Science and Religion questions (2 Viewers)

[julius]

If you ever experienced a medical miracle, would it change your religious position?

For instance, if you struggled with chronic back pain for ten years, and it stopped the day after someone prayed over you. I had that happen 7 years ago, and have not had one re-occurrence of my pain.

Would you believe then? Or, would you think that you healed yourself.

(Yes, I know that anecdotal evidence is not very useful. But, I know what I felt before and after.)

Go Blazers

I'm not sure. Not saying it can't or doesn't happen, but I think the brain and mind can do a lot of stuff we don't know about.

 

[magnifier661]

Plasma isn't mass. Nor was it plasma at the beginning.

What?!?!?!?! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)

Plasma (from Greek πλάσμα, "anything formed"[1]) is one of the four fundamental states of matter (the others being solid, liquid, and gas). Matter = mass brother.

 

[magnifier661]

I'm not sure. Not saying it can't or doesn't happen, but I think the brain and mind can do a lot of stuff we don't know about.

Drop some acid and you will see just how powerful your mind is

 

[julius]

Drop some acid and you will see just how powerful your mind is

I had a science teacher drop hydrochloric acid in class once.

 

[magnifier661]

http://cfpa.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

Lighter elements, such as Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium, were formed as a result of the big bang in a process called big bang nucleosynthesis. Scientists can calculate how much of which elements were formed, and the fact that observation agrees with calculation is considered proof of the big bang theory.
For more on big bang cosmology, check out this primer.

and many belief the big bang had the singularity as "protons"

http://cfpa.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html

It is hard to imagine the very beginning of the Universe. Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy, in the form of photons. Some of the photons became quarks, and then the quarks formed neutrons and protons. Eventually huge numbers of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium nuclei formed. The process of forming all these nuclei is called big bang nucleosynthesis. Theoretical predictions about the amounts and types of elements formed during the big bang have been made and seem to agree with observation. Furthermore, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), a theoretical prediction about photons left over from the big bang, was discovered in the 1960's and mapped out by a team at Berkeley in the early 1990's.

Photons are also matter.

 

[mook]

Why is there love? It is unnecessary, in fact counter to, evolutionary advancement for men. Procreation does not require love, just sex.

Go Blazers

Why do you say this? On a micro level, there's definitely an evolutionary advantage to ensuring your offspring are properly cared for and can reach maturity so that they can reproduce. A strong sense of affection toward a mate/offspring increases the likelihood a dominant male may linger around to ensure that the offspring survives. If he just fucks all the bitches and splits, the caveman who hangs around may just decide to kill the babies that don't look like him. Male grizzly bears kill cubs on sight so they can get the female bear back in heat so they can be fucked by them.

On a macro level, a species that has a sense of "love" between members of its species may very well out-compete a species that doesn't. "If you watch and care for my kid and all the other kids in the tribe Old Woman, we'll go kill a bear and feed you some of it." The Old Woman may do a better job of caring for that young if she has strong affection.

Humans have a more sophisticated sense of "love" than other species, but that's probably because of our more developed brains. Evolution has selected for us to devote a lot of calories to a complex brain, and it lets us think about things in more sophisticated ways (including love) than a squirrel or dog can.

You don't need a god to explain love. It doesn't preclude there being a god, either.

 

[magnifier661]

Why do you say this? On a micro level, there's definitely an evolutionary advantage to ensuring your offspring are properly cared for and can reach maturity so that they can reproduce. A strong sense of affection toward a mate/offspring increases the likelihood a dominant male may linger around to ensure that the offspring survives.

On a macro level, a species that has a sense of "love" between members of its species may very well out-compete a species that doesn't. "If you watch and care for my kid and all the other kids in the tribe Old Woman, we'll go kill a bear and feed you some of it." The Old Woman may do a better job of caring for that young if she has strong affection.

