1) I absolutely can apply that.

2) You've just admitted that the origin of the universe cannot be determined scientifcally.




That's what we are here to discuss...



Please do. But rember that information has to be based on a code systtem, and has to be an abstract representation of something that is not present in the encoding material itself. Materialsistic has to be 100% materialistic, i.e. it can never have had any influence from a mental process, e.g. a computer program.

Terry

Quantum mechanics do not have anything to do with the issue at hand Either the amount of matter/energy in the universe is constant or it is not. Everything we know tells us that its constant, which means there had to be a step in put from somethingn to nothing.

Name any cause/effect, and you must name its preceding cause in order to keep persuing the discussion phylisophically.




The information in DNA is a good example. The simple fact of the matter is that information does not have mass, therefore you cannot reduce it to materialistic properties. Life is based on infomation, and its consequently can never have had a materialistic origin.



Its not a argument from incredulity. You're wasting time by erecting that strawman argument, and you should consider this your last warning on that topic.

I'm saying that what we know about how the universe can/should lead us to the idea that a creator exists.

Morality requires a moral law giver. Matter cannot produce itself, and therefore requires someone to have produced it. Information is not a property of matter, therfore its makes sense that life had a mental origin.

That is rational thinking, not just saying I don't believe what your saying

Terry

Quantum mechanics has everything to do with it! It is the study of matter in its most elementary form. Matter and energy are interchangable. In QM a free space vacuum has background energy even if devoid of matter. Because of the time-energy uncertainty principle from QM, vacuum fluctuations can take some of this energy background and produce matter. Energy is conserved.




Again, what is information outside the context of substance? In other words, give an example of information that is not associated with matter or energy. In the context of information theory, information is quantified by entropy which is linked with the energy of a system. Information is not a fundamental property of a system rather it is a consequence of a system.


Strawman argument? I suppose if we throw that definition around very loosely we can call it that. If you believe that knowledge about the universe "can/should lead us to the idea that a creator exists" that is fine but that view is not objective.




I am not sure what morality has to do with any of this. I am not sure what is meant by "Matter cannot produce itself". Energy produces matter and matter can become energy but matter does not produce itself and I never said that it did. Like I said before information in the context of information theory is not a fundamental property. There is no such thing as information detatched from the properties of a system.

This brings up the question if a vacuum really exists. I'm under the impression that Cosmologists avoid the idea of an "Ether" because it does not fit the ideas very well, e.g. the Big Bang.

To me it seems to be committing intellectual suicide to say that a vacuum really contains nothing, while at the same time, we can characterize the impedance of a vacuum as 377 Ohms.

Using QM in this sense is just a shell game. Is the amount of energy/matter in the universe constant or not?

If someone has found a way to create energy, then they are keeping a very big secret!



Information is recognized my many people as a fundamental property. Yes, we as humans need matter to store it, but that does not mean that is is a property of matter.

There is no known materialistic process or law that produces information. All known information has a mental origin.

If you think that information can be reduced to matter, then explain the difference in the information of you name type on a piece of paper, or your named chiseled on a boulder. There is no difference in information, but the matter is totally different.

There is no mathematical, chemical, or physical reduction between matter and energy. None.....




Where did matter/energy come from? Whatever answer you come up with must also have had a cause, and so on and so forth.

Terry

No, that is not the reason. The ether concept is in disfavor because it lacks evidence.



Not at all. An electronic engineer (such as I) can explain it, but it gets a tad complicated. Very simply put, the 377 Ohms express the ratio between the magnetic and electrical field in an electromagnetic wave when nothing (=a vacuum) interferes with it.



To the best of our knowledge, the amount is constant, but not the ratio. Watch out for superheavy black holes, though.



Mention a form of information that can exist without a materialistic medium.



No. There are many materialistic preocesses that produce information. I'll just name three: Tree rings, wind ripples in sand, DNA.



The medium is different. This means that information can be stored in different mediums. Note however, that apart from the name, the entire information contents of the paper and the boulder are very different. Even the information about how the name was recorded is different.



I don't know. Do you? If God made it, how was God made? The turtles dilemma is universal.

Hans

I have not admitted that the origin of the universe cannot be determined scienifically. Only that we currently don't know how. I do accept the possibility that it cannot, however.



Wind ripples in sand

Medium: Sand
Information: Strenght, direction, and possibly duration of the wind
Code system: Width, shape, hight and direction of riples.

