Spontanious Generation

Angry,

We know more about time than you think from your post. Modern physics has discovered that time is integrally linked to space. Time simply can not have existed before the Universe.

We can test this fact and we have tested it. The tests have included experiments with synchronized very accurate clocks. They have also included predictions of the behavior of subatomic particals (pi-mesons to be specific) and recent discoveries about a phenomenon called gravitational lensing that was predicted a while ago and recently shown.

If you use the scientific view of time, there is no time possible before the Big Bang. Any other view of time is problematic since it is neither measurable nor testable.

I'm familiar with both the synchronization and gravitational lens experiments. They were done to test Einstein's theory of relativity. Thank you for clarifying this, e_brownp. The results of the experiments, for those who didn't know...

Two very accurate clocks were "flown around the world" in different directions. The point being, in relativity theory, the flow of time depends on how you flow through space. It's relative to your motion. The result: when the clocks met up again, they were out of synch, reinforcing the theory.

Lens: During a solar eclipse, light from stars known to be obscured by the suns mass at the time were bent around the sun and were visible at the edge of the obscured sun. The speed of light is used in certain ways to define time and even space. The experiment proved that gravity bent space, and I assume, time too. I believe that this test was done in the 40's or 50's, not recently, and was visible to the naked eye. Of course, I'm sure that more recent and more technical experiments have been done to verify this as well.

There was a more recent experiment proving that gravity lenses sped up light, but I am not familiar with it. Thanks again to ebrown_p for clarifying my own errors. To rephrase what I was trying to say, if time as we know it originated WITH the mass of the universe (big bang), we still don't know quite what happened before that. As you said, it's untestable. (which is why we just theorize about it!)

The bang came from a point of near-infinite energy, it would have had to to create all the mass in the universe, right? Is it not conceivable that the energy somehow came from other forms of matter/energy/time, the big collapse of some other universe?

And to get back to the original question, did the previous universe have a heaven and hell, too? Did they collapse and get recreated? And why would god tell humans about it, out of all the potential life in the universe? Just some thoughts.

My point is that the word "before" means "at an earlier time". If time as we know if originated "with the mass of the universe" (and it is clear that it did) there was no "before". Nothing could have happened, becuase "happening" required time.

As you say, it is certainly conceivable "that the energy somehow came from other forms of matter/energy/time, the big collapse of some other universe." It is just not conceivable that this Universe collapsed "before" the Big Bang. There was simply no time for this to happen. As you ponder this, remember that time is a feature of our Universe, it is not a feature of anything outside our Universe.

Some things are untestable - the existance of other Universes and the existance of Heaven and Hell are examples of this. Other things are testable. That time started with the Big Bang is certainly testable.

Saying "maybe there is a heaven" or even "maybe the energy came from another Universe" are reasonable - if untestable conjectures.

Saying that something happened before the Big Bang is not reasonable. Everything we have tested and discovered through our scientific studies assures us that nothing could have happened before the Big Bang.

There was no before.

Life needs a creator
Life needs a creator either directly or indirectly to set the rules and initiate. Neil

neil,

If life needed a creator, then did not the creator also need a creator?
Bill.

Like so many other people, I have spent many hours considering the theories and possibilities of explaining our existence and the Universe.

At the moment, my favourite theory is that, like so many of the things we witness in Nature, our Universe is an oscillatory system, preferably sinusoidal, but not necessarily so, and obviously of extremely long period at the moment.
Maybe it changes from "all matter" to "all energy" or vice versa at each phase change; each of these phase changes would correspond to a Big Bang, or a Black Hole or whatever.
It never had a 'start': it will never finish; but whatever exists at any point of time is some combination of matter and energy.
Life becomes possible whenever it's prerequisites are available. (I don't know what they are).
As far as I am concerned, matter or energy may or may not contain Spirit. Spirit may be a third constituent of the mix.
I am not a spiritual person, or any specialist of any sort, so this theory carries no weight whatsoever (except that I weigh around 110kg).

