shadeyinka:


I have, "in the beginning God created....."
The mechanics is beyond me. My Physics is far too elementary compared to that of God.

I did ask you a question.
Use the Big Bang to explain the origin of oxygen?

I never made any claim about the big bang.
In the Beginning God created is am empty assertion.

Your evidence that oxygen was created at the beginning of the universe is what?

dalaman:


I never made any claim about the big bang.
In the Beginning God created is am empty assertion.

Your evidence that oxygen was created at the beginning of the universe is what?

Hiding your ignorance is under "I never made a claim.." is regrettable

Benekruku:
Rubbish!

So is God that created oxygen?

Everything about the God is all fiction!

Walked on water, healed the sick, woke the dead, fed a million, converted water to wine, patched a ear and none has been replicated by its believers except staged!

Who doesn't know where oxygen comes from or how it can be produced

All this sheeples sef! God created Oxygen and who created Carbon mono Oxide? Devil?

Mental slavery!

The Bible said that a fool said in His heart that there is no God.....I'm a Physicist, and I fully believe that God does exist.

love2017:


The Bible said that a fool said in His heart that there is no God.....I'm a Physicist, and I fully believe that God does exist.

You re quoting from that same Middle_East storybook? Smh.........

Outside fictions and hearsay, why do you believe in him?

shadeyinka:

Hiding your ignorance is under "I never made a claim.." is regrettable

Masking yours with biblical quotes is what?

faseblex:


Amazing response!

MORE @: http://trendzbase..com/2017/08/epic-response-to-astronaut-who-said-i.html

Lalasticlala, Mynd44

What is epic about this rubbish?

Benekruku:


You re quoting from that same Middle_East storybook? Smh.........

Outside fictions and hearsay, why do you believe in him?

why is the earth so perfectly fine-tuned for life ......why can't we get life, even microbes, elsewhere in the universe inspite of the uncountable numbers of planet we are having. If you have a rational sense of reasoning, you ought to know that there's an intelligent force or being who willingly designed the universe that way.

love2017:


why is the earth so perfectly fine-tuned for life ......why can't we get life, even microbes, elsewhere in the universe inspite of the uncountable numbers of planet we are having. If you have a rational sense of reasoning, you ought to know that there's an intelligent force or being who willingly designed the universe that way.

finetuning argument is not convincing at all

I’d be a lot more impressed with the “fine tuning” argument if modern physics showed that it was _impossible_ for the universe to exist given the values of the fundamental physical constants it has discovered.

In that situation some variation of God’s Sustaining Hand™ would become more plausible.

This is largely Sean Carroll's argument. He says that the constants could be anything and God could still create life. He's magic, after all. That we do indeed have life-supporting constants says that we don't need God to sustain life.

Also, to quote Hans Halvorson To say God needed to fine-tune the universe is to argue that God was somehow constrained by outside factors that he had no control over, which is impossible given his proposed nature: He is the one deciding what the laws of physics are, i.e. the range of what is possible in the first place. So to say that he needs to fine-tune it within a certain range when he is the one deciding what the range is and what is possible within that range, is incoherent.

love2017:


The Bible said that a fool said in His heart that there is no God.....I'm a Physicist, and I fully believe that God does exist.

I'm a programmer and I believe God exists



But not Gods of religion
They are bullshit

jonbellion:
I'm a programmer and I believe God exists



But not Gods of religion
They are bullshit

Why and how do you believe God exists? Why must it be called God? Why not another name like DTHITA or MASHUTI?

Describe the God you believe exists.

jonbellion:
I'm a programmer and I believe God exists



But not Gods of religion
They are bullshit

Wow. From atheist to agnostic to "I believe God exists"...

Wow
God be praised!

love2017:


The Bible said that a fool said in His heart that there is no God.....I'm a Physicist, and I fully believe that God does exist.

You being a physicist does not validate the existence of a 'god'. Being scientists does not rid some people of the tendency to have some religious believes.

shadeyinka:


I have, "in the beginning God created....."
The mechanics is beyond me. My Physics is far too elementary compared to that of God.

I did ask you a question.
Use the Big Bang to explain the origin of oxygen?

Actually, you may be surprised to know that the 'big bang' can explain the origins of Oxygen to an astounding degree of accuracy. To understand the formation of elements, we first have to understand the events that led to their precursors. Although, the earliest time accounted for in the big bang theory is known as the Planck's epoch (approx. 10^-43 S). There is no known theory that describes the state of the universe at any time preceding this, so we'll skip that period. Moreover, it is not terribly important to the formation of elements, as such I'll just give you the gist in bullet points summary.

1) By extrapolation of known physical laws and observations (esp. general theory of relativity and universal expansion), we estimate that there was a state in which the universe was of infinitesimally small volume, extremely high and near isotropic temperature and quasi-homogeneous, high energy density.

