Big Bang Evidence for God
- Thread starter arauca
- Start date
There was no solid mass prior to the supernova. All elements higher than iron are formed in the supernova itself, and are scattered as a tenuous gas. This gas mingled with the hydrogen cloud which was to condense and form the sun and the planets.
Seriously, you have a Masters in Chemistry? Somehow I find it hard to believe given you seem to have no grasp of science and have a significant amount of ignorance on some fairly basic concepts. People sufficiently educated in a science subject shouldn't be making the laughable statements you have been. Which leads me to the conclusion either you don't have said degree or it was wasted on you.
No, but your response is a common hyperbole done by people who don't have a sound basis for their position. You have been told you're mistaken not because you're bucking the status quo but because you are demonstrably wrong in your assertions. Let's consider what you said next...
The fact the majority of the Sun is light elements doesn't mean it doesn't contain heavy elements. In fact every element has been detected in the Sun via spectral lines. As a chemist you should know what they are, seeing as the discovery of Helium was done by noting new lines in the Sun's emissions which implied an element never detected on Earth before. Only once spurred by this realisation was Helium discovered. Helium, derived from Helios, meaning Sun.
I learnt that in school.
Now this is just thick. The Sun is obviously a very different entity to the Earth, in that it is undergoing constant nuclear fusion. As such it would be ridiculous, ie deserving of ridicule, for someone to expect the internal structures of the Sun and Earth to be the same.
As for the ages of the Sun and Earth have you bothered to look up any astrophysics? Wikipedia covers it quite well, ie the Earth formed from the accretion disk of the Sun, which collapsed and began fusing somewhat before (few hundred million years) the Earth collapsed enough to be considered a planet. And that's not even considering the impact event which formed the Moon.
Again, this is stuff taught in schools or easily available information to anyone with an iota of curiosity in their mind. You have the danger mix of blind faith, complete ignorance and the delusion that because you have a qualification in something vaguely linked to the subject matter then you're in the right. It's funny how the religious hacks will ignore the many scientific qualifications of the scientists who explain why they are wrong but as soon as one of you have a qualification of your own then it is lauded over. Rank hypocrisy.
If you knew something about the physics of how the Sun and Earth form you'd know that the collapsing cloud of dust does not collapse in such a way to give uniform densities of all elements. Heavier elements don't collapse in the same manner as lighter ones.
Your arguments are so poor someone with a high school knowledge of science can demolish them. Did you get your Chemistry Masters from the same school Kent Hovind got his PhD from?
The fact the majority of the Sun is light elements doesn't mean it doesn't contain heavy elements. In fact every element has been detected in the Sun via spectral lines. As a chemist you should know what they are, seeing as the discovery of Helium was done by noting new lines in the Sun's emissions which implied an element never detected on Earth before. Only once spurred by this realisation was Helium discovered. Helium, derived from Helios, meaning Sun.
I learnt that in school. [/QUOTE]
This is worthless to discuss : I have worked in chemical analysis using different wavelength spectrophotometer, for over 10 tears I ha
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
[QUOTE:Now this is just thick. The Sun is obviously a very different entity to the Earth, in that it is undergoing constant nuclear fusion. As such it would be ridiculous, ie deserving of ridicule, for someone to expect the internal structures of the Sun and Earth to be the same.
Look Mr , I don't know were you got that , that I implied that the sun and earth are equal ( perhaps your friend Wagner )
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
AlphaNumeric;3030485 As for the ages of the Sun and Earth have you bothered to look up any astrophysics? Wikipedia covers it quite well said:
Then it should have, at some point, come to your attention that spectral lines are used to detect elements (and compounds in the case of planets) within the atmosphere of stellar objects, including the Sun. Thus you should be aware the Sun includes the heavy elements.
Firstly Walter and I are not 'friends', I consider him a hack. Secondly I quoted what I was replying to, You complained the Sun doesn't have an iron core but te Earth does, as if that is evidence for your position. As has already been pointed out to you, the Sun contains vast amounts of iron, the fact it isn't all at the centre making a core of iron, akin to the Earth, is because the Sun is a fundamentally different object. Complaining the Sun doesn't have a particular structure the Earth does is, as I said, thick. And thirdly I'm not 'Mr', I'm 'Dr'. I generally forgo such formality though....