Tree rings

Medium: Living wood
Information: Seasonal change of growth conditions, age of tree (let's not touch on dating, here)
Code system: Alternating density, number of rings.

DNA

Medium: Nuclotide molecules
Information: History of mutations and other changes, how to build a life form (to pit it a bit crudely)
Code system: Nucleotide sequences - the works; some author as published an entire work about why DNA is a language.

Hans

The background vacuum energy and ether are different beasts. Ether traditionally was a means to explain how electromagnetic waves propagate and it was discredited by Michelson and Morley with the use of their interferometer.


We are not creating energy - the energy is there. We are changing the form of the energy to matter. Enegy is conserved in the processes I mentioned. The energy matter ration is constant.


So when I observe a pulsar it is not conveying information? Does it have a mental source? Information theory doesn't share your definitions of information. You are defining information to have a mental sourse because low entropy information like a computer code has a mental source and then you are applying it to high entropy information in nature and claiming that it must also have a mental source - this is a semantic argument andit is not true.


All information that is recorded is done so by manipulating matter - the paper and the rock are baryonic matter - they are both composed of atoms which are composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons. They are not that different.

Can you clarify what you mean by "reduction between matter and energy" please. There is one thing you have to realize about the conservation of energy. It comes about because of time invariance via Noether's theorem. Energy and space time are linked so before the big bang we can't really say anything about energy, space, or time. I will admit that I have no idea how the universe began however not having knowledge does not lead to any explanation be it vacuum genesis or god.

Tree rings and Sand do not contain information because there is no code system. There is "historical data" there, but that is not information.

Information must be an abstract representation of something else, and it its never the thing itself. A code system must have syntax and semantics, which those examples clearly fail.

DNA certainly contains a code system, but its origin is unknown from the materialist point of view.

A major difference between the genetic code and the other two examples you gave is that there is no strict relationship between the genetic code and its information to any causal physical effect, where as the other two were directly known(that's why you able to list them). In fact at least some of what we know about chemistry says it should not happen, e.g. chirality....

IOW, tree rings and waveletts in sand are predicatable based on known physical processes, but the origin of genetic code is a total mystery to science.

Terry

The term code is used loosely to describe DNA - after all most of it is junk. Can you name one code that has a mental origin where only 10% of it actually does anything? Who would design such a code?

I'm sorry, but you can't just decide that the term 'information' only applies to the things you prefer. A code system can be as simple as 1 and 0. You can claim that a code system must be a decided code system, but then your argument becomes circular: You will have defined 'information' as something created by a mind.



The tree rings and sand ripples ARE an abstract representation, in that they contain nothing of the thing they represent.

Your definition of what a code system must contain is entirely arbitrary.



Aye, it is unknown, but assumed to be materialistic.



So it is not a valid example if I know the cause? So the day we find a materialistic cause for DNA, you will no longer consider it a valid code system??

.

Circular argumentation.

Hans

To be fair, I don't think we can use a criterion of efficiency. Art is very much a product of the mind, yet you cannot say it is 100% efficient.

Hans

Oh, and:



ADA? French?

Hans

Others are likely to provide a better response. I choose not to argue about your antiquated "junk DNA" paradigm. Even if it were valid, your argument is not.

Computer programs execute one-step-at-a-time. A snapshot observation will yield a result of far lower than one % "doing anything". Has DNA been observed long enough to conclude "only 10% does anything"?

Even so, there are programs which contain fixed data. This data "does nothing". It's never executed. But it serves a pretty important purpose if one knows what's going on. Indeed, a good deal of information is contained in unchanging ROM as well. There's a very good reason to ensure it never "does" anything.

The data in any book I've ever read never "does" anything. How useless books should become if this data becomes active! Perhaps this is a better example.

Don't have a lot of time. Two of your examples are results/manifestations of pre-existing information.

The patterns in sand are clever - I'm impressed if you thought of this. But they fail because they rely upon assumptions. The initial condition of the sand must be assumed, as must the type of fluid. A flat initial position will result in a different reading than one which is uneven. A thinner atmosphere will have less effect on the sand - sand on Mars or Venus would respond differently. Actually, different gravity should play a role also.

Chores are waiting for me, so I must go. I hope I've written well enough for this to be understood.