2) At the extreme size, energy density and temperature, quantum fluctuations must have caused small random inhomogenieties in the energy distribution, which caused minute local variations in energy states across the whole volume.

3) A phase change brought about rapid expansion of the universe. As the universe expanded, it cooled and its energy density reduced. Remember the local energy fluctuations from quantum effects? These local fluctuations were uniformly distributed (in the same way the debris from a bomb would be uniformly distributed around its explosion radius). These fluctuations were the seeds that latter resulted in the formation of large scale space (LSS) objects, which I will get to later.

4) Bear in the mind that in spite of its cooling, the universe was still very very hot in the initial stages of expansion. Anywhere you have very high energy/temperature, particles and their antiparticles can pop in and out of existence randomly. These particles are fundamentally just energy redistribution from one excited state to another. As a result, there was a period where the universe was dominated by quarks and anti-quarks, electrons and anti-electrons and many other elementary particles.

5) There was a period, known as baryogenesis, where the number of quarks and electrons exceeded the number of anti-quarks and anti-electrons. The reason for this imbalance isn't well understood, but one of the leading hypotheses is that some forms of antimatter decayed out of existence before they could annihilate with their matter counterparts.

6) Recall the energy fluctuations I mentioned earlier? Well, the excess matter were distributed in the same manner as these fluctuations because they are just different excited states of the same energy, basically.

7) Now, as the universe cooled further, the excess quark matter started to clump in many different configurations to conserve energy. Two of the configurations are ones with which we are most familiar: protons (Up Up Down) and neutrons (Up Down Down). Thus our very first Ionized Hydrogen atoms (¹H⁺) were born! To a much smaller degree, the same process led to the creation of ²D (²D is for deuterium, a hydrogen with neutron) and ⁴He⁺ too. With further cooling, these atoms, which had excess positive charges started to trap electrons (negatively charged leptons) to balance out their excess positive charges.

8 ) But electric force wasn't the only force acting on these atoms. In fact, they were also experiencing gravitational pull from all other surrounding atoms. Luckily, the initial energy fluctuations meant some areas in the universe experienced more gravitational pull than others (due to presence of more atoms).

9) Eventually, large clouds of H, D and He gases started to clump around localised regions within the universe. As these clouds grew larger, the sum of all the atoms in them attained a critical mass known as Jeans mass. This is the mass at which gas clouds gravitationally collapse into a singular (spherical) LSS object. So great is this mass, that it forces the fusion of atomic nuclei (e.g. hydrogen nuclei and deutorium combining to form He-3 nuclei).

10) Now, let's say the binding energy of deuterium nucleus is E_D, that of a Hydrogen is E_H and that of helium-3 is E_He-3, you will see that E_H + E_D>E_He-3. Therefore, when D + H nuclei are combined to form a single helium-3 nuclei, we get:
²D + ¹H → ³He + E_H-He, where E_H-He = (M_D + M_H - M_He)c². (The famous E=mc² equation!!). This is called nucleosynthesis

11) E_H-He is difference in nuclear binding energy of the reactants, and it's the reason these spherical LSS objects we call stars glow brightly. E_H-He also exerts an outward force that counteracts the inward gravitational force until there is equilibrium.

12) Meanwhile, when the finite amount of H and D in the star is exhausted, the ⁴He nuclei inside the star start combining to form ¹²C in a process known as the triple-alpha process;
⁴He + ⁴He → ⁸Be
⁸Be + ⁴He → ¹²C

13) Finally, with enough ¹²C formed, we get the next stage of reactions;
¹²C + ⁴He → ¹⁶O + E_C-O

Behold! Oxygen

Besides this, there are also other cosmic events that synthesise various isotopes of oxygen, such as death of stars. This is story for another day, however.

For now, the key summary is that there is a clearly defined and well-understood process by which oxygen was formed from the big bang.

felixomor:


Wow. From atheist to agnostic to "I believe God exists"...

Wow
God be praised!

I'm agnostic

butterflylion:


Why and how do you believe God exists? Why must it be called God? Why not another name like DTHITA or MASHUTI?

Describe the God you believe exists.

the nature of God is unknown

jonbellion:
the nature of God is unknown

If the nature is unknown then how do you know God exists? I am not understanding. If the descriptive nature of a thing is unknown then how can it exist?

love2017:


why is the earth so perfectly fine-tuned for life ......why can't we get life, even microbes, elsewhere in the universe inspite of the uncountable numbers of planet we are having. If you have a rational sense of reasoning, you ought to know that there's an intelligent force or being who willingly designed the universe that way.

You are so NOT a physicist for this question.

shaybebaby:

You are so NOT a physicist for this question.

my dear, my points are valid....I've gone through the laws of science and i've found out that scientific laws cannever go beyond biblical laws. The search for alien is a waste of time.

love2017:


why is the earth so perfectly fine-tuned for life ......why can't we get life, even microbes, elsewhere in the universe inspite of the uncountable numbers of planet we are having. If you have a rational sense of reasoning, you ought to know that there's an intelligent force or being who willingly designed the universe that way.