So you haven't bothered to look up the actual astrophysics, you're going to assume it takes more time because it is bigger. What about the fact in a disk the gravity is attracting towards the centre, where the Sun is forming, so more material flows towards the centre? As more material flows towards the middle, passing the orbital radius of the Earth, the more the gravitational attraction on material favours the centre (ie the Sun's future position) over the Earth (a generalised gravitational shell theorem result). Thus it is self re-enforcing. In addition the Sun is mostly made up of lighter elements, which also form the bulk of the collapsing cloud, not all of which is needed for fusion to start. Plus there's an issue with small planet formation when you get a large planet forming too. The reason the asteroid field exists, rather than a small planet, is due to Jupiter's influence preventing it (it also protected us from numerous cometary bombardments!). As some material began to clump into Jupiter it would have slowed the collapse of other planetary clumps, in some cases destroying them all together.
Seriously, go watch a National Geographic program (seeing as you're too lazy and too intellectually dishonest to look up the actual science) on this stuff! We have astronomy observations of clouds in various stages of collapse as well as computer models of collapses, including the influence of Jupiter.
This isn't some 'out there' fringe astrophysics only taught to PhD students, it's kids stuff. I didn't do astronomy at university, I picked this up from school, TV and books so you really have no excuse for shooting your mouth off about something like this in the way you are.
Don't you think that if the argument "It's bigger so took longer!" was valid then someone would have pointed it out to astrophysicists? Or do you think they just don't care or are in some kind of conspiracy? What about the computer models? Clearly gravitational simulations show that bigger doesn't mean longer, since the dynamics due to gravity favour the centre of a collapsing cloud over other regions.
Have you done such simulations yourself? Can you offer anything more rigorous than "Because I say so!"? Has everything you've ever been taught or learnt or realised about chemistry always fallen in line with your preconceptions? I doubt it. Physics is no different.
I've given some overview and if you are a competent chemist then you should have it within your intellectual capacity to know how to find information on the internet. Is googling for certain words I use too much for you to must? Or despite that 10+ years doing spectral chemistry you need to be spoon fed everything?
Besides, you have made it abundantly clear you have no desire to learn. If you did then you'd have bothered to spend 5 minutes looking up the actual science, rather than just assuming how the physics works and assuming you know the right answer.
As for attempting to humiliate you if pointing out the large gaps in your knowledge, misconceptions and wilful ignorant is something which could be regarded as humiliating then so be it. If you had bothered to look up what the science actually is before proclaiming you know better then you'd not have given me any opportunity.
Where did I say I knew about chemistry? This is physics, the collapse of a star. Chemistry involves chemicals, we're talking about nuclear processes driven by gravitational collapse. So it's you, a supposed chemist, telling physicists how physics works. Nice bit of ironic hypocrisy there by you.
But feel free, if you have the spare time, to write a paper refuting the current understanding of astrophysics and submit it to the appropriate journal. I'm sure they'd love to know how their computer simulations and observations are invalid in the face of your gut's assumptions.
So you disagree because you don't understand. This is an argument from incredulity, and is your standard reaction to just about everything.
Again, I'm surprised by the lack of education displayed in your posts, especially considering that you claim a degree in a scientific discipline.
It's actually kind of refreshing and nice to see that science doesn't know everything. Science has been anti-God for a long long time. And look where they got stuck --> where did the big bang come from? Where did the energy content of the big bang come from? I think it's hilarious that in Genesis, God claims responsibility for creating the universe, "God said, Let there be Light!!!"
From a more scientific and nature friendly point of view, I think the existence of a "much larger construct" is more appealing and inspiring. Until more scientific evidence comes along that says otherwise, I think it's a good place-holder.
Lincoln was born in a cabin he built himself.
Really? Of course the laws of the universe wouldn't contradict the creation of the very same universe.
1) If the argument is not convincing am I supposed to agree ? ( beside you should write the whole sentence of what I dis agree ) My reaction is depending of the topic.