The genetic code is a code system just like any other known code system. The genetic code has every characteristic that one would expect to find if someone was looking for a code system created by another person, e.g. heiroglyphics, its just chemical in nature.



You should be careful not to confuse the code itself, i.e. syntax, sematics, etc...., with the current state of DNA of living beings, they are 2 different things.

The code itself is not wastefull at all. Dr. Werner Gitt has demonstrated that its optimal from an engineering standpoint, which raises another question. How did an optmized code evolve with no evidence? Are you aware that genetic code "supposedly" appeared 2.5~4 Billion years ago fully developed? There is no evidence that the code evolved at all, it just appears fully optimized.

If your attempting to make an issue of what man thinks about DNA and the inormation stored in it, then I would say that's a pretty arrogant attitude to have since no one has any idea of how to create a living being from chiral chemicals. We haven't evern figured out how to get the pure homochiral environement needed to create DNA. Mankind would never have figured out how to create life on his own, we are just not that smart.

Terry

You are very funny.. You don't like me defining what information is, but then you seek to do it yourself...

The reason Information must be clearly defined is because we are discussing the origin of life. Life is based on the genetic code, and the genetic code lies in the domain of information concepts that fit all known code systems.

Dr. Gitt has shown what that charateristics of that type of Information is, and he has demonstrated how the genetic code has the same characteristics as that found by any other known code system.



What can be created from them that is not a direct representation of their cause?

The information for insulin is stored in DNA, but insulin has no cause in created that abstraction in the genetic code.

Can you really not see the difference?

The genetic code has nothing to do with tree rings and sand wavelets, and discussing them is a waste of time, and stated in the Forum FAW as unacceptable:



Form Faq

In fact there is also Fred Williams' very good definition of what we will discuss on this Forum as information.

What is information? – The kind of information we should debate on this forum should be of the type that is sufficient to communicate enough data to build some object, such as a car, a computer, or in the case of the origins debate, an organism. To that end, I hereby offer coded information as the type of information to debate on this forum. By coded information I mean any type of information that is a language, as described by symbols, syntax, and semantics.

Your obfuscation is pretty convincing evidence that you don't have a leg to stand on. What you don't you address the issue of the origin of coded information instead of obfuscating over things that are not related to the origins issue?




In this case no, because you are trying to establish history as information, and they are not the same thing.



That day will never come. The Laws of Nature regarding information, the type of which the genetic code is, requires a mental origin. If it does come then of course I will admit it, but why don't you do the same now? I.e. admit that the genetic code is from a scientific point of view is a "miracle".

Terry

No, that was not my point. My point is that any definition is arbitrary. We can basically make any definition we like and it will fit some subset of codes.



Dr. Gitt has made yet another arbitrary definiton of code.



I can see the difference, but it is still an arbitrary distinction: You decide that it differentiates the systems, but it can also be seen as just different levels of sophistication.



As forum owner Fred has the right to define the meaning of the term 'information' within this forum, but it is still an arbitrary definition.



OK, we can use that definition for this debate. Just as long as you remember that it is just one of many valid definitions.



Fine, let's discuss the origin of coded information, according to your definition. So, what is your point?



Not according to your definition (which would give you serious problems, were I to nitpick it, but, let's not go there).



I have no need to admit it, because it isn't.

If you think about it, you will discover that your argument is circular:

The essence of your claim is this:

1st premise: All languages/codes have a mental origin.

2nd premise: DNA is a language/code.

Ergo: DNA has a mental origin.

However, it can be seen that till you actually prove that DNA has a mental origin, your second premise falsifies the first.

Hans

My argument is not circular. Circular is something along the lines of:

1) These sediments are 65 millions years old because we find certain fossils there
2) How do you know the fossils are 65 million years old
3) Because it would take 65 million years for evolution to taken place since then
4) How do you know evolution has taken place since then
5) See #1.




Well, its not that simple....

The question is the origin of the gentic code.

1) All code systems with known origins have mental origins. Its a Law of Nature.

2) There is no known materialistic process that produces code systems.

3) Code sysems, and the information stored in them for future use is not a propery of matter, i.e. meaning is immaterial(you've admitted that yourself).

Consequently, its a logical conclusion to accept that DNA had a mental origin. We don't know, but to claim it had a materialistic origin is a violation of the Laws of Nature regarding information, and if anything must be proven its that, not the converse!



