• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How Old is the Earth?

anomoly said:
milkrun, how do you explain the existence of matter? It can't just have always existed. That is impossible. I must have come from somewhere. Energy can be converted to matter, and vis-versa, but how can you explain the existence of energy without using the existence of some God?
That's how I look at it too. If the universe has a starting point in time, then matter must have been created out of nothing. The only way to explain breaking that many laws of physics is to say God must have done it.

But then, how did God come into existance? Who or what created God? I guess nothing created God, God has just always been there. But if you can say that about God, you can say that about the universe. Nothing created the universe, it's just always been there. And that nullifies the premise: if the universe has a starting point in time. So I don't think the universe has a starting point. It's just always been there.

If the universe has always been there, and God has always been there, then maybe both sides are right. Or maybe God IS the universe and only the Wiccans are right. Either way, my head hurts. :mrgreen:
 
Binary_Digit said:
That's how I look at it too. If the universe has a starting point in time, then matter must have been created out of nothing. The only way to explain breaking that many laws of physics is to say God must have done it.

But then, how did God come into existance? Who or what created God? I guess nothing created God, God has just always been there. But if you can say that about God, you can say that about the universe. Nothing created the universe, it's just always been there. And that nullifies the premise: if the universe has a starting point in time. So I don't think the universe has a starting point. It's just always been there.

If the universe has always been there, and God has always been there, then maybe both sides are right. Or maybe God IS the universe and only the Wiccans are right. Either way, my head hurts. :mrgreen:

Yes, logic can be circular. I guess when it comes to God, the universe and our existence we tend to find proof where we want to. For me proving God's existence through logic is an illogically task.
 
I'd like to return to milkrun's point that no one with a mind that can think can believe in the existence of God, as I am forced to take umbrage with this. It would seem to me that there are several seemingly intelligent and well-educated posters in this very thread who believe in the existence of God. Albert Eisntein (whom most would say was possessed of a superbly thinking mind) never found evidence in his exploration of the universe to cause him to discard God. Strangely enough, milkrun then returns to the premise that "nothing is impossible" - not a very rational statement. I can personally think of two or three impossible things without even trying very hard.

"Religion is a business". Yes, that is true. That is the nature of man, not religion. Give me the purest, most sacred thing in your world, and if it can be packaged mankind will make it a profitable business within a generation.

"Religion is used to control the low classes". First, are there really still Marxists around? I thought they died out in the mid-90's. I haven't heard the "opiate of the people" argument in ages. I will not argue that religion has some use in controlling the masses, if controlling the masses is something you are interested in. Religion however, has also been responsible for many political revolts and upheavals. A ruler who relies upon religion to control his people is by definition relying on something outside of his control. This is something the Communists realized, and therefore they replaced an otherworldly deity which they could not control (God) with a worldly deity they could (the Party, the State, the Chairman, etc...)

By the way, I bet milkrun - who referred to "certain low class people" considers himself a tolerant, open-minded, compassionate, progressive. Isn't irony wonderful?
 
By the way, I bet milkrun - who referred to "certain low class people" considers himself a tolerant, open-minded, compassionate, progressive. Isn't irony wonderful?
Irony is right!

Milkrun, do you really need to know what name-calling is? Calling religious people mindless...there's a start.
 
walrus said:
I'd like to return to milkrun's point that no one with a mind that can think can believe in the existence of God, as I am forced to take umbrage with this. It would seem to me that there are several seemingly intelligent and well-educated posters in this very thread who believe in the existence of God. Albert Eisntein (whom most would say was possessed of a superbly thinking mind) never found evidence in his exploration of the universe to cause him to discard God. Strangely enough, milkrun then returns to the premise that "nothing is impossible" - not a very rational statement. I can personally think of two or three impossible things without even trying very hard.

"Religion is a business". Yes, that is true. That is the nature of man, not religion. Give me the purest, most sacred thing in your world, and if it can be packaged mankind will make it a profitable business within a generation.

"Religion is used to control the low classes". First, are there really still Marxists around? I thought they died out in the mid-90's. I haven't heard the "opiate of the people" argument in ages. I will not argue that religion has some use in controlling the masses, if controlling the masses is something you are interested in. Religion however, has also been responsible for many political revolts and upheavals. A ruler who relies upon religion to control his people is by definition relying on something outside of his control. This is something the Communists realized, and therefore they replaced an otherworldly deity which they could not control (God) with a worldly deity they could (the Party, the State, the Chairman, etc...)