2) go on keep pushing me down that makes you more elevated . I cannot helped I have the degree , and I made a good living and retired based on my degree.
Of course they're going to put you down. How do you expect most of these people to feed their enormously swollen egos? With kindness and friendly conversation? What's the point of working so hard to understand nature if you can't inflict insults?
But I do agree with you there are things about physics that don't make sense. Particularly, how the big bang can come out of nothingness, and how can it do so without violating conservation of energy. I don't mind that they don't know how it happened. I'm just not impressed with the explanations I've heard so far. For example, if you wait for a google of years (1 google = 10^100), then (lots of handwaving while everyone is bored and confused), a big bang occurs.
Your English grammar and spelling is atrocious for someone who claims a master's degree in Chemistry.
'Pal'; not 'Pall'
'burying'; not 'burring'
I posed no insults, nor did I attempt to insult. I was simply presenting facts. No hand-waving whatsoever.
I deliberately omitted Fe-60. I also deliberately omitted Fe-49, t-1/2 = .08s; Fe-52, t-1/2 = 0.9m/8.28h; Fe-53, t-1/2 = 2.53m/8.53/m; Fe-55, t-1/2 = 2.7a; Fe-59, t-1/2 = 44.6d (common radioactive iron as a tracer); Fe-61, t-1/2 = 6.0m; Fe-62, t-1/2 = 68s.
I omitted them because they are radioactive with half-lives that are significantly shorter than the lifetime of the sun and earth since those solar-system bodies were formed, and hence they no longer are present on earth, in meteors/meteorties, etc. because they have radioactively decayed away to non-Iron elements (which is also why Technetium is also not naturally present on Earth since it is radioactive with a relatively short half-life, which as a chemist you would know was 'missing' from the periodic table of elements when it was developed, and had to be technically made by mankind (hence the name Technetium), filling in that gap.
Also, I believe that 'AlphaNumeric' is not pleased that you lumped us together. He does consider me a hack. But he can't quite figure out how I know so much more than he in so many areas of science, and so much nuclear physics (as per the above) for someone he considers a 'hack'. It has to do, however, with the fact that I was working in physics with radioactive materials long before he was born, and studying nucleosynthesis and astrophysics in my postgraduate work when he was still in diapers.
Firstly science doesn't claim to know everything. You have this warped ignorant view of it, something which you don't understand, where you just assume things are as you guess they are. You're the guy who said science is running out of things to experiment, which just shows how clueless you are. Secondly science isn't 'anti-god'. If you could provide sound evidence for a god then science would expand to include it. Until then god has no more place in science than Bigfoot.
And Pastafarians think it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster. At least science is honest enough to say "Don't know", religion doesn't know but lies and says it does.
There isn't the same as a self creating universe.
You haven't even looked at the argument, as you haven't gone and read any of the science. Complaining we don't spoon fed you when you're too lazy to feed yourself is idiotic.
I have a degree, Masters, PhD, published papers and a research job and unlike yourself my education (mathematical physics) directly pertains to such things as quantum mechanics and gravity, the two phenomena involved in stellar evolution.I even took a graduate course in 'Structure and Evolution of Stars'! Can we all therefore conclude my education trumps yours in regards to this topic and therefore anything I say, be it based on evidence or my gut feelings trumps your gut feelings?
Hardly. But like all religious idiots who fail to understand science you're happy to laud over your own, somewhat unimpressive, education while ignoring the education of those on the other side of the fence. The people who study the structure and evolution of stars have PhDs and professorships in precisely that, which are much more advanced and relevant than a Masters in Chemistry, yet you're happy to just ignore all of them and use your education as justification.
You hypocrite.
Balerion is just trying to shake you out of your Creationist coma, as are spidergoat, AlexG, Alpha, rpenner, Origin, brucep, JamesR, prometheus, and the list goes on and on. There are fine folks here who speak with one clear voice on basic ideas like logical fallacy, no matter how diverse they are, and how many ways they may see the world through the lens of their own experience. Don't mistake the doctor slapping the baby as an insult. They are just asking you to wake up and look at what you're saying. Above, you're simply refusing to address the fusion that occurs later, not now, not when the star is young, but at supernova. Of course you need to examine the proposition that there were supernovas that occurred before there was the dust of heavy elements anywhere in the universe. Go there, they are telling you as they slap you awake, and look at the ways heavy elements are born.