Humans have a more sophisticated sense of "love" than other species, but that's probably because of our more developed brains. Evolution has selected for us to devote a lot of calories to a complex brain, and it lets us think about things in more sophisticated ways (including love) than a squirrel or dog can.

You don't need a god to explain love. It doesn't preclude there being a god, either.

I'm going to agree with this as a good argument for the existence of love and evolution.

I believe in a creator and I do agree that our souls have a lot of "human traits" as my personal choice of why they exist; but I will not discredit this explanation.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://cfpa.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis


and many belief the big bang had the singularity as "protons"

http://cfpa.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html



Photons are also matter.

There were no photons at the instant of the big bang, nor was there plasma.

The first subatomic particles (photons) did not form until the pure energy at the instant of the big bang cooled significantly.

"Primordial nucleosynthesis is believed by many scientists to have taken place just a few moments after the Big Bang"

 

[oldguy]

I don't think that's enough for someone that believes in God. There have been scientific research that supports just "Positive thinking" can do wonders for healing. Also, there have been research that stress and depression can also promote sickness and chronic pain.

AS much as I belief that God's healing hand actually works, the atheist will use the research to support no God being the healer.

But if that is the case, why don't we all just heal ourselves of our chronic pain?

Go Blazers

 

[Further]

If you ever experienced a medical miracle, would it change your religious position?

For instance, if you struggled with chronic back pain for ten years, and it stopped the day after someone prayed over you. I had that happen 7 years ago, and have not had one re-occurrence of my pain.

Would you believe then? Or, would you think that you healed yourself.

(Yes, I know that anecdotal evidence is not very useful. But, I know what I felt before and after.)

Go Blazers

Would you give up on your belief in God if your pain came back tomorrow?

 

[magnifier661]

There were no photons at the instant of the big bang, nor was there plasma.

The first subatomic particles (photons) did not form until the pure energy at the instant of the big bang cooled significantly.

"Primordial nucleosynthesis is believed by many scientists to have taken place just a few moments after the Big Bang"

So me the link that supports this. Everything I have read contradicts what you are saying.

 

[Denny Crane]

So me the link that supports this. Everything I have read contradicts what you are saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

In physical cosmology, Big Bang nucleosynthesis (or primordial nucleosynthesis, abbreviated BBN) refers to the production of nuclei other than those of the lightest isotope of hydrogen during the early phases of the universe. Primordial nucleosynthesis is believed by many scientists to have taken place just a few moments after the Big Bang and is believed to be responsible for the formation of a heavier isotope of hydrogen known as deuterium (H-2 or D), the helium isotopes He-3 and He-4, and the lithium isotopes Li-6 and Li-7. In addition to these stable nuclei some unstable, or radioactive, isotopes were also produced notably: tritium or H-3; beryllium-7 (Be-7), and beryllium-8 (Be-8). These unstable isotopes either decayed or fused with other stable nuclei.

 

[magnifier661]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

In physical cosmology, Big Bang nucleosynthesis (or primordial nucleosynthesis, abbreviated BBN) refers to the production of nuclei other than those of the lightest isotope of hydrogen during the early phases of the universe. Primordial nucleosynthesis is believed by many scientists to have taken place just a few moments after the Big Bang and is believed to be responsible for the formation of a heavier isotope of hydrogen known as deuterium (H-2 or D), the helium isotopes He-3 and He-4, and the lithium isotopes Li-6 and Li-7. In addition to these stable nuclei some unstable, or radioactive, isotopes were also produced notably: tritium or H-3; beryllium-7 (Be-7), and beryllium-8 (Be-8). These unstable isotopes either decayed or fused with other stable nuclei.

All those components require matter to form. Sorry, but it doesn't explain anything.

 

[Denny Crane]

It explains plenty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

Read the part about the earliest universe being too hot for particles to form.