By the way, I bet milkrun - who referred to "certain low class people" considers himself a tolerant, open-minded, compassionate, progressive. Isn't irony wonderful?
Walrus,
My statement "Nothing is Impossible" does not imply that anything is possible. I meant to convey the premise that the complete non-existence of matter and energy, the "Universe", is Impossible. The absence of stuff, or even the space that stuff would occupy, is impossible. Something has existed, matter or the space that would hold matter, forever. And that something will continue to exist forever because it is impossible to destroy, completely, anything. The Universe is in perpetual existance and motion and cannot go anywhere else.

Now, about religion being a business. I ask you to point out any religious organization which does not take in money to fund it's growth and continued existence. Even the most austere sects must operate some form of business trade to survive. The Quakers come to mind as a good example. Even Jesus had to take food, shelter and clothing from people. Of course, the Catholic Church, with whom I was educated by and served as an altar boy, never talked about the practical aspects of Jesus's life and work.

The history of religion is the same as the history of human beings. Mostly it is a history of hiding the truth from the masses.
 
milkrun said:
Walrus,
My statement "Nothing is Impossible" does not imply that anything is possible. I meant to convey the premise that the complete non-existence of matter and energy, the "Universe", is Impossible. The absence of stuff, or even the space that stuff would occupy, is impossible. Something has existed, matter or the space that would hold matter, forever. And that something will continue to exist forever because it is impossible to destroy, completely, anything. The Universe is in perpetual existance and motion and cannot go anywhere else.

Actually "nothing is impossible" does mean anything is possible. This is not a religious or philosophical point - it's just logic. It's a reciprocally convertible proposition. If nothing is impossible, everything must be possible. It isn't religion - it's simply the English language. The second point in the paragraph - by the statement that void is not possible I take it that you discard the big bang theory. That is interesting because it is fairly well accepted at this point. You seem to be absolutely certain on a matter that the most capable scientific and philosophical minds on Earth can not answer. Do you have an alternate theory?

milkrun said:
Now, about religion being a business. I ask you to point out any religious organization which does not take in money to fund it's growth and continued existence. Even the most austere sects must operate some form of business trade to survive. The Quakers come to mind as a good example. Even Jesus had to take food, shelter and clothing from people. Of course, the Catholic Church, with whom I was educated by and served as an altar boy, never talked about the practical aspects of Jesus's life and work.

Either you did not read or did not understand my post. If you will look carefully you will see that I agreed that religion is a business. I in no way claimed that there are religions which do not require the donations of the faithful in order to continue. If your particular church never mentioned the practical aspects of Jesus' ministry I am truly sorry. I can assure you that that is not typical for most Catholic churches or any other denomination with which I am familiar.

milkrun said:
The history of religion is the same as the history of human beings. Mostly it is a history of hiding the truth from the masses.

The powerful always hide truth from the masses, whether the powerful are in science, religion, government, or media. It's the way of the world and has nothing specifically to do with religion. As I said, this is the nature of man, not God.
 
So the big bang exploded from a void? It is my understanding that the Universe was compacted into a small mass which, for some unknown reason, expanded and is still expanding. The matter had to pre-exist the big bang in some form. Why would a "Supernatural Being", who has no beginning, create matter at some point in time? Wouldn't it have always been there in some form?

It is impossible for us to imagine the existence of "nothing". Space, time, matter and energy simply cannot create itself. God had no beginning, so why would he create something that has time attached to it? The only thing that makes sense is that there is no creator, and the universe has always existed.
 
No, the big bang exploded into a void. I have never suggested that I have all of the answers for the origin of the universe. You are the one who seems to have it figured out from your armchair.

So, because God is eternal - the universe can not be. And if the universe is eternal, there can be no God. Have I got this straight? The proof of the non-existence of God is contained within the eternity of the universe?

No one has suggested that space, time, or matter created themselves. I have suggested that an outside power did it. The fact that the laws of the natural universe would see to preclude the spontaneous creation of matter certainly does not prohibit it's supernatural creation.