Is it safe to say then, that something had to exist before the big bang? Likewise if God exists and created the Universe, wouldn't he have had to have fore knowledge?

Latest theories:

Nasa's website has some wonderful information on the latest theories on the creation of the universe. They think there was a series of big bangs that occured after the first big bang which created 'wrinkles' in space or a 'lumpy universe.'
http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/bigbang.html

The universe is 13.7 billion years old.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html
The universe is flat and expanding, suggesting infinity.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101shape.html

JoeNamath,

Make every effort to leave the philosophy of Intelligent Design (God) out of the debate. This concept adds nothing to scientific inquiry since it is based only upon faith and not reproducible observations of the universe around us.

The observations of Pasteur and others that "Life comes from life" is, obviously true. Also, the theory that life on planet earth can be attributed to "seeds from outer space" may have merit. One can additionally assert that the universe has always existed and therefore life has always existed. Problem is, these explanations leave us with no fizz in our question about the "Soda of Life" and they manifest an abdication of intellectual curiosity. The first merely reaffirms one of the definitions of a living thing. The second just geographically shifts the question from earth to some other place sans resolution. The third is equally unhelpful.

Assuming your debate is based in science and only those facts based upon the scientific method are acceptable, the debate becomes simplified if not actually resolved. Arguing the "Life from Life" side of the debate is analogous to "The minister preaching to the choir"--it serves no purpose and is merely circular.

The question of Spontaneous Generation today has nothing to do with maggots on meat and everything to do with the process of evolution (Note: I do not use the phrase "Theory of Evolution" since there is a plethora of evidence that demonstrates such a process.). Today anti-SG or anti-evolutionists detest evolutionary thought because in its simplest form it allows the explanation of the origin of life sans an Intelligent Designer-- scratch an anti-evolutionist deep enough and you will find a Creationist. If evolution has admittedly changed complicated organisms why could it not have changed those deemed simpler in complexity and if so why not those even more simple in their construction/function?

We have witnessed, over the last 200 years or so, the constant logical back pedaling of anti-evolutionists. From the absolute belief in the direct creation of man and beast by a superior being we have seen retreat to the argument that said being no longer involves itself with the day to day hands on management of life but has merely created the laws and set them into motion. This seems quite a demotion and speaks against the original concept's validity.

Within the last year scientists have created a viable virus that is capable of not only infecting a living cell but also reproduces in kind. This virus was literally created from scratch and not from "used" virus parts. AH HA! Say the creationist. Intelligent Design! It took man, an intelligent designer, to make this virus: therefore man himself must be the end product of an intelligent designer. Unfortunately this line has an infinitely regressive flaw. If each more complex entity needs a more intelligent and powerful Designer, this merely begs the question: "Who designed God?"

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the universe we inhabit did indeed have a beginning and will definitely have a debatable end scenario. So the really interesting question is the universal laws involved. Other universes notwithstanding and dealing only with the physical (this includes chemical) laws we now exist under, was there ever any doubt that life would come to exist, given its requirements, upon those worlds that fulfill those biological prerequisites?

This presents a deeper more philosophical question. Since we observe a universe destined to develop in a certain way, are we and the rest of the universe's inhabitants, without a say in its outcome? Do we, or any living thing, possess "Free Will"? Can we really change our destinies or are we forever locked into the "Laws of the Universe" with all our futures preordained? We inherently feel we do or have the potential to control our own fate. Is this an illusion?

Simply put, ebrown_p in his initial post of Fri Oct 03, 2003 4:29 pm has implicitly served as the bearer of bad news. You may want to switch sides in this debate if possible. But if this is not possible many of the posts here have given you a view of the logical freight train bearing down upon any of your possible arguments. Good luck.