 

[magnifier661]

http://astronomy.nju.edu.cn/~lixd/GA/AT4/AT427/HTML/AT42703.htm

27.3 The Formation of Nuclei and Atoms
We now have all the ingredients needed to complete our story of the creation of the elements, begun in Chapter 21 but never quite finished. (Sec. 21.4) The theory of stellar nucleosynthesis accounts very well for the observed abundances of heavy elements in the universe, but there are discrepancies between theory and observations when it comes to the abundances of the light elements, especially helium. Simply put, the total amount of helium in the universe today—about 25 percent by mass—is far too large to be explained by nuclear fusion in stars. The accepted explanation is that this base level of helium is primordial—that is, it was created during the early, hot epochs of the universe, before any stars had formed. The production of elements heavier than hydrogen by nuclear fusion shortly after the Big Bang is called primordial nucleosynthesis.

HELIUM FORMATION IN THE EARLY UNIVERSE

By about 100 s after the Big Bang, the temperature had fallen to about 1 billion K, and apart from “exotic” dark-matter particles, matter in the universe consisted of electrons, protons, and neutrons, with the protons outnumbering the neutrons by about five to one. The stage was set for nuclear fusion to occur. Protons and neutrons combined to produce deuterium nuclei:

1H (proton) + neutron 2H (deuteron) + energy.

Although this reaction must have occurred very frequently during the Lepton epoch, the temperature then was still so high that the deuterium nuclei were broken apart by high-energy gamma rays as soon as they formed. The universe had to wait until it became cool enough for the deuterium to survive. This waiting period is sometimes called the deuterium bottleneck.

That just explained that the matter was there from the beginning. This Primordial Nucleosynthesis only explains how other matter formed from the preexisting matter.

Nice try Denny, but your response doesn't prove there was no matter at singularity.

 

[Further]

Here is some info you Denny and Mags
First second from How Stuff Works

At t = 1 x 10-43 seconds, the universe was incredibly small, dense and hot. This homogenous area of the universe spanned a region of only 1 x 10-33 centimeters (3.9 x 10-34 inches). Today, that same stretch of space spans billions of light years. During this phase, big bang theorists believe, matter and energy were inseparable.

The four primary forces of the universe were also a united force.

As the universe expanded, it cooled. At around t = 1 x 10-35 seconds, matter and energy decoupled.

 

[magnifier661]

It explains plenty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

Read the part about the earliest universe being too hot for particles to form.

Dude!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence


"E=MC2" redirects here. For other uses, see E=MC2 (disambiguation).


4-meter-tall sculpture of Einstein's 1905 E = mc2 formula at the 2006 Walk of Ideas, Berlin, Germany.
Part of a series on
Special relativity

Principle of relativity
Introduction to special relativity
Special relativity
Foundations[show]
Mathematical formulation[show]
Consequences[hide]
Time dilation
Relativistic mass
Mass–energy equivalence
Length contraction
Relativity of simultaneity
Relativistic Doppler effect
Thomas precession
Relativistic disks
Spacetime[show]
People[show]
v t e


Explication
In physics – in particular, special and general relativity – mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept, mass is a property of all energy; energy is a property of all mass; and the two properties are connected by a constant. This means (for example) that the total internal energy E of a body at rest is equal to the product of its rest mass m and a suitable conversion factor to transform from units of mass to units of energy. Albert Einstein proposed mass–energy equivalence in 1905 in one of his Annus Mirabilis papers entitled "Does the inertia of an object depend upon its energy-content?"[1] The equivalence is described by the famous equation:


Energy is mass or matter. WTF are you talking about?!?! In your link it calls for energy; which is mass. Stop being stubborn!

 

[Denny Crane]

You have a reading comprehension problem. Your quote supports what I have been saying. No mass until the initial energy cooled sufficiently. Read your own quote which talks about 100s after the Big Bang.

 

[magnifier661]

You have a reading comprehension problem. Your quote supports what I have been saying. No mass until the initial energy cooled sufficiently. Read your own quote which talks about 100s after the Big Bang.