The question you tried to apply to the Creationist pseudoscience in the article you gave us in the OP was this: if there is a higher ratio of heavy elements in the Earth than in the Sun, then the Earth couldn't be formed by the Sun, could it? That was your point, and your reason for raising Divine Creation, was it not? You were concerned about the process by which Bismuth is created, desite AlexG's early remark about nucleosynthesis. I asked you if the theory of a Divine Creation includes a God who reverses the fusion and decay chains (we can certainly postulate Bismuth as a decay from an earlier fusion, can we not?) So, now: can you account for the creation of the elements or not? I think this is a settled question in science, at least in the main. It may remain a question for Creationists, but only because they are so cynical about the true capabilities of great human accomplishments (such as nuclear and astro physics) that they only need to put blinders on (I think Alpha mentioned willful ignorance). The harsh wakeup call for your author in the OP is that, if he were to attempt to digest the sum of human knowledge about natural origins by actually studying science instead of ignoring it, even if he ingested an amount equal to the percentage of Iron in the Sun, he would end up a great fan of folks like his nemesis Hitchens, and he would perhaps ask you, as it occurred to me to ask you, whether you can derive the synthesis of Bismuth from fusion and decay chains, or do you suppose God reverses the laws of physics and chemistry--except that He puts them in forward motion again just enough to get you though your labs on the way to the MS degree? The great thing about sticking with science is that you find how many things are in fact reversible, but subject to laws, and the laws themselves are not reversible. All of this was beyond the comprehension of ancient people who created God to explain phenomena for which they had no science. And so it goes with Creationists today. They have no science and they don't want you to have it either. And God forbid that school kids should get any either. Creationism is just mean selfish ignorance posing as science. But of course it's not even close to being science. It pretends to be, as your author pretends to be talking like an actual scientist. This is how he gets so many lambs into his car.
Creationism parading as science is the thing that made us coin the word pseudoscience. They want you, a chemist, to disallow the existence of Bismuth in the 93,000,000 mile vicinity of the Sun. Or at least they've given you a formula for doing so: willful ignorance. They're letting you stop at the fusion of H into He, and at some nutty presumption that the Earth should be made of the same mixture of ingredients that went into the sun. They don't particularly care about primordial dust clouds, nucleosynthesis and decay chains, and they hope you won't either, because they want you to join them in their dirty little wars against science education (still battling evolution in the schools after all these decades). And they certainly don't want you to dig deeper, to consider whether the Bismuth in our solar system was the blow-off from some prior supernova--or rather that it decayed to Bismuth from a prior fusion into heavier species the blew out of the supernova.
But you are supposed to know better. So what gives? When do you get behind the wheel and put the car in forward gear, and take Creation pseudoscience to task with the facts and knowledge you were given in class--already chewed up neatly for you, so you don't have to re-create the vast work yourself, leading you like a child through the wilderness of brilliant minds, to the few minor discoveries it took to get your education (huge to you, but minor to the vast deposit of science)--when do you take the wheel? You figured out how species react with one another, there are reactants, new species actually get created as does energy sometimes (I mean released of course) and these are all under control of Natural law. And: when it's you at the lab bench with your degree plan in your hip pocket, you are driving the car yourself, not God, creating stuff that supposedly only God can create. When do you actually put your foot down on the pedal and drive the car yourself? Or do you just like to sit in the back seat, while someone else leads you around on their own personal wild goose chase? And wouldn't they like to get their hands on your retirement funds you garnered as a chemist. (Now there's a new species for synthesis yet to be analyzed scientifically--parasites that live on the brain tumor that paralyzes scientific thinking.)