Respectfully,

JM

asteroid colonies
There are thousands of asteroids that do a close fly by of Earth, then a close fly by of Mars, decades to centuries later, but most have a large dimensions less than one kilometer = 0.6 miles. Most of them are going too fast to catch with proven technology, but we may be able to catch several of them in 2006 though 2011, so we should start the engineering with several unproven engines ASAP = as soon as possible. Humans who land on the asteroids should plan to stay 60 years or so, as landing anywhere (except another asteroid) sooner than that is a long shot. We should launch at least a dozen unmanned supply craft into solar orbit, before the first pair of females lands on an asteroid. One rondevous per month with an asteroid colony and a supply craft is optimistic. A few supply craft will orbit the Sun for decades before a successful catch. As new technology becomes available it can be sent to the asteroid colonies. The colonists can communicate via internet on forums such as www.space.com. and www.abuzz.com and able2know, so they won't be totally bored. Each colony will attempt to produce a few needed things from asteroid materials. A hundred projects is totally unrealistic for two women and 3 or 4 children born in space. Some asteroids may be suitable for 2 or more small colonies. Eventually one of the colonies will be able to land a pair of females on Mars or one of the Moons of Mars. Please refute, comment or embellish. This illustrates that humans can begin populating our solar system almost immediately. Neil

I watched a science show on the tube last night.
There are several norwegian? scientist/student who have built a greenhouse in the far Canadian artic. The idea is, it is impossible to carry enough food and water to mars (a proposed three years round trip). So these fellas are trying to mimic the cold, amount of sunlight on Mars to see if it is possible to grow food in harsh conditions.
I wait in anticipation to see the progress.

Think "parthenogenesis" . . .

Who are the Parthenos, and what were they doing in the first book of the Bible . . .

Since -130 degrees is typical just before dawn on Mars, even near the equator, it seems unlikely that even 3 concentric transparent layers, will prevent freezing the plants without supplemental heat. Even early afternoon on Mars, temperatures will be too cool for optimum growth of most plants without supplemental heat. The Mars atmosphere typically has enough carbon dioxide for heathy plant growth, but most food plants also require oxygen in quantities that will chalange the strength of the transparent layers. Since we are starting with about 3/4 as much light for photosynthesis as at high elevations near Earth's equator, we will need to think shade tolerant plants if we we loose 1/2 the light in the transparent layers and strengthening fibers. Perhaps the best solution is to use large steerable mirrors such as used to make solar steam at the solar energy plant near Barstow, California. to supplement the light for photosynthesis. Neil

Terriforming Venus
My guess is: Venus turning 244 times faster on it's axis would produce no decrease in average temperature and no significantly cooler spots unless we also reduced the mass of the atmosphere by 100 times That would cool the equator to about 150 c and the poles to about 100c = the boiling point of water. To get the one bar at lowest elevations of Venus cooled to 60 c at the Equator, and 10 c at the poles we would need to replace 99.95% of the carbon dioxide with nitrogen and oxygen. Venus has about one bar of nitrogen and about .01 bar of argon. Other gases would give the cooling, but most would not be breathable. Humans could then live near the poles if there were negligible other greenhouse gases such as water vapor. So liquid water at the poles, yes but the temperature will rise if you let water evaporate increasing the humidity to 5% or more. Venus has about 2 degrees tilt on it's axis compared to 23 degrees for Earth and Mars. More tilt would make the poles hotter in summer. Less tilt would make the poles cooler but not by much as the tilt is already near zero.
If Venus kept the same face toward the sun that side would be about 200 degrees c with an Earth-like atmosphere and the dark side would be about minus 133 c which would freeze out nearly all the carbon dioxide and sulphuric acid into a huge ice cap. Temperatures would be comfortable for humans in the twilight area, but there would be no free oxygen and less than 1% humidity. Someone suggested it is possible to remove carbon monoxide from carbon dioxide leaving free oxygen. Not easy. Is there a practical way to do that? It is really difficult to make Venus habitable. Please embellish, refute and/or comment. Neil

Flex time
I'm bumping this thread as I posted to it when I thought I was starting a new thread, Any one else made that error? Lets have some more thoughts on terriforming venus or spontaneous generation. Neil