Its not ncessary to prove the negative anymore than it is to prove that perpetual motion machine does not exist. It cannot be proven that a perpetual motion machine does not exist, but every experiment ever performed tells us that energy must be conserved, and thus we accept the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy. Every failed attempt to create a perpetual motion machine led us to that conclusion.

The same is true here. There are no known processes that even remotely indicate that a code system could originate out of a 100% materialistic process. Any such ideas are 100% FANSTASY. Can you name any expermiment in the past that created a code system where none existed before?

Terry

Interesting. You deny the circularity of your argument, then demonstrate it even more clearly than I did.

Iti s not a law of nature that a code system must have a mental origin. The only support for your #1 and #2 claims is that you have chosen a definition that nearly only includes code systems of known mental origin, but even that does not prove your point, because we don't know the origin (at least not for sure) of DNA.



Not quite. It is fully dependent on matter, but its level of abstracion means that it can be represented by more than one configuration of matter. Unfortunately for your argument, that includes my other examples of code systems, which you refused to include in your definition.



Incorrect. You have included DNA in your definition of code systems, and you have failed to prove that it has mental origin. Your argumentation fails, sorry.



That is a rather disingenious requirement since you would immidiately reject it on the grounds that the experiment has a mental origin.

... Otherwise, I would have no problem designing such an experiment.

And, as I have pointed out, there exist systems of non-mental origin that will fit a definition for code systems that is every bit as valid as the one you use.

... Which leads us to the core problem of this discussion, IMHO: You cannot conduct a scientific proof, based on arbitrary definitions, and any definition of 'code systems' must be arbitrary.

Hans

Let's assume for the moment that all codes/languages have a mental origin.

Everything with a mind has a brain.

All known brains capable of writing codes are possessed by humans.

To address the topic in the thread title, which theory is simpler?

The universe popped into existence pretty much in the configuration as we see it now 6000 odd years ago.

Or

As the observable universe is expanding, it should have been denser and hotter in the past.

Neither, simply because both popped into existance at one point in time, and who says that the creation model CANNOT be expanding, moving around in circles, jumping up and down, or just plain existing. Same with the universe expanding, amazing, it was created, and it's expanding, that is simply amazing, well not really but anyways.

Atheist say the universe or matter just exist.

Creationist say that God just exist.

The only difference is that God has the ability to actually perform the creating process while matter, which just exist, would absolutely most positvely 100% without a doubt NOT start expanding for absolutely 100% without a doubt for no REASON. And using the atheist model, matter wouldn't do anything, because it simply 100% without a doubt does not have that creating ability on its own. Offcourse atheist would deny that matter would actually need a reason, or guiding abilities because in the atheistic view EVERYTHING just randomly POOFS into existance with zero guidance, and zero intelligence.

It simply amazes me that Atheist actually believe that planets, stars, and gravity just simply expanded into existance with absolutely zero guidance from ANYTHING. Remember that matter on its own has zero guiding ability.

From a logical point of view, God creating the universe just makes a whole lot more sense than nothing creating the universe, and all living things.

This is also another example of the Atheist model of the origin of matter, and the universe: Matter just starts to move and bring all these elements perfectly together to create planets, and whole galaxies. It just happens as the atheist like to say. Well using that train of thought, a box legos should randomly start to expand and start to create an entire Universe over a series of billions of years. Remember again, all of this with absolutely zero guidance. Also, remember that Atheist do not like to answer where matter came from, it just exist.

Another example of the Creationist model: God creates the universe, and how
He did it is a mystery, and also there is some slight evidence that it is expanding and moving, but whole solar systems are moving to, also gravity seems to be working just fine. God has created a working/moving Universe. Amazing, but amazing to the atheist view is Matter has defied the odds of actually doing something, and created a working/ moving Universe. Also, remember that Creationist do not like to answer where God came from, He just exist, oh yes He does.

Remember, if the path you have taken has lead you to either of these views, then consider this.... What is the rule?

I'm sorry, could you rephrase the question?

So using what little knowledge we have of the origin of matter, why then did you choose to take the path of atheism, instead of creationism. What rule did you follow to help you better see that matter just poofed everything into existance without any guidance?

My lack of belief in gods has nothing to do with the origin of matter.




Matter exists. That on a cosmological scale, everything is racing away from everything else and getting colder and less dense. Since the laws of physics are time reversible, the universe must have been hotter and denser in the past. The theory of a hot dense expanding universe satisfies observations made by telescopes.