How do you know nothing existed prior to the big bang? Perhaps the universe is endlessly cycling through expansion and contraction. Perhaps this is the third, fourth, or four billionth rendition of this universe.

Why wouldn't a supernatural being create matter at some point in time? Everything within the universe must be located on the space-time continuum.

The most ironic thing about this entire conversation is that you contemptuously discard the beliefs of those who see the hand of God in the universe. Then you present a proposal with no scientific basis, no evidence,and no real logic. Sounds like you are taking an awful lot on faith .
 
walrus said:
No, the big bang exploded into a void. I have never suggested that I have all of the answers for the origin of the universe. You are the one who seems to have it figured out from your armchair.

So, because God is eternal - the universe can not be. And if the universe is eternal, there can be no God. Have I got this straight? The proof of the non-existence of God is contained within the eternity of the universe?

No one has suggested that space, time, or matter created themselves. I have suggested that an outside power did it. The fact that the laws of the natural universe would see to preclude the spontaneous creation of matter certainly does not prohibit it's supernatural creation.

How do you know nothing existed prior to the big bang? Perhaps the universe is endlessly cycling through expansion and contraction. Perhaps this is the third, fourth, or four billionth rendition of this universe.

Why wouldn't a supernatural being create matter at some point in time? Everything within the universe must be located on the space-time continuum.

The most ironic thing about this entire conversation is that you contemptuously discard the beliefs of those who see the hand of God in the universe. Then you present a proposal with no scientific basis, no evidence,and no real logic. Sounds like you are taking an awful lot on faith .
"Why wouldn't a supernatural being create matter at some point in time?"

This question is at the heart of the issue. God, being a supernatural spirit being who has always existed, has no past or future because of the absence of time in his existence. A supreme being who has no beginning does not experience the passage of time. Therefore, he wouldn't have waited to "create" the universe since that would require the concept of time. The only explaination for the universe is that "it" has always existed in some form, not God.

The simple fact that the universe, and everything in it, is self continuing without any assistance form a supernatural being. Why study physics? Because the physical laws of the universe conform to consistent actions and reactions. We don't need a God to take care of his creations. Nature is self regulating. The universe is in a balanced, rythmic, perpetual motion which needs no external power to keep it going.

If God exists, great. But he is not doing anything because everything is bound by natural laws and cannot exist outside those laws.

Your comment that if God is eternal, then the universe cannot be is what every religion believes. But if the universe had no beginning, then God did. And that's something which, if all humans accepted, would change the future of the human race for the better. Because then we would know that we need to take care of each other and the place we live.
 
This is why I hated science in high school and biology in college. Astronomy was interesting, until the professor busted out actual scientific terms. I feel even more dumb having read all this.

Having said all that, I think earth is 6,001 years old. Don't forget to calculate the molecular structure in which the sugar compounds break off at 40 degrees below kelvin. Jello Pudding Pop. CLAIRE!
 
How old is the Earth?


HhMm...

It's really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, old. No wait, I forgot a "really." There, that does it.....LOL.
 
This question is at the heart of the issue. God, being a supernatural spirit being who has always existed, has no past or future because of the absence of time in his existence. A supreme being who has no beginning does not experience the passage of time. Therefore, he wouldn't have waited to "create" the universe since that would require the concept of time. The only explaination for the universe is that "it" has always existed in some form, not God.

Of course this rests on the assumption that our universe is the first universe and the first thing created. That is a bold presumption, because there is of course no evidence to support it. He may not have "waited" to create this universe, but rather this could be a complete cycle, who knows what number creation God made in this fashion. Also, who knows what other types of creations have existed before us. You are thinking on a very micro level. That it must be our universe that has lasted forever. But that is not likely.