How can yo say the earth is perfectly fine-tuned for life? An earth that is perfectly fine-tuned for life wouldn't suffer from cataclysmic events such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, floods, volcanic eruptions, mass extinctions; it would neither have uninhabitable swathes of ice and sand deserts, nor predatory and parasitic lifeforms.
No, my "physicist" friend, this earth isn't "perfectly fine-tuned for life", it is just barely able to support certain lifeforms, and you will find that its entropic evolution is ambivalent towards the lifeforms which it harbours.

hopefulLandlord:


finetuning argument is not convincing at all

I’d be a lot more impressed with the “fine tuning” argument if modern physics showed that it was _impossible_ for the universe to exist given the values of the fundamental physical constants it has discovered.

In that situation some variation of God’s Sustaining Hand™ would become more plausible.

This is largely Sean Carroll's argument. He says that the constants could be anything and God could still create life. He's magic, after all. That we do indeed have life-supporting constants says that we don't need God to sustain life.

Also, to quote Hans Halvorson To say God needed to fine-tune the universe is to argue that God was somehow constrained by outside factors that he had no control over, which is impossible given his proposed nature: He is the one deciding what the laws of physics are, i.e. the range of what is possible in the first place. So to say that he needs to fine-tune it within a certain range when he is the one deciding what the range is and what is possible within that range, is incoherent.

scientific constants, laws or theories are just the discoveries of the steps and procedures followed or taken by the great sculptor of the universe, God. That is the universe will finitely obey maths rule.......Richard Feynman said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."

AgentOfAllah:


How can yo say the earth is perfectly fine-tuned for life? An earth that is perfectly fine-tuned for life wouldn't suffer from cataclysmic events such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, floods, volcanic eruptions, mass extinctions; it would neither have uninhabitable swathes of ice and sand deserts, nor predatory and parasitic lifeforms.
No, my "physicist" friend, this earth isn't "perfectly fine-tuned for life", it is just barely able to support certain lifeforms, and you will find that its entropic evolution is ambivalent towards the lifeforms which it harbours.

but those are natural disasters.... You will understand what I'm saying if you would be able to survive for 2 minutes, even in the closest planet to earth.

love2017:


but those are natural disasters.... You will understand what I'm saying if you would be able to survive for 2 minutes, even in the closest planet to earth.

The earth is conducive for life. That's well established, and goes without saying. What I take issues with is your use of the word "perfectly". The earth is no where near "perfectly" fine-tuned for life, and those natural disasters are precisely the reasons why not.

.

AgentOfAllah:


Actually, you may be surprised to know that the 'big bang' can explain the origins of Oxygen to an astounding degree of accuracy. To understand the formation of elements, we first have to understand the events that led to their precursors. Although, the earliest time accounted for in the big bang theory is known as the Planck's epoch (approx. 10^-43 S). There is no known theory that describes the state of the universe at any time preceding this, so we'll skip that period. Moreover, it is not terribly important to the formation of elements, as such I'll just give you the gist in bullet points summary.

1) By extrapolation of known physical laws and observations (esp. general theory of relativity and universal expansion), we estimate that there was a state in which the universe was of infinitesimally small volume, extremely high and near isotropic temperature and quasi-homogeneous, high energy density.

2) At the extreme size, energy density and temperature, quantum fluctuations must have caused small random inhomogenieties in the energy distribution, which caused minute local variations in energy states across the whole volume.

3) A phase change brought about rapid expansion of the universe. As the universe expanded, it cooled and its energy density reduced. Remember the local energy fluctuations from quantum effects? These local fluctuations were uniformly distributed (in the same way the debris from a bomb would be uniformly distributed around its explosion radius). These fluctuations were the seeds that latter resulted in the formation of large scale space (LSS) objects, which I will get to later.

4) Bear in the mind that in spite of its cooling, the universe was still very very hot in the initial stages of expansion. Anywhere you have very high energy/temperature, particles and their antiparticles can pop in and out of existence randomly. These particles are fundamentally just energy redistribution from one excited state to another. As a result, there was a period where the universe was dominated by quarks and anti-quarks, electrons and anti-electrons and many other elementary particles.

5) There was a period, known as baryogenesis, where the number of quarks and electrons exceeded the number of anti-quarks and anti-electrons. The reason for this imbalance isn't well understood, but one of the leading hypotheses is that some forms of antimatter decayed out of existence before they could annihilate with their matter counterparts.

6) Recall the energy fluctuations I mentioned earlier? Well, the excess matter were distributed in the same manner as these fluctuations because they are just different excited states of the same energy, basically.

