Evolution Versus Creationism

[webishqiptar 0]

so let me ask directly then. where is your own proof god exists. you quote the bible as the bible is your own evidence, but surely, anyone can write a book and claim it to be evidence....but still in the end, there is no proof.

Bible is not a book to take in consideration for such arguments, because it is changed during ages from people who adapted it to their needs of power.

I think you should also consider Islamic points of view related to this theme, and Kur'an is a very interesting Holy Book that is not changed over time.

[nolan 0]

To say that a group should be accountable for the actions of a few members within that group is misguided. Granted, some people will take that stance, but that can't be helped. If you're going to look at it that way, though, we all (as part of the human group) have a lot to be sorry for. Men have a lot to be sorry for, women have a lot to be sorry for, children, young adults, the elderly, families, etc. (You'd also have to acknowledge the flip-side, which is that we all have a lot to be proud of.) Many times, we don't even have a choice as to what group we fall in, and other times, unexpected things can happen within that group that you could never possibly foresee.

Like I said, some people will surely take that stance, but that's not a perspective I, individually, would choose to embrace.

The first part of this argument supports me nicely the second part not so, but you are correct in what you say. It doesnt make the christian god evil, far from it. It doesnt make all christians evil. However the group will be held accountable for the actions of just a few and christianity has much to be sorry for.

[shadowx 0]

I simply meant that any group will always be held accountable for the actions of its members. Based on that there should be efforts made to apologise for the wrongs which were forced upon the people. It may not be the pope's fault however he represents the organisation that caused the pain and bloodshed so he should apologise on behalf of those who are dead and cannot.

[webishqiptar 0]

I don't get your point, and what does that guy you mentioned relate to Kur'an and to Creationism. My point is that if you read the Kur'an you have some explanations of how world(or hole Universe) was created, and as it is a Book which is the last of the Holy Books, and that has not changed over time. You could check Quranic views about creation and against evolution theory. That's my point. I don't know who that guy you mentioned is and how trusteable is he to Islamic sayings.

[mahesh2k 0]

I think you should also consider Islamic points of view related to this theme, and Kur'an is a very interesting Holy Book that is not changed over time.

Islam ? Hmm, have you heard of zakir naik yet ? That guy openly admits that quran is book that has concept-correction of all scriptures released earlier to quran. And he calls quran as modified and updated version of god's words, or in his own words "last testament" from prophets. His word salad manipulation is very famous, and for that i suggest you to enter word "zakir naik" in youtube and watch the quackery. That guy says, Bible has flaws as it was updated to suit the power needs. He claims there was "mention of Mohammad(prophet) in hindu scriptures(but he failed to prove it miserably when it comes word interpretation).As such counter argumentative person just play with words and push the burden of proof to others,avoids secular source by accusing them for biased view or calling it not open-mind and nothing else. So with respect to acceptance of quranic view, if more people are accepting it and that's why it should be valid religion or book???, this is just another "Appeal to popularity" logical fallacy. So going by zakir's reasoning, we should ask others why quran should be changed when it's preachers claim that it took concepts from other religions ? Isn't it ? ;-)

[mahesh2k 0]

was created, and as it is a Book which is the last of the Holy Books, and that has not changed over time. You could check Quranic views about creation and against evolution theory. That's my point. I don't know who that guy you mentioned is and how trusteable is he to Islamic sayings.

That guy says the same point as you mentioned. In fact he tries harder in those shows to make current scientific views to match with quranic views. This is the point i made in that earlier reply.

[truefusion 3]

[1]I do support its existence, but I don't have to argue for or against something to believe in it. It's as simple as that.

 

[2]What you said has no impact on my statement. No concrete facts can be stated regarding either of the examples I gave. Knowing we exist is not the same as knowing the reasons we exist, which was the whole point.

 

We're talking about evolution vs. creationism, so yes, I think that keeping the concrete statements related to those is important. And yes, I do know that we can't make the concrete statements that I gave examples for. If anyone thinks they can, they can feel free to try.

 

 

[3]Finally, with regards to Christianity being evil (this one wasn't addressed to me, but still), the roots of Christianity involved more organized violence than any other religions combined. If you research the history of Christian crusades, you'd quickly discover this to be the case. This doesn't make Christianity itself evil, nor Christians, but it's the very reason the ideas spread as far as they did.

[1] Right, but i never intended for support to be restricted to only public support.

 

[2] However, it is not limited to your examples. But the point of this topic is not about knowing the whys (i.e. reasons—and i realize that "reasons" can include "how," but a lot of what we know already declares how); it is more of whether or not what we do know leads to either the theory of evolution or creationism.

 

[3] I don't see how the Crusades are the roots of Christianity.

