Try using some more appropriate words next time...ones that don't require me to use my knowledge of English outside of school!
Yes, the models are not complete and closed models, but I was not implying that they were closed models.
You see, in reality, it does not matter if they are closed models or not, as what I am implying does not rely on this.
If you want an example that is a closed model, look at the symbiotic relationship between a Clownfish and a Sea Anemonie...amenomie...anenemie...ANENOME! These two creatures live in symbiosis with each other, if this didn't exist they wouldn't survive.
Now the relevance of this piece of information is I find it hard to believe that an explosion (or a giant expansion of matter...) could create a relationship between these two creatures so that they can both survive.
And it is not just this one example; symbiosis occurs a lot throughout nature.
Can I just point out to the agnostics posting here, that agnosticism isn't really so much a 'belief' as a logical standpoint. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.
How could you not? Do YOU think that the trees, planets, stars, animals, and humans were/are products of a random act? I dont think so. Theres a quote in the bible, that jesus answered to when he was asked:
"What would happen to a person if he has never heard of the Lord God?".
And Jesus replied "The trees, earth, and every creature that walks on it, from the smallest insect to the behomoths of the deep, scream out in praise to the Lord God."
Now the relevance of this piece of information is I find it hard to believe that an explosion (or a giant expansion of matter...) could create a relationship between these two creatures so that they can both survive.
This is based upon a completely flawed knowledge of the big bang. It didn't suddenly create life, but it created planets and all current matter. That matter became Earth, and over billions of years, the species we have now. Part of believing the big bang theory is believing evolution, and evolution can explain that as well. It may have been that millions of years ago, they didn't need that relationship, but some of the species developed mutations that made a relationship like that more favorable, meaning both of the animals in the relationship survived longer and were more likely to pass on their genes to create more of the animals with the favorable mutation that allowed that relation. A changing environment may have eventually made it necessary, or it came to a point where the species relied upon each other completely after so much time in that relationship.
Simply believing in God because its easier to explain though........ I find it hard to believe that a god, who people claim to be merciful, loving and forgiving would have done some of the things in the bible, or cast Adam and Eve out of the garden in the first place. Forgiving doesn't really seem to be in his nature. Plus, according to the laws of our universe he really couldn't exist, although we shouldn't really exist either. What I'm saying is don't just believe in a God because it explains things better, when that explanation is just as flawed a scientific one, even if it is easier to understand.
I have thought it at a lot and I think that a God or something superior might exist, but we can't have any proof of his existence. The reason why I believe this is that I can't and nobody can explain from where and how the chemical substances (matter?) were found and created. I know I did not explain it well, but at least I tried.
I find it hard to believe that such a complex system could be caused by a 'giant explosion.'
Learn 2 science mate.
There are lots of reasons that made the actual universe for us.
One was the atomical change hydrogen to helium: if it wouldn't be that, our universe would be pure hydrogen.
Second is light speed, nuclear forces, electromagnetism forces, gravity atraction....
If those wouldn't be like it is now, our universe could be 100% different. We're just the product of a random process. Else, we can't know how many time this happened, and we can't know how much lucky we are, we had the perfect conditions for life.
It's not "an explosion", it's random and logical actions which made the actual universe: and, if you know, first big bang, later, big crunch.
You can't know how many times that happened, so you can't know how many universe with those different conditions were before us.
I believe in God and I have a question for everyone who doesn't. How did everything get on earth? Answer truthfully.
Let me put this simply so you can understand, just like your Christian ideas 1. Big Bang creates all matter after a super-condensed atom "explodes" 2. For billions of years earth forms 3. Life develops, although the details on this aren't exact since it was billions of years ago, at least scientists aren't so lazy just to say God created it. 4. Over billions more years evolution happens, leaving us with what we have today, animals, plants, everything.
How could you not? Do YOU think that the trees, planets, stars, animals, and humans were/are products of a random act? I dont think so. Theres a quote in the bible, that jesus answered to when he was asked:[i]
No, I don't. Again, flawed understanding of the big bang/evolution. The big bang was random, yes, but evolution, although not with a purpose, is not random. Species that develop favorable aspects are more likely to survive and spread, while those who are weaker are more likely to die. 90% of people who use this excuse don't understand the Big Bang theory or evolution, so until you do some research stop asking like this is an ace in the hole
Yes, not even the top scientist can explain. if u dont believe me then watch the Movie Explled.[i]
Not even top Christians can explain God, instead using "he's mysterious" and "he works in unknown ways" when questions get too much for them. Christianity is just as flawed in science, yet since it explains it in a much sorter, easier to understand way, you're going to believe in it?