7) Now, as the universe cooled further, the excess quark matter started to clump in many different configurations to conserve energy. Two of the configurations are ones with which we are most familiar: protons (Up Up Down) and neutrons (Up Down Down). Thus our very first Ionized Hydrogen atoms (¹H⁺) were born! To a much smaller degree, the same process led to the creation of ²D (²D is for deuterium, a hydrogen with neutron) and ⁴He⁺ too. With further cooling, these atoms, which had excess positive charges started to trap electrons (negatively charged leptons) to balance out their excess positive charges.

8 ) But electric force wasn't the only force acting on these atoms. In fact, they were also experiencing gravitational pull from all other surrounding atoms. Luckily, the initial energy fluctuations meant some areas in the universe experienced more gravitational pull than others (due to presence of more atoms).

9) Eventually, large clouds of H, D and He gases started to clump around localised regions within the universe. As these clouds grew larger, the sum of all the atoms in them attained a critical mass known as Jeans mass. This is the mass at which gas clouds gravitationally collapse into a singular (spherical) LSS object. So great is this mass, that it forces the fusion of atomic nuclei (e.g. hydrogen nuclei and deutorium combining to form He-3 nuclei).

10) Now, let's say the binding energy of deuterium nucleus is E_D, that of a Hydrogen is E_H and that of helium-3 is E_He-3, you will see that E_H + E_D>E_He-3. Therefore, when D + H nuclei are combined to form a single helium-3 nuclei, we get:
²D + ¹H → ³He + E_H-He, where E_H-He = (M_D + M_H - M_He)c². (The famous E=mc² equation!!). This is called nucleosynthesis

11) E_H-He is difference in nuclear binding energy of the reactants, and it's the reason these spherical LSS objects we call stars glow brightly. E_H-He also exerts an outward force that counteracts the inward gravitational force until there is equilibrium.

12) Meanwhile, when the finite amount of H and D in the star is exhausted, the ⁴He nuclei inside the star start combining to form ¹²C in a process known as the triple-alpha process;
⁴He + ⁴He → ⁸Be
⁸Be + ⁴He → ¹²C

13) Finally, with enough ¹²C formed, we get the next stage of reactions;
¹²C + ⁴He → ¹⁶O + E_C-O

Behold! Oxygen

Besides this, there are also other cosmic events that synthesise various isotopes of oxygen, such as death of stars. This is story for another day, however.

For now, the key summary is that there is a clearly defined and well-understood process by which oxygen was formed from the big bang.

I clap for you for this long thesis: which in reality is a conjecture of postulates and hypothesis. Unverified at its best.

I will take you up only on your postulate 1.

1) By extrapolation of known physical laws and observations (esp. general theory of relativity and universal expansion), we estimate that there was a state in which the universe was of infinitesimally small volume, extremely high and near isotropic temperature and quasi-homogeneous, high energy density.

The universe consists of ALL Space, Plasma, Gases and Solid matter in existence.

Does your definition of universe include Space?
If the universe was infinitesimally small but extremely dense, you assume gravitational force was so strong to keep it like that Abi?

Since all Physical laws break down as time t aproaches zero (time of bang). How come G seems to defy the breakdown?

How long did the universe stay as "a pin point" before an external force (or was it an internal force--unstable equilibrium) caused it to change its state?

It is an "absurd falacy" that God will self exist isn't it?
Yet its no less absurd that the universe self existed as a dense point?


Any body who hears your Quantum Physics Sounding explanations will marvel at your Genius Faculty. Sometimes, it pays to strip the language down to logics and sense.

The scenario you created in 1 is impossible by any current physical laws on which quantum physics is based. Yet, you project quantum physics to take care of periods when even quantum physics would not have existed.

Finally,
Look at the order in Atoms: electrons in their orbitals round almost equal number of protons and neutrons: you are saying they came out of the chaos of a sudden expansion?

Illogical things should not be hidden under flowery speached. Out of a great catastrophe, order came out!
This clearly violate the law of Entropy!

shadeyinka:


I clap for you for this long thesis: which in reality is a conjecture of postulates and hypothesis. Unverified at its best.

No, most of the premises in my explanation are scientifically verified, both theoretically and experimentally. The ones that haven't been, such as the reason for matter-antimatter imbalance, I clearly stated that they haven't been.

I will take you up only on your postulate 1.

Okay

The universe consists of ALL Space, Plasma, Gases and Solid matter in existence.

Yes

Does your definition of universe include Space?

Yes, it does!

If the universe was infinitesimally small but extremely dense, you assume gravitational force was so strong to keep it like that Abi?

Since all Physical laws break down as time t aproaches zero (time of bang). How come G seems to defy the breakdown?

No, I made no such assumption, nor do I find such an assumption useful in understanding the early universe. There are many states in which energy can exist that preclude gravitational interaction (You may have heard of photons). Like you said, G is a law of physics, so it couldn't have predated (or defied) the expansion of the universe.

How long did the universe stay as "a pin point" before an external force (or was it an internal force--unstable equilibrium) caused it to change its state?