 

[1]A nucleus made of three particles (we shall ignore the electrons of the initial atom for the time being, as they play no part in this beta decay example) can't really split in the way you describe - that process simply doesn't occur, because you have to input huge amounts of energy to separate two nucleons like that. In radioactive decay the particles change, which changes the total mass and total energy of the system, but the mass-energy remains equal. In particle physics, mass is often measures in units of MeV/c² to make the link between energy (MeV) and mass much clearer, and easier to compare.

 

[2]Mass and energy are equivalent, but it helps to describe them separately in examples such as this. You stated that mass was not lost in the system, which was not true, but somewhat hard to show without splitting the total mass-energy of the system into separate mass and energy components.

[1] So how does particle decay work, then?

 

[2] Err, i'll just assume that mass is lost within the system. Either way, though, this is not leading to energy being eternal.

 

[1]Mass and energy are the same thing in different forms. The atom bomb turns mass, solid particles, into pure energy. Hence a massive boom from an orb of uranium around the size of a tennis ball or possibly smaller. Think ice to water almost. It's the same stuff but in a different form. Im sure rvalkass knows far more than many of us on this subject but if you can grasp the fact that matter = energy and energy = matter then you can see how a pocket of energy (which of course has no size, no mass, nothing physical to measure except the forces within) could develop into particles and spread out.

 

[2]I cant work you out TF, i find it very hard to argue against you without knowing the nature of your arguments. It sounds like you are a christian who supports the general ideas of a single male omni-potent god who created the universe. I cant reason however that you, a man of clear intelligence, could believe in the story of creationism? Unless you believe it in the metaphorical sense of god creating the universe (or god causing the big bang as many christian-scientists suggest) and the 7 days story is simply that, a story told to make the concept easier to understand and simplify it for inclusion in the bible or a simpler way to teach the story of creation to children without including unimaginable timescales. This is why i repeatedly question your beliefs.

[1] When you say they are the same, i cannot picture them being in different forms. Mass, to me, is just a measurement of how much space something takes up (a.k.a. volume). That is why when i hear that something physical has 0 mass, it is the same as saying that it doesn't exist. I have seen people use the word "mass" when they really meant "weight," but that is silly and confuses the whole thing—if anyone means weight, then they should say weight, not mass; why else does the word "weight" exist?

 

[2] Well, i can't really say that God is male (note, not man—"man" implies a human being, which is blasphemy). While i do say "He" and "Him," it is not necessarily to mean that God has a gender, but it's just conventional, i guess. According to the Bible, in Genesis, God made us in His image, which includes both male and female. This implies a few things, but concerning gender, it would imply that God bears no gender. I do believe He is omnipotent, or else He would not have been able to create anything and therefore would not be able to be called Creator. Multiple omnipotent beings seem paradoxical, which may explain why religions with multiple gods did not have omnipotent gods. And as far as i'm concerned, the universe can only imply one God.

 

Concerning the 7 days of creation (though it is really 6, since God stopped on the 7th day), God didn't issue that the sun and moon and stars be used as a measurement to declare how long a day, a year, a season, et cetera, is until the fourth day. What does this mean? It means that evening and morning and the next day are not necessarily 24-hour days, hence yielding to metaphoric lengths of time. Likewise, it is also stated that a day can be like a thousand years to God (Psalm 90:4). Hence why i am not a young-earth creationist. But note also that "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) came after Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:2 implies that the earth was already in existence before the First Day of Creation began. Note also that what is created within the 6 days are things we can witness today, which means the account of the 6 days of creation were limited to these things—there was (is) no need to mention any other account.

 

These are the kinds of studies i do, but it is not limited to these things.

 

so let me ask directly then. where is your own proof god exists. you quote the bible as the bible is your own evidence, but surely, anyone can write a book and claim it to be evidence....but still in the end, there is no proof.

 

so i ask directly where is your evidence because you are so quick to discredit others in what they believe. how did you come about not discrediting your own without proof or evidence to provide and support your beliefs?

The Bible cannot necessarily be used to prove God's existence. Rather, it already assumes that the God that does exist is the one mentioned in the text. If you have noticed from my current arguments with shadowx concerning the big bang vs God, my argument merely declares that there is a God; it does not, however, state what God that is. From my Xisto profile, the part labeled the deist's dilemma, from that you should be able to conclude that any God that exists has to be a personal one and one that wants to be sought out. The Biblical God matches this description. This is my assertion: The Biblical God is the most logical God that there is a written account of and matches with what logic leads to. Therefore i see no reason to consider anything else.

