still uses the living particles in the blood to create new flesh to heal my wounds. As the living particles has to have water to remain active, as they feed off of the food that is processed within the body and stored as body fat or in the body fat, when a person is near physical death, when they refuse to eat or drink, the living particles consumes the body fat, until nothing is left but skin and bones. As the living particles after death do not die but they sleep but if you put a body in the ground, the living particles goes back to the soil or dust of the earth. 1 Corinthians 15:37 and that which you sow is not that body that shall be but bare grain or wheat or some other grain. As the body rots, decays and become nothing, as God uses the living particles that has returned to the soil and give life to grain or wheat or some other grain, as the living particles never die.