If God exists, great. But he is not doing anything because everything is bound by natural laws and cannot exist outside those laws.
How many machines do you know of that are self-regulating? But does that mean that they can continue to exist without tweeking? Of course not. Furthermore, the soul of a person, the being of him, is not self regulating. It is endlessly seeking. What would be the sense of evolution to create animal that seeks a higher being? There is no scientific rational behind that.
Your comment that if God is eternal, then the universe cannot be is what every religion believes. But if the universe had no beginning, then God did. And that's something which, if all humans accepted, would change the future of the human race for the better. Because then we would know that we need to take care of each other and the place we live.
Fair enough. But what evidence could you begin to provide to suggest that the universe is eternal? And I dissagree with your solution. If we accepted that the world was a creation by our loving Father, then we would appreciate it as a place. If we appreciated each other as creations of our Father, then we would learn to love each other as we love ourselves. Knowing you are not even a speck in the Sahara certainly does not seem to lead too many people to be better to the persons around them.
 
sebastiansdreams said:
Of course this rests on the assumption that our universe is the first universe and the first thing created. That is a bold presumption, because there is of course no evidence to support it. He may not have "waited" to create this universe, but rather this could be a complete cycle, who knows what number creation God made in this fashion. Also, who knows what other types of creations have existed before us. You are thinking on a very micro level. That it must be our universe that has lasted forever. But that is not likely.


How many machines do you know of that are self-regulating? But does that mean that they can continue to exist without tweeking? Of course not. Furthermore, the soul of a person, the being of him, is not self regulating. It is endlessly seeking. What would be the sense of evolution to create animal that seeks a higher being? There is no scientific rational behind that.

Fair enough. But what evidence could you begin to provide to suggest that the universe is eternal? And I dissagree with your solution. If we accepted that the world was a creation by our loving Father, then we would appreciate it as a place. If we appreciated each other as creations of our Father, then we would learn to love each other as we love ourselves. Knowing you are not even a speck in the Sahara certainly does not seem to lead too many people to be better to the persons around them.
The universe is eternal because matter cannot be destroyed, it can only change forms. This means that, for an example, there is as much water today as there has always been. It's form changes from liquid to solid to gas in different amounts over time. But the total quantity can't increase or decrease over time.

The same goes for all forms of matter. It can't be destroyed. So how will the universe end? Only by it's creator willing it to be gone. Are we just game pieces to amuse God? The Greeks thought so thru their religion.

Religion is a business. God doesn't exist. Life will go on forever under it's own power. We are temporary minds trying to feel immortal.
 
Since the Earth began to produce life, it has stood for 6-10 billion years, however, since the Earth formed into a new planet, a small star of gass forming ground through sediments from space, it has stood 24-40 billion years. Couldn't you have found this in a book?
 
Walrus writes:

The universe is almost certainly not infinite. There are various evidences for this but one of the simplest is this - If the universe were infinite (and by extension populated with stars at the same ratio throughout) then any place you looked in the sky would contain a star. The night sky would be literally solid stars.

The above is known as *Olbers Paradox*. The foremost answer to this paradox is that the "observable universe" is finite. One must also remember that existant light photons farther away than our cosmic horizon (our current peer-back capability) have not yet reached us.

A secondary reason for Olbers Paradox is that as our universe expands, distant light becomes more redshifted. In astrophysics, "z" is the notation which denotes redshift. The farther one peers into the universe, the greater the value of z. Contrary to intuitive thought, this increasing value of z applies not to celestial objects per se, but to the accelerating fabric of the universe.


 
anomaly said:
science shows that matter cannot come from nowhere. Matter can't just disappear, likewise it can't just appear, though it can be converted into energy, but again energy can't just appear...therefore something must have created all this matter we see.


Due to the quantum nature of our universe, particles of matter do indeed pop in and out of existence. In science these are known as *virtual particles*. Virtual particles always pop into existence as oppositely charged pairs and eventually annihilate one another. The longevity of the virtual pair is dependent on size... the greater the size the shorter the lifespan. Although the void of space appears to be quite empty, it actually teems with virtual energy. Numerous laboratory experiments have shown that virtual particles in a vacuum chamber exert enough pressure to measurably move metal plates.


 
milkrun said:
The universe is eternal because matter cannot be destroyed, it can only change forms. This means that, for an example, there is as much water today as there has always been. It's form changes from liquid to solid to gas in different amounts over time. But the total quantity can't increase or decrease over time.

In our universe, yes, that is thre case. Matter is not created or destroyed, just changed. But your conclusion from this is far too narrow. The universe may at some point start from scratch. I've always thought of it this way: a painter doesn't actually bring into being the materials that he uses in a work of art. But few people would question that what they end up in is their creation. And if that artist was to scrap their work, they might not be destroying the materials that went into it, but the organization of it is no longer part of it. I don't think that we are just game pieces to amuze God. Rather we are His creation. We are His works of art. Every changing, ever in the process of developement.