Past that point, I don't know. But I do know that any competing theory would have to also explain the things that I can just look up into the sky and see.

Hi Jason,

Quote;everything is racing away from everything else and getting colder and less dense. Since the laws of physics are time reversible, the universe must have been hotter and denser in the past.

If your referring to the red shift,heres a few problems with that.

Not all stars are red,so not all of them are moving further away.In fact,some galaxies are colliding.

If you know very much about metal halide lighting then you know the color spectrum is determined by the gas and metal ratios in the bulb.Why would it be any different for stars?

Thanks.

I am appealing to the observed red shift in star spectra when I say that it is a fact that the universe is expanding and getting less dense. I also accept that there are places in the universe where (locally) things are colliding.



Stars do contain metals and other elements that show up as dark or light bands in the spectrum of their light that is received. Those lines are always in the same place, for example, neutral hydrogen always shows up brightest on the 21cm line. Red shift doesn't refer to the colour of a star, it refers to how far the stars spectrum is shifted towards the red end.

[quote=jason78,Nov 12 2008, 06:38 PM][QUOTE]Since the laws of physics are time reversible, the universe must have been hotter and denser in the past. The theory of a hot dense expanding universe satisfies observations made by telescopes.[/QUOTE]

What to you mean by "the laws of physics are time reversible"?

Terry

The big bang is senseless, it shows a very shoddy and slapped together hypothesis that even a 3 year old would see its flaws. All forms of stars and galaxies suddenly exploding into existance from absolutely nothing is a load of dinosaur coprolite and it is obvious. And speaking of dinosaur poop, denying the creator of the poop is like denying the creator of the universe. We haven't seen the creator therefore it must haved pooped, i mean popped itself into existance.

Just look, stars 100 times larger than planet earth just randomly popping into existance, or BANG!!! Matter just randomly expands into an entire universe. Don't you see how extremely flawed the big bang is??? To tell you the truth nothing could bang if there was nothing to bang in the first place.

You could try and say what about the origin of God, how did he just poof everything into existance??? How did God come into existance???? At least God has the know how to put together an entire UNIVERSE, where as matter in and of itself has no ability to create ANYTHING on its own.

Even if matter simply exist, it most certainly would not just bang an entire universe into existance, nor would it do this by trial and error. Simply because it does not have the ability to do so. Are humans now so desperate to disprove the existance of their own creator by giving inanimate objects human traits, and reasoning capabilites to create an entire universe from nothing????

I think that before one can reject the BB theory, one must try to understand it. The term 'Big Bang' is simply a popularized (and slightly humorous) label for an event that we are still very far from understanding.

What we know is that if we extrapolate the universe we can observe backwards in time, everthing appears to converge in a single point. Beyond that point, our present understanding of time, space, energy, and matter fails.

Hans

If that is what you think the big bang refers to then no wonder you find it ridiculous.

It is not what I think the big bang refers to, it is what the big bang refers to. And no amount of rainbow colored sprinkled hypothesis will change this.

Argument from ignorance.

Hans

Thats right! This entire argument is bogus, simply because the big bang is bogus.

I'm afraid it isn't. The Big Bang theory states that the matter that we see making up the universe now was hotter and denser in the past. Scientists have since found evidence to support that theory.

As far as I know, no scientist has ever put forth the speculation you just have.

A good book to read on the subject is Stephen Hawkins "A Brief History of Time"

It's basically a beginners guide to how the universe got started. You'll like it, there's even a bit on God in there.

Again, I think it is worth remembering the history of the Big Bang theory.

At the beginning of the last century, the most popular theory was the steady state theory of the universe: a universe with no beginning. A Belgian priest and mathematician (Georges Lemaitre: a man who dedicated his life to God) followed the evidence - and his math - and argued that the universe had a beginning. Lemaitre argued that this work pointed to "a day without yesterday" where both space and time converged on a singularity. Initially, this theory was rejected by most scientists: including Einstein.

The term "Big Bang" was coined by the atheist Fred Hoyle to mock the concept which he saw as a 'Christian' creation theory. However, the multiple lines of evidence for the "Big Bang" convinced Einstein and today most of the scientific community - despite the religious overtones. By 1933, Einstein described the theory as both "beautiful" and "satisfactory".