God doesn't need to put the car in reverse; we have enough reversibility in Nature to account for the big questions like the origins of stuff, whether it's Bismuth or amino acids and lipids. We have enough spontaneity, and even though the decay rates are statistically predictable, you would swear each and every one was acting on its own if you were able to sit and wait for it to decay. We have enough cause for order out of chaos, also merely as a question of statistics. If you keep shuffling and drawing cards, you'll eventually get a Royal Flush. It's rare, but so is a planet (out of all space) and so is the one we're on (out of those we know of) and so are we (out of all life forms we know of) -- but so what? Didn't you have to study Probability and Statistics to get a Master's in Chemistry?
The idea of precision and intelligent design is as ancient as the clueless people who invented these myths. To sit here with an MS in hand, after a career that required you to put your foot to the pedal, and to try to connect some ancient superstition about the origins of light with the light of the primordial supernova that created certain heavy elements on Earth, is worse than turning the wheel over to manipulative propaganda artists. Now you're not even riding in the back seat any more. You're letting them drag you behind the car on a rope.
Creationism has nothing to lend to the discussion of creation of the world we live in--and the one we don't live in, but which we only can discover by scientific inquiry. If they had their way, you would have been prevented from learning any science. I find it absurd that any person who ever learned even one thing about natural law would still cling to ancient superstition. I mean, it's one thing to hold beliefs close to yourself, and to apply them to your life. But isn't it a little strange to use those beliefs to attack the body of knowledge that freed you from your own childhood ignorance? You say your studies in science put the food on your table for so many years. To turn around and attack science is to attack yourself. It's absurd.
Science is not a religion. Making specious claims--like the light of a primordial supernova being predicted as the light of Genesis--is how religion differs so sharply from science. There is zero correlation (another matter of statistics) between some nutty story invented by people who had no science, and the odds that there was a tremendous void filled with light (even if it was loaded in the uwave, IR, UV, X-ray, gamma ray and every other band). There is zero correlation because the ancient storytellers had zero information to work with. There is zero correlation because countless primordial events produced copious amounts of radiation per unit volume of void. So what? Really, that's my whole beef with Creationism: So what? Stuff happens. So what?
Space and time are created in the Big Bang. Nothing can happen before time starts ticking, so there can be no cause. So what? Does that shock you? So what. God certainly can not exist outside of spacetime, can He? He can't push the "Go" button until he has time to first conceive of pushing it--I mean, he's like a man, isn't He? A man stuck in frozen time before the Big Bang, when there is no motion to allow the Divine finger to press Go. What a sticky little paradox Creationism is. Oh wait, I forgot, God puts the car in reverse, he suspends the laws of physics and chemistry, and permits motion in zero time. What does that mean? Answer: nothing. It's meaningless drivel, spoon fed to you by the education-hating fear mongers who are dragging you by a rope down the road while you sing their praises. They're feeding you a man stuck in frozen time supposedly getting ready to push Go so he can first make some clay, then model it like a guy at a craft show, and then breathe life into it--reversing Natural law and the evidence for evolution of elements, evolution of molecules, of amino acids and lipids, of RNA/DNA and self-replicating forms, and, worst of all, so He can reverse the geologic and fossil evidence for everything that happens before early humans first appear on Earth, long before they invent Creationism.
I think that's all these other fine folks are trying to tell you here. Don't be too defensive when they slap you up the side of the head and tell you to get back to your books. They're just trying to help you get that rope off your neck, to get back behind the wheel and drive in your own direction.
That's all science is. But geez, look at those Creationists. What a bunch of scumbags.
Pal Your second paragraph is nice and educational , Forgive my grammar, otherwise I will write you in ny native language
I'm sure you'd be less unimpressed if you'd had to defend your own dissertation in order to earn the PhD.
Back at my post #37, I suggested some references that address current science. The first is an abstract of a book about the origins of the Solar System. A talking point, from that link:
What was the early evolution of the “primitive solar nebula” (solar nebula for short)? What is its relation with the circumstellar disks that are ubiquitous around young low-mass stars today?