Religion is a business. God doesn't exist. Life will go on forever under it's own power. We are temporary minds trying to feel immortal.
Life will go on forever under it's own power? That's an incredibly interesting proposition. You are suggesting that life, something that for as far as we know for certain began here on earth only billions of years ago, has been around eternally, and will continue to be around eternally? This is certainly as bold as stating that there is a God. And there is no more proof in your corner than there is in mine. But, the difference is that I can say that I have experienced God on a personal level. That you cannot offer. And again I ask you, if we are only part of the evolutionary process, then why are we led to seek a higher being? What evolutionary purpose does that serve us? If there is indeed no creator, then why would we evolve to believe that there is one?
 
Thanks Tashah, I knew that quantum mechanics allowed for the creation of matter in certain circumstances, but I don't understand it well enough to use it in an argument. I seem to remember that there are also circumstances in quantum mechanics which allow matter (or energy) to be destroyed as well. Is this the case?

You cite Olber's Paradox as an answer to whether the universe is infinite. Do you believe that it is? No challenge here - you just seem well-informed on the subject and I'd be interested in your thoughts.

milkrun said:
The universe is eternal because matter cannot be destroyed, it can only change forms. This means that, for an example, there is as much water today as there has always been. It's form changes from liquid to solid to gas in different amounts over time. But the total quantity can't increase or decrease over time.

Really bad example. Any third grader can create water where none existed before with hydrogen, oxygen and a match. Granted, in this case matter is neither created or destroyed but water is. The atomic hydrogen and oxygen still exist in the same masses they did previous, but they have been recombined to form a new molecule - water. Water can also be easily destroyed, pass a live wire into a glass of water and bingo! - you separate it into hydrogen and oxygen. Without sufficient energy to catalyze them into recombining - the water that was will never be again, hence it is destroyed. Water is in fact both created and destroyed each time lightning strikes. Some of the energy liberated causes water to separate into component hydrogen and oxygen. Some the the energy liberated causes atmospheric oxygen and hydrogen to combine into water.

I still find it interesting that you posted on this thread to demean those with a faith-based belief, yet every alternate theory you have given is not supported by science or any evidence you provide, is not apparent from observation of the universe, and is based solely on the fact that you say it is so. Seems like a faith-based belief to me. Remove the plank of your faith from your own eye before you start complaining about the planks of faith in the eyes of others.
 
walrus said:
Thanks Tashah, I knew that quantum mechanics allowed for the creation of matter in certain circumstances, but I don't understand it well enough to use it in an argument. I seem to remember that there are also circumstances in quantum mechanics which allow matter (or energy) to be destroyed as well. Is this the case?

You cite Olber's Paradox as an answer to whether the universe is infinite. Do you believe that it is? No challenge here - you just seem well-informed on the subject and I'd be interested in your thoughts.



Really bad example. Any third grader can create water where none existed before with hydrogen, oxygen and a match. Granted, in this case matter is neither created or destroyed but water is. The atomic hydrogen and oxygen still exist in the same masses they did previous, but they have been recombined to form a new molecule - water. Water can also be easily destroyed, pass a live wire into a glass of water and bingo! - you separate it into hydrogen and oxygen. Without sufficient energy to catalyze them into recombining - the water that was will never be again, hence it is destroyed. Water is in fact both created and destroyed each time lightning strikes. Some of the energy liberated causes water to separate into component hydrogen and oxygen. Some the the energy liberated causes atmospheric oxygen and hydrogen to combine into water.

I still find it interesting that you posted on this thread to demean those with a faith-based belief, yet every alternate theory you have given is not supported by science or any evidence you provide, is not apparent from observation of the universe, and is based solely on the fact that you say it is so. Seems like a faith-based belief to me. Remove the plank of your faith from your own eye before you start complaining about the planks of faith in the eyes of others.
I am saying that matter cannot be destroyed. It can be used and it can change forms. But the atoms that exist in matter cannot be either increased or decreased in number or weight. Is that not correct?

The universe contains the same amount and weight of matter today as it did yesterday or will tomorrow. Is that not correct?