[jonnytracker 0]

i don't want to put lengthy post here just post here just to showcase and proof my points. But usually its Atheists that deny creationism. No wonders there is an event call miracles and unusual happenings, and strange effects and whatever is called myth, and mystery. Evolution is based on science, creationist believe in higher dimension and claim the world is not confine with just this 3D literal world. Now concerning science, there are new discoveries regarding dimension. Science is just theory over existence, science is evolving and improving. read about extra dimension of quantum mechanics guys

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

[shadowx 0]

There are almost certainly extra dimensions to the universe. Some, like you suggested operate on the quantum scale. (i would suggest the motion and action of electrons within an atom as an example of this) The question is whether any intelligent being can exist there. And if such a being exists what is it made of?

Any god must still adhere to the laws of the universe and those of physics. Hence it must be made of something.

When you say they are the same, i cannot picture them being in different forms. Mass, to me, is just a measurement of how much space something takes up (a.k.a. volume). That is why when i hear that something physical has 0 mass, it is the same as saying that it doesn't exist. I have seen people use the word "mass" when they really meant "weight," but that is silly and confuses the whole thing—if anyone means weight, then they should say weight, not mass; why else does the word "weight" exist?

Light a candle and feel the heat coming off of it. Does that heat take up a space? Look at the sun and see the light, does that light take up space? Get two magnets and feel the force (luke (star wars)) does that take up any space?

some would argue yes as every force in the universe is in fact transmitted by subatomic particles but they have zero mass, unless of course they interact with the higgs field if such a field exists... But i digress... Weight is a subjective measurement of something relative to the gravity of the earth. Hence 1kg is how much one bag of sugar weighs on earth. However elsewhere it is different. On Jupiter it would way hundreds if not thousands of kilos. However *mass* is an objective measurement of the properties of the atoms themselves. So you could calculate the atomic mass of a bag of sugar based on the atoms that make sugar and then the number of protons, neutrons and electrons that make that atom.

So if we say something has no mass then it is not matter, it can still be energy however. You cant "weigh" light You could in theory weigh the protons but thats getting into subatomic scales and the quantum world. It is enough to understand that energy does not weigh anything and it isnt matter. It's not always an easy concept but that's pretty much how it is.

According to your theory however god must have a weight? or a mass? Which suggests he is made of matter... ?

Concerning the 7 days of creation (though it is really 6, since God stopped on the 7th day), God didn't issue that the sun and moon and stars be used as a measurement to declare how long a day, a year, a season, et cetera, is until the fourth day. What does this mean? It means that evening and morning and the next day are not necessarily 24-hour days, hence yielding to metaphoric lengths of time.

I cant disprove this. No-one can without a time machine. However my logic tells me this is not the case. For god must be made of something... energy, matter... whatever... which must have been created somewhere. So even though *god* was not created the stuff he is made of has to be created somehow... Interestingly there is so called zero-point energy which is actually energy created within a vacuum from nowhere. So in theory over quadrillions, or gogols of years (which is 10 followed by 100 zeros, i think) this energy could build up to such a level that is spontaneously turns into matter, hence a big bang, or if you prefer, the stuff that god is made of is created.

Also i do not believe that god can exist in this plane or universe. He must exist in another universe (see many worlds theory) so why didnt he just create an ethereal world in his universe, and be with his creations, rather than create us in another dimension or universe?

EDIT: Heres an interesting point from Jonnytracker's post that says:

shouldn't we be evolving still ? if evolution is true ?

We are still evolving... Look back several hundred years and you will see that people were much smaller than we are now. This is due to the impact of readily available food sources which allow us to grow taller. This is sort of evolution, a species adapting to its surroundings. We now have much much more food and better quality so we can get bigger, this is an advantage because it lets us be stronger and also a bigger animal is less likely to be eaten by a predator. Which is why elephants and whales are so big. Not much can bring down a fully grown healthy elephant, but if the same animal was half the size it would be a meal for a pack of lions.

Also evolution takes hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years to show even slight changes. If you had a photo of people 200,000 years ago you would see evolution in action. If you went 200,000 years into the future you would see human evolution.
Edited December 16, 2009 by shadowx (see edit history)

[mahesh2k 0]

@Shadowx, on that point i found one lecture video, not sure if @johnytracker will look at that or not as these guys just raise the gaps in it. But for him to check out here is the link. Worth a look if he has doubt about evolution.

[shadowx 0]

@Shadowx, on that point i found one lecture video, not sure if @johnytracker will look at that or not as these guys just raise the gaps in it. But for him to check out here is the link. Worth a look if he has doubt about evolution.

 

I'm at work at the moment but i will check it later perhaps. Thanks

 

Evolution is definitely still happening via natural selection in humans and all other animals and plants. We are also encouraging evolution via genetically modifying crops. Though this is artificial evolution it shows how evolution works.