I therefore find it curious when I see Christians use the phrase "Big Bang" in a mocking tone much as Hoyle did. This is one of the great examples of a theory proposed by a devout Christian which became the dominant theory because it was supported by the evidence.

Here is a nice photo of Einstein with Lemaitre

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...ce/sc0022.htmll

James

What I mean is that physical laws are symmetrical over time.

Yes hotter and denser so on and so forth, but lets open the box up to what the hypothesis is stating. Planets, stars, and the entire universe just expanded into existance. Atheist like to put God in the picture because it stumps their logic to think that planets just expanded into existance.

Red shifts/ Blue shifts. The movement of the planets that we see through telescopes. So if we see other planets moving through the telescope, then this automatically means that all the planets in the universe came from one central location in the universe, and that the universe itself is finite. Now, if we see the planets shifting with the Hubble telescope, what does this mean for the planets we see shifting while we are positioned on earth. Does this mean the earth is stationary?

Because in space, their isn't supposed to be any friction so you cannot slow down save for gravity. Is this correct? So why is everything else moving but not the earth? This makes no sense, and can you explain it for me.

Methinks you should read some elementary books on astronomy. Don't worry, there is absolutely nothing religious (ot antireligious) about astronomy; it's all about empirically observable facts.

But, yes, there is no friction in space. Objects may loose energy for other reasons, but generally, they just go on, once given a push.

The Earth is moving too, but we tend to use it as a reference, because this happens to be the spot we view everything from.

Hans

You know, using telescopes we see the formation of new stars, which are not in-sync with the big bang hypothesis. Also, why would solar systems exist, simply because they are spinning in their own direction, totally ignoring the unity of the great expansion.

The big bang also does not explain the existence of black holes, which are seemingly stationary. Ah yes, meteors also ignore this great expansion by following their own uniquie route through the solar system. So why all the order from a great misguided unorderly expansion?

Again, I urge you to actually seek information about astromomy, instead of just arguing from ignorance.

There is absolutely nothing in the BB theory that precludes new stars being formed continuously.



You are evidently missing the scale of things here. A solar system is a microscopic speck in the universe. The effect of expansion is not perceptible on a solar system scale. In fact, it is barely perceptible on the scale of a galaxy.



Where on Earth did you get the idea that black holes are stationary? Black holes are not particularly predicted by the BB theory, but they are indeed predicted by the laws of physics.



Meteors are also part of the solar system. Within that scale, the expansion of space is, as already mentioned, infinitessimal.

The order is guided by the laws of physics.

Hans

No, I am not missing anything about the solar systems being a large, but extremely small part of this universe. The thing strict atheist don't realize is that the expansion part isn't all that important, because in all reality how did solar systems that contain a rather good deal of gravity come into play. Also about the production of new stars, it is evident that there is NO banging or expansion of the universe from that vantage point going on there.

So, these new stars are not expanding with the rest of the universe, hmm this is strange because everything in the universe should be moving. Anyways, even if the entire universe is expanding, it poses no problem for a creationist model simply because that may just be the way God intended it to be. Because God created all things with age during the creation. It only makes sense that God would have done this simply because thats how we as humans need it to be just to view the light being produced by stars, and galaxys from our position here on earth.

Anyways, I have taken your advice about looking into astronomy. Very interesting stuff really.

Solar systems don't contain gravity. It's a fundamental force of attraction that exists between all matter.



You're right there. New stars are formed by the collapse of gas clouds.



Space is expanding on a universal scale. Everything in the universe is moving relative to everything else.



That is one major flaw of the creationist model. Everything could be just how God wanted it to be. But that doesn't help matters. Just looking at the way the universe behaves, we can come up with new technologies to help make our lives better.

And that can still be just the way God wants it.

It poses no problem, the extremely major problem for atheist, is that the creation of the universe doesn't line up with atheistical beliefs. Solar systems are just attracted to each other because of the fundamental force that exist between matter, really, you are stating that solar systems attraction exist simply because thats the way it's supposed to be.

Gravity itself is hard to explain, the origin of matter is hard to explain, and the great expansion which is only based on sketchy redshifting ideas really doesn't help anything either.

The first time I saw the CERN collider, and the outrageous claims that all these atheistical scientist were making about how crashing particles together would prove the big bang, I thought it was rediculous. It will quite possibly go down in history as the single most largest waste of money ever. Crashing particles together or protons would most definetly not prove anything.