If these assumptions are incorrect, that means that matter is both destroyed and recreated every second of time. How would this process be self-regulating? Would the weight of the universe increase or decrease? What determines this.

My original statement was that the same amount of water exists today as did billions of years ago both here on earth and elsewhere. Same goes for all other forms of matter it would seem.
 
milkrun said:
I am saying that matter cannot be destroyed. It can be used and it can change forms. But the atoms that exist in matter cannot be either increased or decreased in number or weight. Is that not correct?

Not entirely, as Tashah has pointed out (although it is true enough for discussion in all but fairly exotic cases). But in fact that is not what you said at all - you said...

milkrun said:
This means that, for an example, there is as much water today as there has always been. It's form changes from liquid to solid to gas in different amounts over time. But the total quantity can't increase or decrease over time.

which is a totally incorrect statement of fact.

milkrun said:
The universe contains the same amount and weight of matter today as it did yesterday or will tomorrow. Is that not correct?

Scientists are not at all sure about that, and neither am I.

milkrun said:
If these assumptions are incorrect, that means that matter is both destroyed and recreated every second of time. How would this process be self-regulating? Would the weight of the universe increase or decrease? What determines this.

As I said, water is created and destroyed throughout much of Earth's history, and yet I would call the hydrographic system fairly self-regulated.

milkrun said:
My original statement was that the same amount of water exists today as did billions of years ago both here on earth and elsewhere. Same goes for all other forms of matter it would seem.

And I say again that your statement is factually incorrect. I am not going out on a limb here, this is a well recognized fact that to the best of my knowledge isn't even in dispute (expect by you). You may have a point that the mass of the total volume of matter in the universe either changes not at all or very, very little over time. To say that there is as much water on Earth as there always has been is not only wrong, it defies common sense and observation.
 
walrus said:
Not entirely, as Tashah has pointed out (although it is true enough for discussion in all but fairly exotic cases). But in fact that is not what you said at all - you said...



which is a totally incorrect statement of fact.



Scientists are not at all sure about that, and neither am I.



As I said, water is created and destroyed throughout much of Earth's history, and yet I would call the hydrographic system fairly self-regulated.



And I say again that your statement is factually incorrect. I am not going out on a limb here, this is a well recognized fact that to the best of my knowledge isn't even in dispute (expect by you). You may have a point that the mass of the total volume of matter in the universe either changes not at all or very, very little over time. To say that there is as much water on Earth as there always has been is not only wrong, it defies common sense and observation.
Water exists in three forms. Solid, liquid, and gas (vapor). The total weight and volume cannot change. if it did, that would require creation of matter from nothing. That is scientifically not possible as far as we humans are concerned.

Would "God" be responsible for continually creating destroyed matter? That would indicate a managed universe.
 
milkrun said:
Water exists in three forms. Solid, liquid, and gas (vapor). The total weight and volume cannot change. if it did, that would require creation of matter from nothing. That is scientifically not possible as far as we humans are concerned.

Ok, I am going to try one more time and then give it up as a lost cause. You either ignore or do not understand basic chemisty. First, volume changes constantly. Fill a glass with water - freeze it - is the volume the same, less, or greater? Here is a hint - it's greater. Volume is determined by density, and the density of matter varies with the energy it posseses. Second, water is not an atom. It is a compound molecule. Nothing in the laws of the universe says that molecules cannot be destroyed (by destroyed I mean seperated into it's atomic components, or converted to energy). As far as the creation of matter from nothing, I am not competent to explain the quantum situations in which matter is apparently created - but hopefully someone on this thread is.

Let's review - water can change volume without changing mass, water is easily both created or destroyed, water is not an element, none of this has anything to do with the subject at hand. - any questions?

milkrun said:
Would "God" be responsible for continually creating destroyed matter? That would indicate a managed universe.

Huh?
 
Water exists in three forms. Solid, liquid, and gas (vapor). The total weight and volume cannot change. if it did, that would require creation of matter from nothing. That is scientifically not possible as far as we humans are concerned.

Would "God" be responsible for continually creating destroyed matter? That would indicate a managed universe.
The total weight and volume of water in the universe CAN change, and most likely has, via nuclear fission and fusion. Remember that water is a molecule, not an element. If the oxygen atom gets separated from the two hydrogen atoms, perhaps during an explosion or collision, then there is less water in the universe than there was before.