 

No sensible person can really dispute evolution, or at least natural selection. That isnt to say god didnt kick it all off though. I dont think any sentient being started evolution (well unless we go with "life was bought to earth by aliens or on a rock from another planet" which actually is fairly likely given that a Mars meteorite was found on earth with a fossilized bacterium inside.) in which case you could argue that "god" is in fact an alien race as the ancients often depicted alien looking creatures descending from the skies. In fact the bible itself mentions metallic wheels descending from the skies with 4 living occupants similar to man: King James Red Letter edition 1944, Ezekiel 1:128 according to this wiki article: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

In answer to the question of why an alien life form might spread life and why they would spread simple life and let it evolve: They perhaps wanted to do a vast experiment, similar to what humans may one day wish to do to see how life does evolve on an isolated planet. and why not just plonk intelligent life here? Well perhaps they deposited microbes and nematodes and bacteria which could develop immunity to each other and adapt to the contents of various elements (for example human life has evolved to live in an atmosphere with specific oxygen so if we were to drop off 1000 humans they would just die on another planet due to changes in oxygen etc... But if we were to plonk some resistant bacteria there and wait 2 billion years we could go back and see intelligent life. And we cant say that 2 billion years is a long time. It is to us, but to an alien race which travels the stars and lives 1000 years it may not be so long. And then we factor in the fact that the scientists could be frozen in a sort of coma like state so they can be awakened when their experiment is complete and check the results. Who knows....

 

IMHO this is more plausible than an omni-potent god starting evolution. Of course you then have the issue of who created those aliens and so on...

[rvalkass 5]

[1] So how does particle decay work, then?

Particle decay is not the splitting of a nucleus (say, one proton and two neutrons) into two separate nuclei. It is the conversion of quarks from one type to another (in the case of beta decay) with the corresponding emission of particles to satisfy various conservation laws (such as mass-energy, charge, etc). In the beta-negative decay we have been discussing, a neutron (made from an up and two down quarks) decays into a proton (two up and a down quark) by emitting an electron and an electron-antineutrino (via the W^- boson). The nucleus has not 'split' in the way you described.

 

[2] Err, i'll just assume that mass is lost within the system. Either way, though, this is not leading to energy being eternal.

Some mass is converted to energy. The total mass-energy of the system is the same. It does lead to energy being eternal. If you took all the mass in the universe and converted it into energy, and added that to all the energy in the universe at the moment you would have the maximum possible amount of energy in the universe. You couldn't get any more. Convert it all to mass and you have no energy, but the most massive universe.

 

[1] When you say they are the same, i cannot picture them being in different forms. Mass, to me, is just a measurement of how much space something takes up (a.k.a. volume). That is why when i hear that something physical has 0 mass, it is the same as saying that it doesn't exist. I have seen people use the word "mass" when they really meant "weight," but that is silly and confuses the whole thingif anyone means weight, then they should say weight, not mass; why else does the word "weight" exist?

Mass and volume are very different. For example, 100 cu. ft. of polystyrene has the same volume as 100 cu. ft. of concrete, but a very different mass. Very few people use the word "mass" where they mean "weight" - the confusion is usually the opposite way around. For example, people claim they have a "weight" of 75kg. That makes absolutely zero sense and is totally wrong. They have a mass of 75kg and a weight of approximately 736N. The word weight exists because it is a force caused by an object's surroundings, compared to mass which is a property of an object and its constituent particles.

 

i don't want to put lengthy post here just post here just to showcase and proof my points. But usually its Atheists that deny creationism. No wonders there is an event call miracles and unusual happenings, and strange effects and whatever is called myth, and mystery. Evolution is based on science, creationist believe in higher dimension and claim the world is not confine with just this 3D literal world. Now concerning science, there are new discoveries regarding dimension. Science is just theory over existence, science is evolving and improving. read about extra dimension of quantum mechanics guys

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Schrödinger's cat was a thought experiment and has nothing to do with extra dimensions. It attempts to explain wavefunction collapse and the strange ideas of quantum measurements on a system.

[truefusion 3]

[1]Light a candle and feel the heat coming off of it. Does that heat take up a space? Look at the sun and see the light, does that light take up space? Get two magnets and feel the force (luke (star wars)) does that take up any space?

 

some would argue yes as every force in the universe is in fact transmitted by subatomic particles but they have zero mass, unless of course they interact with the higgs field if such a field exists... But i digress... [2]Weight is a subjective measurement of something relative to the gravity of the earth. Hence 1kg is how much one bag of sugar weighs on earth. However elsewhere it is different. On Jupiter it would way hundreds if not thousands of kilos. However *mass* is an objective measurement of the properties of the atoms themselves. So you could calculate the atomic mass of a bag of sugar based on the atoms that make sugar and then the number of protons, neutrons and electrons that make that atom.