The colliding Galaxies we see also provide more problems for the expanding universe theory, simply because galaxies should not be moving toward each other, and if they all came from a central location or from the same point of expansion they would not be doing this. This almost single handedly proves the Big Bang theory wrong. Unless these galaxies were created after the Big Bang.

Also after doing some research on the collapse of gas clouds, we see that stars cannot be produced this way, simply because gas expands, and would not have the ability to create a planet or a star. Because gas clouds do NOT compress, and has yet to be scientifically proven.

It's not a problem, you can conduct scientific experiments and get the same results no matter what your beliefs are.



No, I'm stating that gravity exists as an attractive fundamental force in the universe. We can measure that force with great accuracy using experiments derived from theories about that force.



It is hard to explain what we know about gravity fully. Most of it involves a lot of physics and maths. But there are people that know a lot more about it than me and spend a lot of time in telescopes checking this kind of thing. Mostly because if they can find an observation that the theory doesn't explain, or even better, prompts a new better theory they could win a Nobel prize.



No super collider on its own will ever prove the big bang. The big bang theory might not even pan out. But any theory that replaces it is going to have to include a red shift, an expansion of space, a weak gravitational force, a finite speed of light and a homogeneous hot dense universe.

When they do experiments where they crash particles together they can smash into each other to make even more energetic particles like scientists would expect to find in the early universe. Studying these particles helps us understand more about how the world around us works.



Space is expanding on a universal scale. Everything is moving. Some things are moving towards each other on a local scale.

Some galaxies moving towards each other in local regions of space doesn't overturn the observation that most everything else is getting more distant.



Since a lot of telescope time is taken up by astronomers observing gas clouds collapsing to form young stars I would argue that they do. A suitably massive gas cloud will collapse under the force of gravity and as the gas falls in, compresses and gets denser it gets hotter because of Boyle and his laws. Eventually it becomes hot enough for nuclear fusion to start.

And a star is born!

You know, I truly don't think the vast amounts of lightyears having to be travelled long distances through space disproves or proves creationism. Simply because God created everything with age during the Creation.

Just think, If Adam were brought back from the past, being only 2 weeks old and then carried over to a room filled with scientist. The scientist would have a fit over Adam claiming to be 2 weeks old. Simply because Adam appears to be 25 years old, yet there is absolutely no evidence that he is 2 weeks old. Adams claim of being 2 weeks old is not testable, and he will not convince anyone of his true age without God appearing and telling everyone so.

This idea I have is simple, and I don't expect my position to be convincing. But this is basically what one would have to interpret the Creation account by taking it Literally.

If you could go back into the past and pick up Adam, you could side step the whole problem nicely by just going straight to God himself as he's walking through the Garden of Eden.

You could even go and have a chat to Eve and stop her from eating the apple that goes on to cause so much suffering in the world afterwards. You might even be able to persuade God not to plant the Tree of Knowledge in the first place!

Mystery of missing hydrogen Something vital is missing in the far distant reaches of the Universe: hydrogen - the raw material for stars, planets and possible life.

The discovery of its apparent absence from distant galaxies by a team of Australian astronomers is puzzling because hydrogen gas is the most common constituent of normal matter in the Universe.

If anything, hydrogen was expected to be more abundant so early in the life of the Universe because it had not yet been consumed by the formation of all the stars and galaxies we know today.

Dr Steve Curran and colleagues at the University of New South Wales made their observations with the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope in India, which comprises thirty 45-metre-diameter dishes and is one of the world's most sensitive radio telescopes. The results are to be published in a forthcoming issue of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

By looking at galaxies in which the light has taken over 11.5 billion years to reach us, they found an apparent lack of hydrogen when the Universe was only two billion years old - long before our own Sun and all other stars in the present Universe had formed.

Stars form when extremely cold clouds of hydrogen collapse under their own gravity until they become dense enough to ignite nuclear fusion. Over billions of years, this leads the formation of the heavier elements that make up planets, people and other matter. Each galaxy should contain gas masses equivalent to several billion stars, as in the Milky Way.

"Since hydrogen gas is consumed by star formation, we may expect more hydrogen gas in the distant, and therefore earlier, Universe as all of the stars we see today have yet to form," Dr Curran says.

Nice quote. What's your point?