Plus, doesn't the bible state that God created the Earth in seven days or something like that? If that's true, why isn't the rest of the universe mentioned? If it took seven days for all trillions of planets, Christianity's 6,000 years of existence theory is a little off.
Simply believing in God because its easier to explain though........ I find it hard to believe that a god, who people claim to be merciful, loving and forgiving would have done some of the things in the bible, or cast Adam and Eve out of the garden in the first place. Forgiving doesn't really seem to be in his nature. Plus, according to the laws of our universe he really couldn't exist, although we shouldn't really exist either. What I'm saying is don't just believe in a God because it explains things better, when that explanation is just as flawed a scientific one, even if it is easier to understand.
So assuming your 'right', if everything in the universe was made by a big bang, how do you get non-living things like helium and rocks, and such, and get life? Doesnt make sense. If what your saying is true, then your saying that Abiogenesis is true, and its not. Life can not come from non-living matter, like atoms, elements, and rocks. Abiogenesis was proven wrong when in 1668, Francesco Redi experimented with rotten meat. Covering meat with a screen, he found that swarming flies desposited eggs on the screen, rather than springing to life from the meat itself. In 1860, French scientist Louis Pasteur followed this up with some experiments showing that even microscopic organisms like bacteria do not arise spontaneously. He was able to determine that bacterial spores floated in the air, landed in various labortatory mistures, and then grew into noticeable life forms. When these mistures wre properly cleaned and kept protected from bacterial spores in the air, no bacteria was found growin gin the mixtures. Following Pasteur, scientist rejected spontaneos generation as an explanation for the sudden appearince of organisms.
(Spontaneous generation- The idea that living organisms sprouted directly from such things as hay and rotten meat [mice from hay, and fly's from meat])
I find it hard to believe that such a complex system could be caused by a 'giant explosion.'
Learn 2 science mate.
There are lots of reasons that made the actual universe for us.
One was the atomical change hydrogen to helium: if it wouldn't be that, our universe would be pure hydrogen.
Second is light speed, nuclear forces, electromagnetism forces, gravity atraction....
If those wouldn't be like it is now, our universe could be 100% different. We're just the product of a random process. Else, we can't know how many time this happened, and we can't know how much lucky we are, we had the perfect conditions for life.
It's not "an explosion", it's random and logical actions which made the actual universe: and, if you know, first big bang, later, big crunch.
You can't know how many times that happened, so you can't know how many universe with those different conditions were before us.
1. Big Bang creates all matter after a super-condensed atom "explodes" 2. For billions of years earth forms 3. Life develops, although the details on this aren't exact since it was billions of years ago, at least scientists aren't so lazy just to say God created it. 4. Over billions more years evolution happens, leaving us with what we have today, animals, plants, everything.
1. How did that little molecule get there in the first place? 2. The earth made itself? How? 3. Details aren't exact, that's pretty convenient, that way we can't ask them HOW life formed. 4. Evolution was discredited by its creator, that proves it's fake.
Following Pasteur, scientist rejected spontaneos generation as an explanation for the sudden appearince of organisms.
We're restricted to testing these things within our own environment, A.K.A Earth. For all we know, they're materials out there that can somehow become living. Of course, that's a little far-fetched, but think about our base structure. We consist of Atoms, as does everything in the universe. We come from the same base material as was emitted from the big bang, and although its unlikely a conscious, living organism was created from that, its possible that atoms combined in a way that created an unintelligent microscopic organism that absorbed other other atoms as a source for growing. Honestly, I shouldn't even be trying to explain this since I have no backing in it, but I can say that if you think about those experiments, they tested things that thought came from spontaneous grow and proved they didn't. That doesn't mean life doesn't form spontaneously, it just means those species don't. So while those two tests prove that flies and some forms of bacteria don't spontaneously form on Earth, there's an entire universe out there that we haven't explored or even begun to understand, even our own planets a mystery, so perhaps there is a form of life that changes from non-living material to living.