Now this is venturing into territory beyond the scope of the big bang. If you recall, you question was to "Use the Big Bang to explain the origin of oxygen". That, I have done! If you go back to my first sentence. You will see that I mentioned the big bang cannot account for the period preceding Planck's epoch. In fact, in this time period, every known law of physics, including quantum theory, breaks down. As such, it is impossible for me to tell you how long (or if at all) the universe existed in the dense state. For all we know, T = 0 might not even exist!

It is an "absurd falacy" that God will self exist isn't it?
Yet its no less absurd that the universe self existed as a dense point?

Yes! God, the universe, alien species, multiverse, whatnots... Something must have preceded the current state of the universe, which may or may not be self-existent. Both of the possibilities you mentioned may seem absurd, but I wouldn't go as far as to call them a fallacy. My knowledge is too limited to make such a bold statement.

Any body who hears your Quantum Physics Sounding explanations will marvel at your Genius Faculty. Sometimes, it pays to strip the language down to logics and sense.

Logic is indeed a useful tool, but cannot, of itself, lead to answers. There must exist well established, universal axioms and phenomena from which logic proceeds. This is where scientific facts, laws and phenomenology come in.

The scenario you created in 1 is impossible by any current physical laws on which quantum physics is based. Yet, you project quantum physics to take care of periods when even quantum physics would not have existed.

I do not think I created any scenario that is not supported by our present laws of physics. Be reminded that the laws of physics come in after Planck's epoch, a period which I explicitly mentioned had nothing to do with the big bang, before I proceeded to outline the genesis of oxygen. Beyond Planck's epoch, physical laws should have started taking effect. I didn't make this up, it's well established science.

Finally,
Look at the order in Atoms: electrons in their orbitals round almost equal number of protons and neutrons: you are saying they came out of the chaos of a sudden expansion?

By no means are the number of protons and neutrons almost equal. In fact, the ratio is about 7 protons for every neutron. Atoms obey the laws of physics, but they aren't terribly ordered, which is why we have so many isotopes, isobars and isotones of atoms.

Illogical things should not be hidden under flowery speached. Out of a great catastrophe, order came out!
This clearly violate the law of Entropy!

I agree that illogical things shouldn't be masked by flowery words, however, it is not true that order necessarily violates entropy. To be precise, entropy does not preclude localised order. The only requirement for the law is that universal entropy must always be positive. If this requirement is met, pockets of localised order (negative entropy) can pop up without affecting the net positive entropy of the universe.

Benekruku:
Rubbish!

So is God that created oxygen?

Everything about the God is all fiction!

Walked on water, healed the sick, woke the dead, fed a million, converted water to wine, patched a ear and none has been replicated by its believers except staged!

Who doesn't know where oxygen comes from or how it can be produced

All this sheeples sef! God created Oxygen and who created Carbon mono Oxide? Devil?

Mental slavery!

Oh thou wise man, pardon us, we are all foolish....

None is as wise as you are, you have all the knowledge and knoweth all things.

AgentOfAllah:
No, most of the premises in my explanation are scientifically verified, both theoretically and experimentally. The ones that haven't been, such as the reason for matter-antimatter imbalance, I clearly stated that they haven't been.

This isnt true!
They are but theories of existence from scientists.
I hope you know that there are many other theories such as the multi universe / parallel universe theories. No, please check ,these are not verified, they are JUST theories.

I believe you know of the several theories of the ATOM.

I could also have brought up a theory that
God fabricated electrons from lights of x frequency, and then fabricated neutrons from a superposition of y and z EM waves and then fused them through collisions and vola! Atoms came out. You will say, this is nonsense isn't it. Theories are just educated guesses, they remain theories not facts until they are proven or better theories replace them.

So, stoptreating theories as facts

AgentOfAllah:

No, I made no such assumption, nor do I find such an assumption useful in understanding the early universe. There are many states in which energy can exist that preclude gravitational interaction (You may have heard of photons). Like you said, G is a law of physics, so it couldn't have predated (or defied) the expansion of the universe.

Now this is venturing into territory beyond the scope of the big bang. If you recall, you question was to "Use the Big Bang to explain the origin of oxygen". That, I have done! If you go back to my first sentence. You will see that I mentioned the big bang cannot account for the period preceding Planck's epoch. In fact, in this time period, every known law of physics, including quantum theory, breaks down. As such, it is impossible for me to tell you how long (or if at all) the universe existed in the dense state. For all we know, T = 0 might not even exist!

You haven't shown how atoms came up from the big bang. It is an impossible quest. Like I said, all you just did was stung up a bunch of theories and treating them as if they are facts.

You see, the limitation of pure science stems from the fact that time existed just after the bang. So, it is scientifically impossible to extend beyond that. Unfortunately, as you say, BEFORE the bang, the Universe was a condenced pin point; For want of words, let me call it "super matter". Now, this super matter had existed outside time for how long? Or was it in quasi-stabe state? What brought it into existence?

Now, as Christians, we speak about a God who predated time, space and matter. You say God is impossible, yet you start with super-matter as predating time?

I believe that you know that QP is based on the current laws of physics: the current laws gave birth to the several physical constants like the Plank's Constant, pi constant, G universal constant etc.

If, the physical laws break down as you approach the time of big bang, don't you see then that it is fallacy to attempt to use QP to explain creation? You judge this!

AgentOfAllah:

Yes! God, the universe, alien species, multiverse, whatnots... Something must have preceded the current state of the universe, which may or may not be self-existent. Both of the possibilities you mentioned may seem absurd, but I wouldn't go as far as to call them a fallacy. My knowledge is too limited to make such a bold statement.

Nice, you are coming close to reality.
Something must have PRECEDED the current state of the Universe

Christians say: that THING is GOD
Atheists say: that thing Cannot be God: but "super-matter"

Forgetting, that , that thing (something) preceded "super-matter"

AgentOfAllah:

Logic is indeed a useful tool, but cannot, of itself, lead to answers. There must exist well established, universal axioms and phenomena from which logic proceeds. This is where scientific facts, laws and phenomenology come in.

I do not think I created any scenario that is not supported by our present laws of physics . Be reminded that the laws of physics come in after Planck's epoch, a period which I explicitly mentioned had nothing to do with the big bang, before I proceeded to outline the genesis of oxygen. Beyond Planck's epoch, physical laws should have started taking effect. I didn't make this up, it's well established science.

As show, The present laws cannot explain the origin of the universe since the present laws came well after time t=0.

The simple axiom are not scientific laws but are of
.. of Contradictions
...of Concurrencies
of postulates

AgentOfAllah:

By no means are the number of protons and neutrons almost equal. In fact, the ratio is about 7 protons for every neutron. Atoms obey the laws of physics, but they aren't terribly ordered, which is why we have so many isotopes, isobars and isotones of atoms.

I agree that illogical things shouldn't be masked by flowery words, however, it is not true that order necessarily violates entropy. To be precise, entropy does not preclude localised order. The only requirement for the law is that universal entropy must always be positive. If this requirement is met, pockets of localised order (negative entropy) can pop up without affecting the net positive entropy of the universe.

Deliberately, I didn't use the word equal!
Yet, given as isotopes, an atom still remain its chemical element and exhibit the same chemical behaviours.

The factcthat they are ordered is the only reason we can study them as scientist and qualitatively define them. That is order.

To hide information from most biologists, you hide it in Mathematic
To hide information from an Artist, you hide it in Chemistry and Physics
Sometimes Lawyers hide plain statement under LATIN

Those are flowery words.

Christians aren't opposed to Science. You have Scientists who also are Christians. Its easier for us to see where Science breaks down for it cannot answer all problems. Many Atheists assume that being Spiritual is equivalent to being anti Science but NO!

A Christian Scientist look at that Thing Preceding Matter and see, GOD!
An Atheist Scientist look at that Thing Preceding Matter and see, MATTER!

shadeyinka:


This isnt true!
They are but theories of existence from scientists.
I hope you know that there are many other theories such as the multi universe / parallel universe theories. No, please check ,these are not verified, they are JUST theories.

Scientific theories are propositions with predictive powers that can explain several bodies of independently observed facts and natural phenomena. For a theory to be accepted as scientific, it must therefore, be supported by a large body of testable facts, and it must, itself, be falsifiable. As such, for anything to be called a theory in scientific pedagogy, it must have been subjected to, and withstood rigorous scrutiny. A "theory" in colloquial parlance may be "JUST" something, but a scientific theory isn't "JUST" anything. The "many other theories" you've referenced are, in fact, hypotheses, not theories as far as science is concerned. So when I explain something to you using established scientific theories, be rest assured that it isn't just some conjured speculation from scientists.

Now, I have numerically outlined my explanation, so it would be more productive if you pick the parts you feel aren't supported by facts and experiments; and I would be happy to address them. What isn't helpful is just saying "this isn't true" without clarifying what exactly isn't true.

I believe you know of the several theories of the ATOM.

What are the several theories of the atom?

I could also have brought up a theory that
God fabricated electrons from lights of x frequency, and then fabricated neutrons from a superposition of y and z EM waves and then fused them through collisions and vola! Atoms came out. You will say, this is nonsense isn't it. Theories are just educated guesses, they remain theories not facts until they are proven or better theories replace them.

So, stoptreating theories as facts

Is your god theory supported by testable facts? Is it falsifiable? If your answer to both questions is yes, then tell me how. If your answer to any is no, then it is not a valid scientific theory.

You haven't shown how atoms came up from the big bang. It is an impossible quest. Like I said, all you just did was stung up a bunch of theories and treating them as if they are facts.

If you don't agree with my explanation, you will have to show that the science is faulty. I mentioned that the cooling of the universe led to the transition of the dense energy from one excited state to another, which included the synthesis of baryonic matter. This aspect of the theory is supported by the observations of a constantly expanding universe, nearly uniform CMB and the decomposition of atoms into many excited energy states in every experiment ever carried out in a particle accelerator. If you believe atoms did not come about in the way I have described, you will either have to falsify any one of these mutually exclusive observations or present an alternative falsifiable theory that can explain every one of them without exception.

You see, the limitation of pure science stems from the fact that time existed just after the bang.

This is NOT a limitation of science. It is a limitation of the present scientific theories, which I have openly highlighted.

So, it is scientifically impossible to extend beyond that.

Hubris! I don't think you, or anybody else is qualified to say what is or isn't scientifically possible.

Unfortunately, as you say, BEFORE the bang, the Universe was a condenced pin point; For want of words, let me call it "super matter". Now, this super matter had existed outside time for how long? Or was it in quasi-stabe state? What brought it into existence?

I never said such a thing. In fact, I have readily and repeatedly admitted that I don't know the state of the universe before the big bang. Don't you understand what is meant by my statement that "there is no known theory that describes the state of the universe at any time preceding Planck's epoch"? Stop misattributing straw men to me, please.

Now, as Christians, we speak about a God who predated time, space and matter. You say God is impossible, yet you start with super-matter as predating time?

Nowhere have I said god is impossible, nor have I claimed that any kind of matter predates time.

I believe that you know that QP is based on the current laws of physics: the current laws gave birth to the several physical constants like the Plank's Constant, pi constant, G universal constant etc.

If, the physical laws break down as you approach the time of big bang, don't you see then that it is fallacy to attempt to use QP to explain creation? You judge this!

I don't disagree that it is fallacious to use quantum theory to explain creation. You're preaching to the choir!

Nice, you are coming close to reality.
Something must have PRECEDED the current state of the Universe

Apologies if I left you with the impression that I was far from this reality. For the avoidance of doubt, my position has always been that I am ignorant of the preceding state of the universe before the known laws set in. I was sure I made this very clear from my initial post. Anyway, now you know!

Christians say: that THING is GOD

As far as science is concerned, Christianity is presumptuous.

Atheists say: that thing Cannot be God: but "super-matter"

Forgetting, that , that thing (something) preceded "super-matter"

I am an atheist, and I've never said whatever "that thing" is cannot be god, nor have I called anything "super-matter". In fact, super-matter is a coinage I am hearing for the very first time today, so it is just as vague to me, as the word "god".

As show, The present laws cannot explain the origin of the universe since the present laws came well after time t=0.

No they can't, but then again, your question wasn't about the origin of the universe, your question was about how the big bang brought about oxygen. Are we now shifting the goal post? The big bang isn't necessarily the origin of the universe, it is the origin of the present physical laws!

The simple axiom are not scientific laws but are of
.. of Contradictions
...of Concurrencies
of postulates

I don't know what you mean here.

Deliberately, I didn't use the word equal!

shadeyinka:

Look at the order in Atoms: electrons in their orbitals round almost equal number of protons and neutrons: you are saying they came out of the chaos of a sudden expansion?

Yes you used the word "equal", and qualified it with almost. I have quoted you as a reminder. Even with your qualification, you're still wrong!

Yet, given as isotopes, an atom still remain its chemical element and exhibit the same chemical behaviours.

But its physical behavior changes. I fail to see your point.

The factcthat they are ordered is the only reason we can study them as scientist and qualitatively define them. That is order.

They are somewhat ordered, yes, but as they grow bigger, they become increasingly disordered. The only real order in atoms is their proclivity to minimise energy. Just like the permutations of a mathematical set becomes more complicated and disorderly as the set grows larger.

To hide information from most biologists, you hide it in Mathematic
To hide information from an Artist, you hide it in Chemistry and Physics
Sometimes Lawyers hide plain statement under LATIN

Those are flowery words.

What are you saying?

Christians aren't opposed to Science. You have Scientists who also are Christians. Its easier for us to see where Science breaks down for it cannot answer all problems.

Okay, but why are you being defensive? Did I accuse you of being opposed to science? Or what has this got to do with the origin of oxygen?

Many Atheists assume that being Spiritual is equivalent to being anti Science but NO!

I'm still not sure how a discussion about the origin of oxygen digressed this far, but if it puts your mind to rest, I'm not one who assumes being spiritual is equivalent to being anti-science. It's not one's attitude towards spiritualism that makes one pro/anti-science, it's one's attitude towards scientific claims that makes them pro/anti-science.

A Christian Scientist look at that Thing Preceding Matter and see, GOD!
An Atheist Scientist look at that Thing Preceding Matter and see, MATTER!

What thing are you talking about?

