Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Before the Universe existed, there could have been another Universe, which collapsed in on itself to form the singularity from which our Big Bang occurred.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Before the Universe existed, there could have been another Universe, which collapsed in on itself to form the singularity from which our Big Bang occurred.

Yes, you can push back the question , but only so far.

Eventually you have to say that either --

---matter/energy were eternal (i.e. NEVER had a beginning point)

---matter/energy are NOT eternal (i.e. had a beginning point)

So which is it?

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Before the Universe existed, there could have been another Universe, which collapsed in on itself to form the singularity from which our Big Bang occurred.

Yes, you can push back the question , but only so far.

Eventually you have to say that either --

---matter/energy were eternal (i.e. NEVER had a beginning point)

---matter/energy are NOT eternal (i.e. had a beginning point)

So which is it?

The only proper answer that can be given is, I don't know. It could be one, it could be the other. But the thing is, you said it yourself once, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. So I'm guessing it must never have had a beginning point.

Entropy is a measure of the unavailability of a system's energy to do work (and is thus related to processes) and has little to do with chaos or disorder.

EDIT 2: It is also interesting to note, that in Post 3205569, RL has moved the goalposts.

Some scientists speculate that the Big Crunch would not signal the end. Perhaps another Big Bang would follow the Big Crunch, giving rise to a new universe of possibilities. The idea that Bangs follow Crunches in a never-ending cycle is known as an oscillating universe. Though no theory has been developed to explain how this could ever happen, it has a certain philosophical appeal to people who like the idea of a universe without end.

What about the oscillating Universe?
If the Universe recollapses, then there is another singularity at the time of the Big Crunch. A singularity means that the laws of physics break down, so we have no way to predict whether the Big Crunch will connect to another cycle of expansion. Even if the density were high enough to cause a recollapse, there would be no guarantee that the Universe would oscillate. But the current evidence is strongly against any recollapse, which would rule out the oscillating Universe. See PBS or Ask an Astronomer about this.

Quote:

Some scientists speculate...

Read the article, not just three words. The author made his point clear enough.

What about the oscillating Universe?
If the Universe recollapses, then there is another singularity at the time of the Big Crunch. A singularity means that the laws of physics break down, so we have no way to predict whether the Big Crunch will connect to another cycle of expansion. Even if the density were high enough to cause a recollapse, there would be no guarantee that the Universe would oscillate. But the current evidence is strongly against any recollapse, which would rule out the oscillating Universe.

It has taken some time but I read what has been written and now I'm ready to respond.

Wolf - your question is excellent but there is one flaw, how do you prove something that is taken, at what I call "faith value?"

I cannot prove or disprove the question that you asked. I, on the other hand, can poke holes in the argument of cross over evolution. I do believe over time each individual species evolves. This you can prove. But never has one species changed to another species. For example, I've never seen an ape change to human, like wise I've never seen a dog change to a cat, or and oak tree change to a daisy. There cannot be a cross over evolution.

Science is a beautiful subject, and what makes Science so beautiful is the ability to question everything. That is how questions are answered. Why then can we not question the Theory of Evolution if we know there are holes in Darwins theory.

With that being said, lets us use what Science has given us and find a perfect fit. I would call a perfect fit Intelligent Design

I have truly enjoyed this topic and I thank you.

It has taken some time but I read what has been written and now I'm ready to respond.

Wolf - your question is excellent but there is one flaw, how do you prove something that is taken, at what I call "faith value?"

I cannot prove or disprove the question that you asked. I, on the other hand, can poke holes in the argument of cross over evolution.

I do believe over time each individual species evolves. This you can prove. But never has one species changed to another species. For example, I've never seen an ape change to human, like wise I've never seen a dog change to a cat, or and oak tree change to a daisy. There cannot be a cross over evolution.

Science is a beautiful subject, and what makes Science so beautiful is the ability to question everything. That is how questions are answered. Why then can we not question the Theory of Evolution if we know there are holes in Darwins theory.

rosborne - thank you

I'm going to check out the ID thread by Wandel. For some odd reason this stuff as all of a sudden fascinated me. Not sure why, that's probably why I'm looking for answers.

Well, the first article is reasonable enough. It's the second article that is making RL's point, or rather, the answer.

Quote:

What about the oscillating Universe?
If the Universe recollapses, then there is another singularity at the time of the Big Crunch. A singularity means that the laws of physics break down, so we have no way to predict whether the Big Crunch will connect to another cycle of expansion. Even if the density were high enough to cause a recollapse, there would be no guarantee that the Universe would oscillate. But the current evidence is strongly against any recollapse, which would rule out the oscillating Universe.

Interesting. As I said, I'm not a physics major, so I'm not really that up to date on astrophysics issues. It was plausible enough when I first read about the concept, hence the term "the current evidence". Which means that this Universe might not recollapse or there isn't enough evidence to prove that this Universe will not recollapse.

It is no guarantee that previous Universes would not have recollapsed in the past.

Regardless, all you're doing is poking holes in my speculations. You're not actually providing any evidence for Creation, only providing "evidence" that my speculations on the origins of the Universe aren't true. This does not prove you right.

For example, I'm going to come up with another one.

As the quote you posted states quite clearly, the laws of physics breaks down in the singularity. That would include the Laws of Thermodynamics. So energy/matter can be created or destroyed. The system will not tend towards entropy, so the singularity (which would have been highly entropic anyway) could have lasted forever and the processes that creatd the Big Bang could have gone against entropy.

And this is why what you're doing is futile. You keep poking holes in our arguments instead of providing actual evidence for your position. I could just keep coming up with scientifically plausible hypotheses and you'd never prove your position until every single scientifically plausible hypothesis has been "proven wrong". And I haven't even gotten into the exotic theories (like String Theory) yet (and I won't, because I don't know too much about them).