OMG dude... Listen to me very carefully... Energy = Mass, therefor energy at the beginning consisted of mass. So fucking what if the mass we know of today wasn't present at the time of the beginning. If there was energy, there was mass because they are one of the same.

 

[magnifier661]

Here is some info you Denny and Mags
First second from How Stuff Works

Denny believes that the mass we see today didn't exist, therefor mass didn't exist. But he is stubbornly refusing to agree that energy = mass; therefor the energy from the beginning was mass. It may have been different, but it is still matter.

 

[Denny Crane]

Google for big bang "first mass" and read any of the scientific sites that explain it.

 

[Denny Crane]

You're being a fool. The universe was so hot that there was no mass, no particles, etc. the laws of physics as we know them did not exist right away. You are misinterpreting the scholarly writings you blindly quote.

 

[magnifier661]

You're being a fool. The universe was so hot that there was no mass, no particles, etc. the laws of physics as we know them did not exist right away. You are misinterpreting the scholarly writings you blindly quote.

Fool? What creates heat Denny? Oh right that's energy!!!!

And now you are tossing theories that are as empirical as the Bible! LMAO!!!! We know that mass = energy. Plain and simple. Obviously you need to go back to school.

 

[magnifier661]

Google for big bang "first mass" and read any of the scientific sites that explain it.

LMAO!!!!! Dude, I am talking matter. You keep bringing up "mass".

Show me any empirical evidence that matter can be created without matter. I'll be waiting patiently.

 

[Denny Crane]

Fool? What creates heat Denny? Oh right that's energy!!!!

And now you are tossing theories that are as empirical as the Bible! LMAO!!!! We know that mass = energy. Plain and simple. Obviously you need to go back to school.

How fast was the speed of light? In the singularity, it could not move at all. And there was no time. So something like 0 (feet, meters, whatever) / 0 (minutes, hours, seconds, whatever) = what?

The laws of physics did not exist at time 0. So what makes you think e=mc^2 applied? (hint: it didn't)

And you are the one confusing mass and matter. Like in this post:

Plasma (from Greek πλάσμα, "anything formed"[1]) is one of the four fundamental states of matter (the others being solid, liquid, and gas). Matter = mass brother.

 

[magnifier661]

How fast was the speed of light? In the singularity, it could not move at all. And there was no time. So something like 0 (feet, meters, whatever) / 0 (minutes, hours, seconds, whatever) = what?

The laws of physics did not exist at time 0. So what makes you think e=mc^2 applied? (hint: it didn't)

Nice dodge. I don't give a fuck about the speed of light. It doesn't explain or give evidence that matter was in that singularity

 

[ABM]

[video=youtube;SnO9Jyz82Ps]

 

[Denny Crane]

Nice dodge. I don't give a fuck about the speed of light. It doesn't explain or give evidence that matter was in that singularity

No dodge.

Stephen Hawking's site:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

 

[magnifier661]

No dodge.

Stephen Hawking's site:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Hawking is a genius and I agree with his statement. But at singularity; there was still energy; therefore there was still matter. It doesn't matter if the "laws of physics" may not have existed. It's still matter. You keep saying there wasn't matter and you are dead wrong. There was matter.

 

[Further]

It seems to me there are a few important components to the Big Bang timeline. First was the instance of the singularity, and at that moment, laws break down and even the best theoretical physicists don't know what was going on. All the forces are intertwined and part of the same. The next important moment is when quantum theory takes over. At this moments, the physicists have a decent grip on what was going on since their models can be built around actual equations that have definitive laws. Following that moment, still just a tiny fraction of the first second, Classical Physics takes root along with quantum physics.

Is there matter at the big bang? depends on which of my previous moments you are talking about. The first one, most likely not in the form that we understand it. The second moment, there is matter, but it is still coupled with energy. sometime during the second moment but before the third, matter as we understand it comes into play and matter is uncoupled from energy.

This is all just my breaking it down, I could be bat-shit crazy.