 

[2.1]So if we say something has no mass then it is not matter, it can still be energy however. You cant "weigh" light You could in theory weigh the protons but thats getting into subatomic scales and the quantum world. It is enough to understand that energy does not weigh anything and it isnt matter. It's not always an easy concept but that's pretty much how it is.

 

[3]According to your theory however god must have a weight? or a mass? Which suggests he is made of matter... ?

 

[4]I cant disprove this. No-one can without a time machine. However my logic tells me this is not the case. For god must be made of something... energy, matter... whatever... which must have been created somewhere. So even though *god* was not created the stuff he is made of has to be created somehow... Interestingly there is so called zero-point energy which is actually energy created within a vacuum from nowhere. So in theory over quadrillions, or gogols of years (which is 10 followed by 100 zeros, i think) this energy could build up to such a level that is spontaneously turns into matter, hence a big bang, [4.1]or if you prefer, the stuff that god is made of is created.

 

[5]Also i do not believe that god can exist in this plane or universe. He must exist in another universe (see many worlds theory) so why didnt he just create an ethereal world in his universe, and be with his creations, rather than create us in another dimension or universe?

 

[6]We are still evolving... Look back several hundred years and you will see that people were much smaller than we are now. This is due to the impact of readily available food sources which allow us to grow taller. This is sort of evolution, a species adapting to its surroundings. We now have much much more food and better quality so we can get bigger, this is an advantage because it lets us be stronger and also a bigger animal is less likely to be eaten by a predator. Which is why elephants and whales are so big. Not much can bring down a fully grown healthy elephant, but if the same animal was half the size it would be a meal for a pack of lions.

 

[7]Also evolution takes hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years to show even slight changes. If you had a photo of people 200,000 years ago you would see evolution in action. If you went 200,000 years into the future you would see human evolution.

[1] If i put an object in the way of the heat or light, i would not see the light nor feel the heat if i am behind the object. So, yes, i would also state that it does take up space.

 

[2] I can understand that weight and mass are different. But by definition, volume is how much space something takes up, and mass is what allows for heavier weight. Look at my response to rvalkass concerning volume and mass for the remainder of this response and to understand why i consider mass and volume to be fundamentally the same.

 

[2.1] You could say that if mass and energy weren't the same thing. Doesn't matter (pun intended ) how many examples you give to try and show otherwise, though. You will only be working against yourself if you try to separate what cannot be separated.

 

[3] If my argument assumed or stated that God is physical, it would be self-contradicting. However, i'm sure if you re-read what i said, you would see that i have stated that God is metaphysical.

 

[4] There's no need to go back in time just to show whether or not the 7 days are metaphoric or not. But as mentioned before, your logic forces you into a position that asks who or what made God. Your logic assumes that God is physical, hence why you say He has to be physical. But as i already declared, just as with all the trouble you are having with God being physical, if God is physical, that implies He was created, therefore leading to a paradox. You can't make sense of a paradox—it is by its very nature illogical; and attempting to make something illogical logical will only further increase the problem. For that reason, we know that it is not safe, plausible, logical, sequitur, et cetera, to assume to that God is physical. You can apply the very same logic to energy. Notice, then, that you would not be able to ask, "If God can be eternal, why can't energy?"

 

Concerning zero-point energy, at least when you say energy entering existence from what appears to be out of nowhere (in other words, energy created ex nihilo), i see two things about it: Doesn't that imply, as you say about energy building up, that the total energy within the system increases? And if it doesn't increase, doesn't that mean, then, it is not necessarily the case that new energy is being created, but, rather, that energy from another location of the universe is being transported to this new location—perhaps by a wormhole?

 

[4.1] I see God as the ultimate idealist, capable of manipulating reality with His own will—which implies His omnipotence. We can only dream of being able to create something out of nothing (with our own will). If God is the only thing in existence, then it follows that in order for Him to be able to create something, He would have to either take from Himself or be able to make things out of nothing. While the former may be possible, the former implies something along the lines of pantheism, which implies that God is physical. But i've already, exhaustively, stated the problems with God being physical.

 

[5] I'm a bit amazed that you mention that God cannot exist in this universe. You have been saying that God has to be physical, only to now mention that He cannot exist in this universe. If He cannot exist in this universe, He obviously, therefore, does not bear the properties and limitations of the physical universe. Therefore He cannot be physical. But to answer your question: God is a conscious entity, to ask "why" may very well be irrelevant. For consider, why do you do things that you do? Isn't it because you want to do the things you do? Behind every action there is always a desire to do something. Even if you give me an analogy about having a gun pointed to your head where you are forced to do something you don't want to do, you would still have a desire to do something: you have the desire to live; it just so happens that this involves doing something you don't want to do.