Since atoms are matter, and matter cannot be created or destroyed, maybe you could say there's always been the same number of atoms in the universe. But that's also not necessarily true. During nuclear fusion, like within every known star, two atoms collide and split into four atoms of different elements. So the universe has not always had the same number of atoms.

Maybe the uinverse always had the same number of sub-atomic particles?
 
Religion is a business. God doesn't exist. Life will go on forever under it's own power. We are temporary minds trying to feel immortal.
Life will go on forever under it's own power? That's an incredibly interesting proposition. You are suggesting that life, something that for as far as we know for certain began here on earth only billions of years ago, has been around eternally, and will continue to be around eternally? This is certainly as bold as stating that there is a God. And there is no more proof in your corner than there is in mine. But, the difference is that I can say that I have experienced God on a personal level. That you cannot offer. And again I ask you, if we are only part of the evolutionary process, then why are we led to seek a higher being? What evolutionary purpose does that serve us? If there is indeed no creator, then why would we evolve to believe that there is one?
The way I understand it, supposedly there were several different speces of human-like beings (neandrathals, homo-erectus, etc.). All of these except homosapiens (us) died out during the last ice age (about 12,000 years ago iirc). Based on the bones and other fossiles of neandrathals et. al, it's believed that they were actually more physically equipped than homosapiens to survive the ice age, because they were stronger (for hunting) and had more hair (for warmth). But obviously, at least according to the best of our experts' knowledge, they died out and we survived.

Humans don't have fur, claws, sharp teeth, or other genetic tools that would help us survive in that environment. But we do have our intelligence. Intelligence is one of our primary evolutionary "strategies" for survival. They speculate that we survived because we were the most intelligent; smart enough to build a fire, make a good shelter, fashion crude hunting tools, make clothing from animal skin, etc. That's how I understand it anyway.

On to the point, part our survival strategy using intelligence involves learning to predict the future where it is required for survival. If I see dark clouds, I make preparations for rain. If I stab the buffalo in the butt he won't die, but in the heart he will. Etc... Predicting whether or not a volcano will errupt involves understanding WHY it erupts. Without a better explanation, everyone started out believing that God (or multiple gods) caused it. To summarize, we are evolutionarily lead to believe in a higher being, because our survival strategy involves using our intelligence to predict the future. If that's not possible, we fill the gap with something that (hopefully) makes sense until we learn otherwise. I.e. until the 1800's they used to think rocks melted into lava because of coal and oil burning underground. Now we know differently.

The universe is almost certainly not infinite. There are various evidences for this but one of the simplest is this - If the universe were infinite (and by extension populated with stars at the same ratio throughout) then any place you looked in the sky would contain a star. The night sky would be literally solid stars.
The above is known as *Olbers Paradox*. The foremost answer to this paradox is that the "observable universe" is finite. One must also remember that existant light photons farther away than our cosmic horizon (our current peer-back capability) have not yet reached us[1].

A secondary reason for Olbers Paradox is that as our universe expands, distant light becomes more redshifted (2). In astrophysics, "z" is the notation which denotes redshift. The farther one peers into the universe, the greater the value of z. Contrary to intuitive thought, this increasing value of z applies not to celestial objects per se, but to the accelerating fabric of the universe.
1.) Maybe the light hasn't reached us yet, or maybe it has been dissapated (sp) by asteroids, dust, black holes, sub-atomic wind, etc.

2.) That's right, blue light shifts to red for the same reason police sirens lower in pitch as they go by - the frequency (relative to the observer) is getting lower and lower. It's the Doppler Effect happening to light waves. But after red light, the frequency keeps lowering to the infared spectrum. So any way you cut it, Olbers Paradox doesn't cut it. :)

Due to the quantum nature of our universe, particles of matter do indeed pop in and out of existence. In science these are known as *virtual particles*. Virtual particles always pop into existence as oppositely charged pairs and eventually annihilate one another. The longevity of the virtual pair is dependent on size... the greater the size the shorter the lifespan.
I just wanted to point out that those same physicists also claim this is the beginnings of time travel technology. They say those particles live up to 16x their normal half-life, and thus they are traveling into the future. :shock:

Smart people tend to be a little whacko sometimes. :rofl
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom