Zingari Posted 15 February 2013 Posted 15 February 2013 Embryo growing in the womb yes, but not living creatures - these "blueprints" don't exist, evolution requires variation, which requires mutations, which are a random occurrence. Embryos are living creatures , aren't they ? Anyway if you really believe you understand the magnitude of it , fair do's , I'll not convince you otherwise
Captain... Posted 15 February 2013 Posted 15 February 2013 No, because there was no before the big bang. Saying something is before the big bang is like saying something is north of north. The big bang was the beginning of time, there was no before. Ah you're one of those "scientists" who just religiously trot out what you have read without adding any real thought or opinion of your own. I'm sure you will be very successful as you are clearly very passionate about science, almost dogmatic in your defence of it. It seems unlikely that we will ever prove what was before the big bang, but many people more knowledgeable than you or me have spent many hours hypothesising what there was before the big bang, and many of them have concluded that there could have been something, the universe as we know it is only the observable universe, and is not necessarily the be all and end all of existence, it may well be, but it seems highly unlikely as one of the main tenants of physics is that nothing can be created from nothing. There may not have been much before the big bang, or there may have been billions more universes like this one, or even identical in every way, depending on if you subscribe to cyclical universe theory, not that I do. But to claim as fact there was nothing before the big bang is just as ludicrous as to say that it was god farting.
The Doctor Posted 15 February 2013 Posted 15 February 2013 It seems unlikely that we will ever prove what was before the big bang, but many people more knowledgeable than you or me have spent many hours hypothesising what there was before the big bang, and many of them have concluded that there could have been something, the universe as we know it is only the observable universe, and is not necessarily the be all and end all of existence, it may well be, but it seems highly unlikely as one of the main tenants of physics is that nothing can be created from nothing. There may not have been much before the big bang, or there may have been billions more universes like this one, or even identical in every way, depending on if you subscribe to cyclical universe theory, not that I do. But to claim as fact there was nothing before the big bang is just as ludicrous as to say that it was god farting. Not really - the current understanding of time as far as the scientific community goes is that it is a part of space-time, formed as a result of the big bang. It could be that what we think we know of time is wrong, that's for the physicists to work out, but when all our models involving time work on that understanding (and do work) it would be foolish to dismiss that idea, or to suggest that it has the same grounding as religious explanations.
The Doctor Posted 15 February 2013 Posted 15 February 2013 Embryos are living creatures , aren't they ? Anyway if you really believe you understand the magnitude of it , fair do's , I'll not convince you otherwise More of an ethical than scientific question that - there's no real consensus as to whether an embryo is alive. Not at all, I don't really understand the universe, but I'm an avid reader on the subject of evolution and have a decent understanding of that. As for the universe, that's the domain of the physicists, not chemists like me - but all observations fit with the explanation I posted earlier.
Captain... Posted 15 February 2013 Posted 15 February 2013 Not really - the current understanding of time as far as the scientific community goes is that it is a part of space-time, formed as a result of the big bang. It could be that what we think we know of time is wrong, that's for the physicists to work out, but when all our models involving time work on that understanding (and do work) it would be foolish to dismiss that idea, or to suggest that it has the same grounding as religious explanations. So you are not saying there was nothing, an empty void, before the big bang just that you don't consider anything that happened before to be part of our scientific world and has no bearing on it, so for all intents and purposes it is nothing?
Guest BlueBrett Posted 15 February 2013 Posted 15 February 2013 Saw a thing about some variety of cockroach that has a really sharp cock. The males go around raping each other by using it to puncture the abdomen of their rivals. They leave their ejaculate inside their victim and then when that victim goes on to mate with a female it is the rapists spunk that impregnates her, thereby passing on his genes and not the ones of the guy who actually managed to find a woman who'd have him. I suppose it is that species novel method of ensuring survival of the fittest and probably goes some way towards explaining why cockroaches are such resilient little buggers. Just thought I'd share that here, it seemed the thread for it.
Carl the Llama Posted 15 February 2013 Posted 15 February 2013 2 things: 1. It seems to have been suggested and accepted that an embryo goes through 'all stages of evolution' in the womb. It doesn't: You don't find something that goes from bacteria to fish to mammal to primate to human in there, just thought I'd point that out. 2. Saying that nothing can possibly have come before the big bang is no different to a religious zealot stubbornly saying that God made everything and nothing made him. It's a mind fvck scenario that some people have difficulty thinking about, so they don't.
The Doctor Posted 15 February 2013 Posted 15 February 2013 So you are not saying there was nothing, an empty void, before the big bang just that you don't consider anything that happened before to be part of our scientific world and has no bearing on it, so for all intents and purposes it is nothing? For all intents and purposes there was nothing before the big bang that would have affected it or the universe with our understanding of time and cause and effect: as far as we know - no time before big bang, cause and effect is temporal so nothing that would affect big bang or universe.
Zingari Posted 15 February 2013 Posted 15 February 2013 2 things: 1. It seems to have been suggested and accepted that an embryo goes through 'all stages of evolution' in the womb. It doesn't: You don't find something that goes from bacteria to fish to mammal to primate to human in there, just thought I'd point that out. 2. Saying that nothing can possibly have come before the big bang is no different to a religious zealot stubbornly saying that God made everything and nothing made him. It's a mind fvck scenario that some people have difficulty thinking about, so they don't. 1)I didn't mean human embryos actually went through fish / reptile stages etc , i meant it had the appearance that it was going through various evolutionary stages, when in actual fact the process is blueprinted and predestined from the start. Maybe all animal evolution is blueprinted in the same way with certain creatures flourishing at the right time and not blindly evolving . 2)Totally agree
Tielemans63 Posted 15 February 2013 Posted 15 February 2013 So will I have a detachable cock in a few years or not?
Rincewind Posted 15 February 2013 Posted 15 February 2013 So will I have a detachable cock in a few years or not? Unsatisfied wives do. They keep it hidden from their husbands in the underwear drawer.
Zingari Posted 15 February 2013 Posted 15 February 2013 More of an ethical than scientific question that - there's no real consensus as to whether an embryo is alive. Not at all, I don't really understand the universe, but I'm an avid reader on the subject of evolution and have a decent understanding of that. As for the universe, that's the domain of the physicists, not chemists like me - but all observations fit with the explanation I posted earlier. So no one really knows if something such as an embryo is actually alive or not , but they can say with unswerving confidence how all life with it's magnificent varieties came about.? Terrific
The Doctor Posted 15 February 2013 Posted 15 February 2013 So no one really knows if something such as an embryo is actually alive or not , but they can say with unswerving confidence how all life with it's magnificent varieties came about.? Terrific Given we've 150 years of evidence for evolution, and it was about 50 years later before microscopy really became usable (allowing epigenesis to be investigated), I wouldn't say it's that surprising. Even then it's more a case of the embryo is alive in the way your skin is (up until 24 weeks when brain activity starts) but should that count as being alive. It's very much a moral/ethical question than a scientific one.
flowwolf Posted 15 February 2013 Posted 15 February 2013 No, because there was no before the big bang. Saying something is before the big bang is like saying something is north of north. The big bang was the beginning of time, there was no before. So who or what created the big bang ? or even a vacuum for that matter just asking.
The Doctor Posted 15 February 2013 Posted 15 February 2013 So who or what created the big bang ? or even a vacuum for that matter just asking. The big bang (as far as we know) was before time, before cause and effect - no-one/nothing created it, that would be a causer and the big bang being the effect. I haven't got the foggiest why the big bang happened though - I'm an undergrad in a different field of science.
Carl the Llama Posted 16 February 2013 Posted 16 February 2013 The big bang (as far as we know) was before time, before cause and effect - no-one/nothing created it, that would be a causer and the big bang being the effect. I haven't got the foggiest why the big bang happened though - I'm an undergrad in a different field of science. It was before cause and effect, yet it was the effect of a cause? Nice bit of contradiction there sir. Nobody can purport to know what was there before the big bang. We know that the universe is expanding, and it is theorised by many that it will eventually contract, so I reckon it's just an infinite loop of compression/expansion, with each compression causing a new big bang. That's just vaguely science based conjecture though and I'll be surprised if we ever know - certainly in my lifetime.
flowwolf Posted 16 February 2013 Posted 16 February 2013 The big bang (as far as we know) was before time, before cause and effect - no-one/nothing created it, that would be a causer and the big bang being the effect. I haven't got the foggiest why the big bang happened though - I'm an undergrad in a different field of science. So if you accept it happened then the laws of physics dictates there must have been a cause . Saying you don't have a foggiest is perhaps the wises thing yet that anyone on this topic has said.
The Doctor Posted 16 February 2013 Posted 16 February 2013 It was before cause and effect, yet it was the effect of a cause? Nice bit of contradiction there sir. Nobody can purport to know what was there before the big bang. We know that the universe is expanding, and it is theorised by many that it will eventually contract, so I reckon it's just an infinite loop of compression/expansion, with each compression causing a new big bang. That's just vaguely science based conjecture though and I'll be surprised if we ever know - certainly in my lifetime. Except I didn't say that - I said it was before cause and effect (from what we think we know of time), hence no-one/nothing would have created it. So if you accept it happened then the laws of physics dictates there must have been a cause . Saying you don't have a foggiest is perhaps the wises thing yet that anyone on this topic has said. However as I've said, as far as we know, time started with the big bang. Cause and effect are temporal properties - there was no cause before time, so the big bang would have had no cause with our current understanding of time.
Zingari Posted 16 February 2013 Posted 16 February 2013 Still sounds like a lot of old made up bollox to me .
leicsmac Posted 16 February 2013 Posted 16 February 2013 Guys - I think I've said this before, but what happened before the Big Bang is temporally irrelevant to us anyway. Our concept of time (a totally human construct, by the way) began with that first expansion event, and so to try and theorise what happened 'before' is irrelevant as there WAS no 'before' - not in the way we comprehend, anyway - and it's impossible to interact with or observe any evidence for it in any way. All we have is a reasonable idea of what happened from about 10^-40 seconds after the Big Bang, and many physicists are spending their careers pushing that time envelope further and further. But we'll never get to the event itself, much less 'before' it...as there was no 'before'. And this goes the same for the event that 'caused' the Big Bang too. Could have been anything, but it's actually not possible to find out or to comprehend. It's similar to the reasonably verifiable fact that the Universe is actually far bigger that what we can see, due to the speed of expansion at the start of the Big Bang being faster than light (speed of light is related to one of the fundamental universal constants that was established JUST after the Big Bang, and these same laws are still broken today through black holes). We have a good idea it's out there, but we'll never be able to observe or interact with it as the light it possesses will never reach us (moving away from us at a relative speed faster than light). Hence, it's not really relevant to us - it's just something to note.
Zingari Posted 16 February 2013 Posted 16 February 2013 Fair enough . People can take comfort and reassurance from trying to explain the unexplainable and it gives them something to "believe in". , I've got not problem with it at all really
Rincewind Posted 16 February 2013 Posted 16 February 2013 Bought a book recently on Gods and Goddesses. Strange that there have been many 'creators' over time but the Christian one is the one that is favoured today. This is why I don't believe there is one. Some may say why buy a book on gods when you don't believe in them? But I think you'll find many atheists are interested in myths and legends and some know more about the bible than those that claim to have faith and religious beliefs. I like myths and legends because there are some good stories and all fiction of modern times have the same elements. Good vs evil, hero, protagonist, quests and adventure to name some.
flowwolf Posted 16 February 2013 Posted 16 February 2013 So in conclusion I think it's safe to say no one knows a fvcking thing about the meaning of life if indeed there is one. No one has come up with any irrecusable evidence and your all pissing in the dark. Please correct me if I am am wrong on any one of those statements.
Carl the Llama Posted 16 February 2013 Posted 16 February 2013 Our concept of time (a totally human construct, by the way) Not meaning to detract from the rest of your post which is a good one, the idea that time is a human construct is a widely held belief which really annoys me. We didn't invent time. Our arbitrary units of measurement for time are man-made, but the phenomenon itself is no more man-made than gravity.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.