 

[6] Unfortunately, the only general growth in size observable is width, not height. However, the kind of "evolution" you mention here fits perfectly within creationism. I've always found it a bit of hasty generalization whenever one mentions that diet and exercise implies the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is more than just diet and exercise; to say that a fat bird (because that is really what it is) can generate a new type of bird is, in my book, absurd and shows that just about any change in mass or structure people will say is "proof for the theory of evolution," even if this change can only be maintained by the continuation of diet and exercise, not a change that is permanent. The theory of evolution implies one species evolving into a new species. You can have the fattest or strongest bird alive, that doesn't mean it is a new species.

 

Say, for example, that you have a female cat and you fed your cat till it became the fattest cat alive. It gets pregnant, but during its pregnancy, its diet is not the same diet that got it fat in the first place; rather, it is a normal, healthy diet. Is its children going to turn out as fat as their mother? Let's assume that the cat did not go on a healthier diet but remained on the same diet that got it to where it is today. Let's say that diet caused its children to be overweight at childbirth. Does that mean that the children, if placed on a better diet, cannot lose their excess weight? I would have to, therefore, ask, how can diet and exercise ever lead to a new species? Sources that say it can can only lose their integrity with me.

 

[7] Now this contradicts what you previously mentioned. I can gain weight or build muscle within a few months—within my lifetime. If anything, what you say here agrees with what i said for number 6. Nevertheless, those primates you are alluding to, to say that we came from them is to already assume that the theory of evolution is true, the very thing you are supposed to be trying to prove.

 

[1]Evolution is definitely still happening via natural selection in humans and all other animals and plants. We are also encouraging evolution via genetically modifying crops. Though this is artificial evolution it shows how evolution works.

 

No sensible person can really dispute evolution, or at least natural selection. That isnt to say god didnt kick it all off though. [1.1]I dont think any sentient being started evolution (well unless we go with "life was bought to earth by aliens or on a rock from another planet" which actually is fairly likely given that a Mars meteorite was found on earth with a fossilized bacterium inside.) in which case you could argue that "god" is in fact an alien race as the ancients often depicted alien looking creatures descending from the skies. [2]In fact the bible itself mentions metallic wheels descending from the skies with 4 living occupants similar to man: King James Red Letter edition 1944, Ezekiel 1:1–28 according to this wiki article: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

[1] However, due to the fact that the word "evolution" is often used very loosely (refer to the fat animals example i gave for proof), there is no reason to assume that it will lead to a new species, therefore not excluding creationism. Natural selection need not be disputed if such a random thing has never occurred.

 

[1.1] A sentient being, or God, would only need to create an entity capable of evolving and an environment that supports evolution. Not that i believe in such a god.

 

[2] I know of which verses you are talking about; i have read the entire Book of Ezekiel. However, those creatures, as described in Ezekiel (and they are described from head to toe, in full detail), were merely spiritual. They are in no way alien lifeforms as we understand aliens (generally big head, big eyes, extremely skinny bodies). The number 4 plays a big role concerning these creatures that Ezekiel mentions (i.e. four wings, four faces on the head of each creature, the number of creatures that were seen, et cetera). These spiritual creatures were following, or being guided by, another spirit. The wheels that were following these spiritual creatures were not what one would call UFOs or flying saucers. These wheels, their rims had eyes covering it.

 

I should mention that Wikipedia is a hit or miss kind of thing when it comes to objective theology.

 

[1]Particle decay is not the splitting of a nucleus (say, one proton and two neutrons) into two separate nuclei. It is the conversion of quarks from one type to another (in the case of beta decay) with the corresponding emission of particles to satisfy various conservation laws (such as mass-energy, charge, etc). In the beta-negative decay we have been discussing, a neutron (made from an up and two down quarks) decays into a proton (two up and a down quark) by emitting an electron and an electron-antineutrino (via the W^- boson). The nucleus has not 'split' in the way you described.

 

[2]Some mass is converted to energy. The total mass-energy of the system is the same. It does lead to energy being eternal. If you took all the mass in the universe and converted it into energy, and added that to all the energy in the universe at the moment you would have the maximum possible amount of energy in the universe. You couldn't get any more. Convert it all to mass and you have no energy, but the most massive universe.

 

[3]Mass and volume are very different. For example, 100 cu. ft. of polystyrene has the same volume as 100 cu. ft. of concrete, but a very different mass. Very few people use the word "mass" where they mean "weight" - the confusion is usually the opposite way around. For example, people claim they have a "weight" of 75kg. That makes absolutely zero sense and is totally wrong. They have a mass of 75kg and a weight of approximately 736N. The word weight exists because it is a force caused by an object's surroundings, compared to mass which is a property of an object and its constituent particles.