AgentOfAllah:
Scientific theories are propositions with predictive powers that can explain several bodies of independently observed facts and natural phenomena. For a theory to be accepted as scientific, it must therefore, be supported by a large body of testable facts, and it must, itself, be falsifiable. As such, for anything to be called a theory in scientific pedagogy, it must have been subjected to, and withstood rigorous scrutiny. A "theory" in colloquial parlance may be "JUST" something, but a scientific theory isn't "JUST" anything. The "many other theories" you've referenced are, in fact, hypotheses, not theories as far as science is concerned. So when I explain something to you using established scientific theories, be rest assured that it isn't just some conjured speculation from scientists.

Now, I have numerically outlined my explanation, so it would be more productive if you pick the parts you feel aren't supported by facts and experiments; and I would be happy to address them. What isn't helpful is just saying "this isn't true" without clarifying what exactly isn't true.

What are the several theories of the atom?


Is your god theory supported by testable facts? Is it falsifiable? If your answer to both questions is yes, then tell me how. If your answer to any is no, then it is not a valid scientific theory.

If you don't agree with my explanation, you will have to show that the science is faulty. I mentioned that the cooling of the universe led to the transition of the dense energy from one excited state to another, which included the synthesis of baryonic matter. This aspect of the theory is supported by the observations of a constantly expanding universe, nearly uniform CMB and the decomposition of atoms into many excited energy states in every experiment ever carried out in a particle accelerator. If you believe atoms did not come about in the way I have described, you will either have to falsify any one of these mutually exclusive observations or present an alternative falsifiable theory that can explain every one of them without exception.

This is NOT a limitation of science. It is a limitation of the present scientific theories, which I have openly highlighted.

Hubris! I don't think you, or anybody else is qualified to say what is or isn't scientifically possible.

I never said such a thing. In fact, I have readily and repeatedly admitted that I don't know the state of the universe before the big bang. Don't you understand what is meant by my statement that "there is no known theory that describes the state of the universe at any time preceding Planck's epoch"? Stop misattributing straw men to me, please.

Nowhere have I said god is impossible, nor have I claimed that any kind of matter predates time.

I don't disagree that it is fallacious to use quantum theory to explain creation. You're preaching to the choir!

Apologies if I left you with the impression that I was far from this reality. For the avoidance of doubt, my position has always been that I am ignorant of the preceding state of the universe before the known laws set in. I was sure I made this very clear from my initial post. Anyway, now you know!

As far as science is concerned, Christianity is presumptuous.

I am an atheist, and I've never said whatever "that thing" is cannot be god, nor have I called anything "super-matter". In fact, super-matter is a coinage I am hearing for the very first time today, so it is just as vague to me, as the word "god".

No they can't, but then again, your question wasn't about the origin of the universe, your question was about how the big bang brought about oxygen. Are we now shifting the goal post? The big bang isn't necessarily the origin of the universe, it is the origin of the present physical laws!

I don't know what you mean here.




Yes you used the word "equal", and qualified it with almost. I have quoted you as a reminder. Even with your qualification, you're still wrong!

But its physical behavior changes. I fail to see your point.

They are somewhat ordered, yes, but as they grow bigger, they become increasingly disordered. The only real order in atoms is their proclivity to minimise energy. Just like the permutations of a mathematical set becomes more complicated and disorderly as the set grows larger.

What are you saying?

Okay, but why are you being defensive? Did I accuse you of being opposed to science? Or what has this got to do with the origin of oxygen?

I'm still not sure how a discussion about the origin of oxygen digressed this far, but if it puts your mind to rest, I'm not one who assumes being spiritual is equivalent to being anti-science. It's not one's attitude towards spiritualism that makes one pro/anti-science, it's one's attitude towards scientific claims that makes them pro/anti-science.

What thing are you talking about?

Special agent of MuhamMADs god he said ALMOST EQUAL and to everyone ALMOST EQUAL is not same thing as EQUAL!

that alone made me stop reading.

butterflylion:


Special agent of MuhamMADs god he said ALMOST EQUAL and to everyone ALMOST EQUAL is not same thing as EQUAL!

1) No one is disputing that he said "almost equal"; and the only person here who seems to have conjured an argument equating "almost equal" to "equal" is you, in order to refute it.

2) He claimed he deliberately did not use the word equal. Either he doesn't know the meaning of "use", or he is blatantly lying. He did USE the word "equal", albeit qualified.

3) What I refuted initially was his specific claim that protons and neutrons are "almost equal". Protons outnumber neutrons by a factor of around 7 to 1. No where in the universe is 7 "almost equal" to 1. If you don't know this, then I'm sorry, but it's not my job to teach you mathematics.

that alone made me stop reading.

Sure, whatever excuse sails your boat. Your refusal to read my post due to an argument you invented is of no consequence to me.

butterflylion:


Special agent of MuhamMADs god he said ALMOST EQUAL and to everyone ALMOST EQUAL is not same thing as EQUAL!

that alone made me stop reading.

Oh please.
You don't even understand what is being discussed.

Ranchhoddas:
Oh please.
You don't even understand what is being discussed.

Don't mind the otutupoyoyo!