Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I’m not a scientist, but I do know science can’t tell us what started the universe.
You're correct, but that doesn't mean "god dunnit".
What it means that although science knows that happened a millisecond after the Big Bang, they don't know what happened the millisecond before it.
Lots of hypothesis, on that, none which YET can be tested. That doesn't mean they won't have a test tomorrow, or next year or century.
I have my personal favorite.
I tend to believe in the concept of multiverses, and the same physics that control our universe act on a larger basis. That multiverse always existed, but is constantly evolving.
We know in our own universe that stars develop, grow, expand, explode and collapse, and then start all over again. I would like to think, but don't know, that same concept occurs in the multiverse with universes.
We know that black holes are very, very dense, so why would the gravitational force of other universes not cause even denser entities, ones that eventually expand to develop new universes. Certainly the physics of small particles hold true and are mirrored in our and other solar systems, as well as galaxies. Why would those concepts not carry forward on a multiverse basis?
Physicists differ on that hypothesis, and not all support it. But none say, we don't know, so "god dunnit". They just say, "we don't know", and that is a perfectly good answer.
I don't see too great a mystery in the creation of the universe. I see it as the end result of a long process of the effects of time dilation and the things that go on at the quantum level of spacetime. You've heard of Hawking's virtual particle pairs? And of course, relativity.
What I do find nonsensical and perhaps even ridiculous is the notion of creation out of nothing. Makes no sense to me. God spoke the word and there everything was. Man was created out of clay (I take that to be a clay figurine) with life breathed into it. Makes no sense at all.
Seriously, the odds of life developing as it has through such a long and random process is virtually non-existent.
How do you explain the beginnng of it all without a mover of some sort?
You're correct, but that doesn't mean "god dunnit".
What it means that although science knows that happened a millisecond after the Big Bang, they don't know what happened the millisecond before it.
Lots of hypothesis, on that, none which YET can be tested. That doesn't mean they won't have a test tomorrow, or next year or century.
I have my personal favorite.
I tend to believe in the concept of multiverses, and the same physics that control our universe act on a larger basis. That multiverse always existed, but is constantly evolving.
We know in our own universe that stars develop, grow, expand, explode and collapse, and then start all over again. I would like to think, but don't know, that same concept occurs in the multiverse with universes.
We know that black holes are very, very dense, so why would the gravitational force of other universes not cause even denser entities, ones that eventually expand to develop new universes. Certainly the physics of small particles hold true and are mirrored in our and other solar systems, as well as galaxies. Why would those concepts not carry forward on a multiverse basis?
Physicists differ on that hypothesis, and not all support it. But none say, we don't know, so "god dunnit". They just say, "we don't know", and that is a perfectly good answer.
Make sense?
A creator of some sort would easily answer that question, no?
Seriously, the odds of life developing as it has through such a long and random process is virtually non-existent.
How do you explain the beginnng of it all without a mover of some sort?
Scientists already have been able to produce RNA in a lab, the precursor protein to DNA. More so, they have been able to have that RNA replicate itself. We now know that RNA can also act as enzymes (called ribozymes) to speed chemical reactions. In a number of clinically important viruses RNA, rather than DNA, carries the viral genetic information.
RNA also plays an important role in regulating cellular processes–from cell division, differentiation and growth to cell aging and death. In other words, RNA is an integral part of life, and life cannot exist without it.
Specifically, the researchers synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely. "Immortalized" RNA, they call it, at least within the limited conditions of a laboratory.
Is it life? Nope, not yet. But it is self-replicating, which all life forms do. Scientists are on the doorstep of producing life in a petri dish.
I’m not a scientist, but I do know science can’t tell us what started the universe.
Sure it can. Quantum mechanics is the root cause of everything. You don't understand the nature of quantum mechanics though, and quantum mechanics doesn't serve to make you special. So you go right on declaring that science can’t tell us what started the universe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about an unmoved mover? Isn’t that what religion says?