Planetary accretion from the remnants of supernovae explains the presence of heavy elements on Earth. The Sun formed out of the remnants of the Big Bang itself (mostly H and He) and so its chemical composition is not the same. Obviously the nebulae are not heterogeneous, nor are they uniform across all signatures. For example:
arauca said:
That was addressed to AlphaNumeric, who has distinguished himself by earning a PhD in Physics. (Roar of applause, AN takes well-deserved bow.)
Earlier I mentioned "don't mistake the doctor slapping the baby as an insult". I can't help but find it humorous that the statement above is a case of "the baby slapping the doctor"!
Note: obviously not a reference to relative ages, nor being infantile. In this case, it's a reference to the way some kinds of shocks are not to insult us, but to help us. So take your medicine like the good doctor orders: one dose of nucleosynthesis, wash it down with a slug of humility (in awe of the universe), and you should be fine in the morning!
Or not. :shrug:
This appears to be not well-written, and confusing. The Earth and the Sun have very similar chemical compositions with the exception for the excessive abundance of H/He on the Sun. Remove that, and they have similar relative abundances of the elements (chemical composition). Likewise, the cosmic rays show a similar relative abundance to the relative abundance of elements on Earth.
The implication of your sentence is that the 'sun formed out of the remnants of the Big Bang' while the Earth did not. Not true. As mentioned in my earlier post, the Earth and Sun are both derived from the exact same proto-solar-system cloud which was heterogeneously mixed over the course of a billion years or thereabouts BEFORE the Sun and it planets derived (formed) from that cloud, with all of the supernovae ejecta that shot the heavy elements into the cold H/He cloud thoroughly mixed, giving rise to the heavy elements on Earth, the Sun, the Moon, Jupiter, asteroids, etc.
While the relative abundances (of the elements) are not now exactly the same, that is attributable to secondary accretion mechanisms; for example the Earth having a greater relative abundance of Iron than its Moon. Those secondary accretion mechanisms, however, do not impact the relative abundance of the isotopes of each element (because they are chemically the same, and in most cases very similar in atomic mass except for the very lightest elements).
To persons interested in more about solar system planet formation, I posted an extensive thread on that several years ago, and you can search my thread postings for that. I have also commented repeatedly in similar or related threads along the same lines. There is also an abundance of literature regarding proto-planetary disks (other than our own, which is now history) in the vicinity of our solar system (they are not presently discernible in other galaxies), and this is a current topic of much interest.
As an aside, it is interesting that the current crop of 'lab monkey' such as AN, who believes he is much superior because of a very narrow field of expertise, has such a negative attitude to those who paved the way or otherwise worked in many other areas other than his immediate field.
I'm very glad to hear that.
Religion wouldn't be fullfilling its purpose if it didn't offer hope and some sense of certainty in a universe that is very uncertain. It would completely defeat the purpose of religion to sit around and wait for thousands of years until verfiable facts were available. There is a whole other side to living in this world that science does not/cannot appreaciate.
I googled "Self creating universe" and came up with something very interesting from wiki,
There's a lot to absorb, but I think it's interesting that conservation laws are being examined more closely. The creation of matter and energy as a phenomena of nature is exciting.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-creation_cosmology said:
Just to share my thoughts about "self creating universes", I think that energy and space-time curvature are dualistic, as if curvature of space-time is a manifestation of negative energy. The real trick is trying to explain why energy doesn't just recombine with the curvature of space-time, thus collapsing the universe back into nothingness. Some scientists say that a quantum fluctation resulted in a big bang. They call hurricanes, tornadoes and earth quakes "acts of God"; by that logic, then a quantum fluctuation that results in a big bang should also be an "act of God".
Curvature of space-time results in gravitational redshift. I still think the reverse process (frequency sweeping) will curve space-time. But curving space-time is completely different from actually creating it out of nothingness. I am hopeful that pondering these issues will lead to signfiicant technological breakthroughs far in the future. You know, Star Trek level technology.
Curvature of space-time results in gravitational redshift. I still think the reverse process (frequency sweeping) will curve space-time. But curving space-time is completely different from actually creating it out of nothingness. I am hopeful that pondering these issues will lead to signfiicant technological breakthroughs far in the future. You know, Star Trek level technology.