[1] M'ks. But just to make sure: Do all forms of particle decay lead to a decrease in mass?

 

[2] What is the difference between mass, energy, and mass-energy?

 

[3] Since i knew you would say something like that, that is, concerning mass and volume, i have prepared something that illustrates why i consider them to be the same, even if science may argue otherwise. Consider the following object (we'll call this "figure 1" for sake of reference):

 

Due to the complications of the shape of the object, for the sake of convenience and progress, the volume is determined by measuring height, the furthest point from the top to the furthest point from the bottom, width, the furthest point to the left to the furthest point to the right, depth (or length), the furthest point from the front to the furthest point from the back. In other words ("figure 2"):

 

However, we know that the amount of space the object takes up is not that. The actual amount of space it takes up is what is observable in figure 1, outlined in purple. But this is not to say that the inside of it is full. For if we look at the inside of it, we see that there is some space that it doesn't take up ("figure 3"):

 

Hence why i believe volume and mass should be the same thing, at least by the definition of volume, because it is more accurate this way. If this object was real and we had two forms of it, one as empty as the one displayed here and one that is filled with the very thing it is made out of, the one that is empty on the inside would of course weigh less wherever there is gravity, hence leading to the definition of mass. While this way of looking at things may be scientifically impractical due to how volume is already implemented, things, i would say, would at least be more accurate.

[rvalkass 5]

[1] M'ks. But just to make sure: Do all forms of particle decay lead to a decrease in mass?

No, not necessarily. You can run the beta minus decay in reverse (sort of) and have particles absorbed along with energy to create a heavier particle with less energy.

 

[2] What is the difference between mass, energy, and mass-energy?

The mass of an object is a property of its constituent parts (the atoms, and the quarks that make those, etc.) and determines how the object is affected by gravitational effects, how its acceleration varies with forces, etc.

 

Energy can be any one of many things, but in this context we car discussing the energy content of an object, which describes the energy 'locked-up' 'inside' an object - energy holding the quarks together, holding the protons and neutrons together, etc.

 

Mass-energy is the two added together, ie. if you converted all the mass to energy and added it to the existing energy, or vice versa, what would the total be? This remains invariant in a closed system.

 

[3] Since i knew you would say something like that, that is, concerning mass and volume, i have prepared something that illustrates why i consider them to be the same, even if science may argue otherwise. Consider the following object (we'll call this "figure 1" for sake of reference):

 

Due to the complications of the shape of the object, for the sake of convenience and progress, the volume is determined by measuring height, the furthest point from the top to the furthest point from the bottom, width, the furthest point to the left to the furthest point to the right, depth (or length), the furthest point from the front to the furthest point from the back. In other words ("figure 2"):

 

However, we know that the amount of space the object takes up is not that. The actual amount of space it takes up is what is observable in figure 1, outlined in purple. But this is not to say that the inside of it is full. For if we look at the inside of it, we see that there is some space that it doesn't take up ("figure 3"):

 

Hence why i believe volume and mass should be the same thing, at least by the definition of volume, because it is more accurate this way. If this object was real and we had two forms of it, one as empty as the one displayed here and one that is filled with the very thing it is made out of, the one that is empty on the inside would of course weigh less wherever there is gravity, hence leading to the definition of mass. While this way of looking at things may be scientifically impractical due to how volume is already implemented, things, i would say, would at least be more accurate.

Volume of an object defines the space taken up by the object, not the space it encloses. For example, a box has a fairly low volume (6 thin sheets of cardboard to make the sides) but it encloses a large volume (each of the sides can be fairly long). The volume it encloses is not part of the object.

[shadowx 0]

When i referred to zero point energy i actually meant vacuum energy. As much as i know wiki isnt 100% accurate the pure fact that it is "open source" makes it, on average, more accurate, unless you happen to visit after some moron has made an untrue edit knowingly.

You are right in thinking that vacuum energy violates the idea of a constant amount of mass-energy (thanks for the new word rvalkass ) however, on a quantum scale rules can and often are broken. One particle can be in many places at one moment in time, or it can be in *no* places at that moment, effectively popping into and out of existence which is contrary to the general laws of physics but anyway...I cant explain how these particles and their associated energy fit into the system. It could just be a false theory that is yet to be debunked nut it is interesting.

Quantum physics can pretty much be used to prove anything, including god or an afterlife but again, i digress...

[1] If i put an object in the way of the heat or light, i would not see the light nor feel the heat if i am behind the object. So, yes, i would also state that it does take up space.

Does that mean that if i supply energy to a mass of metal the metal *must* expand, even a tiny bit, to hold that energy?

If so does that mean that if i got a one tonne block of steel. *exactly* one tonne and of a fixed size that is accurately measured, and i then use an extremely strong magnet to magnetise this chunk of steel by passing it back and forth that my one tonne block of steel will increase in size and/or mass?

Magnetic energy is after all energy and you say energy takes up space so by that definition the steel has to expand to "absorb" the energy like a sponge. If you dont like the magnet idea than what about if i apply 1 million volts to the steel? will it expand? I would suggest heat however heat does cause matter to "expand" in the sense that the bonds between the atoms become further apart to allow for the increased movement.

[5] I'm a bit amazed that you mention that God cannot exist in this universe. You have been saying that God has to be physical,

According to my interpretation of the multiple universe theory every universe is made of "matter" and "energy" much the same as our one is. However the matter and energy (henceforth "stuff") in the other verses is fundamentally different to that which exists here. Personally i think it has different vibrational frequencies which mean it cannot exist here or to put it a better way it does exist here, however its vibration is so great or slight that our instruments and senses cannot pick it up.

Matter is mostly empty space. One example was the average church building , if the nucleus of an atom was the size of a tennis ball in the very centre of the building then its electrons "orbit" along the walls, and if we assume that the atom in question is hydrogen i would guess the electron would be the size of perhaps a golf ball. Think of all that empty space!!! This suggests that in fact matter can pass through matter... but anyway... It's a bit off topic but im trying to show how very little of physics makes sense and how this allows for, but doesnt prove, various theories of spiritual entities etc...

I still insist that any god must be made of something...be that energy or matter it *must* be made of something. Everything is made of something (except subatomic particles which, as far as we know, are the smallest you can get and the building blocks of everything). This doesnt mean that god must be physical, indeed it depends how you describe physical.. Does it mean you can see him through a telescope? Touch him? etc...It doesnt need to.

If the multiverse theory is true then he can be in another verse but still be physical. If it is not true then he could be made of some energy or matter that we dont know of yet, or may never know of. I am a scientific person with spiritual beliefs and as such i believe in energies and the afterlife but i also understand that even spiritual and metaphysical "stuff" must be made of the same stuff that exists in this, or another, universe as the universe (or the omniverse if we are talking about multiple universes) contains EVERYTHING. Gods, spirits, entities, energies *everything* regardless of whether we can detect it or not.

hence IMHO the big bang would need to occur before any god could exist. This doesnt rule out a god, it simply means he was created by the universe, as everything is. The ultimate power here isnt a god, it is the universe. Perhaps that is what/who you refer to when you say god, even though you do not know it. Just an idea...

[2] I know of which verses you are talking about; i have read the entire Book of Ezekiel

You have way too much time on your hands, find a hobby or something i joke, i respect you for doing so, not many people have or would.

However.... with relevance to the rest of that paragraph i would counter that the "eyes" on the disc were not truly eyes, but merely described as eyes. Remember that the bible would have been written long after such events happened, and "it had marks like eyes" can easily turn into "it had eyes" in a short amount of time. I must first state that i do not believe aliens have visited us. I do believe other intelligent life exists (though how intelligent i cannot say. I consider anything able to make decisions intelligent. A dog, cat or mouse, not just humans) but that does not mean it can have travelled here to earth. My suggestion of aliens brining life here was merely a theory designed to provoke thought. It is *possible* but not something i believe yet. I do however think that life came from outside our earth... but it was not delivered by an alien courier.

The problem with paradoxes is they are like circles... you can enter or exit them at any point, so in the god vs big bang paradox of what came first i can either say that god must have come first because something needed to create the universe, however, i can also counter that the universe appeared thanks to vacuum energy and slowly overtime expanded and created god from energy which we have yet to discover.

Remember that thoughts are purely electrical and chemical so in theory a strange mass out in the universe could have the ability to think. This does not make it a conscious being though.

mass is what allows for heavier weight.

I know im jumping back and forth here but its early and a large bank of cloud is approaching my office window and with zero-ish temperatures and a forecast of 4 inches of snow im rather excited and tired...

Now, the quote above is true... The LHC is currently looking for the higgs boson, among other things. If i am not wrong, this is the particle that gives all others mass. Sort of like gluing a metal ball bearing to a tennis ball which makes it attracted to magnets. Without the higgs particle the "tennis ball" has no mass. It is not affected by ANYTHING. It almost doesnt exist. Such particles stream from the sun constantly, they pass through you, through your clothes and straight through the earth and just blast out the other side like nothing was even there. So this a little bit like energy (and incidentally spirits or ghosts.. If they have no mass they cannot be detected. We only know these particles exist because about 0.0000001% react with heavy water deep underground in monitoring stations.