*************************************************************************************************************************************** quoting   the conclusion   of  " the Evolution concept "  and the beginning of all organists ;   that , some molecules and atoms combined together to  constitute   some biological  cells ( by accident ) and these cells  started  to multiply and produce different organists , and  evolution  occurred due to the " natural selection " and\or, due to the variations of the surrounding environments…. etc. It is a nice  hypothesis…., but we still have  some questions :-

1) what is  the source of  all these  ' atoms ' , (material) from which , the first cells were assembled    ??

2) if  we could move  back on the ' time line ' ,  when was the beginning of  this world  around us ?  where , the accident of  ' cell assembly '  occurred ?? and what  was  before this  beginning ??

3) if  we could move  forever  in any direction , in the universe ,  what will be at   the end ?  is it more space ? then we  still in our world. is it blocked by some material ? then what is behind …?

hoping to find logical  answers , in order to get better  understanding  to our existence..... 

Views: 971

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Speculations - its hard to wrap our heads around some of these concepts.  Stephen Hawkins has answered your point 2, I think, with the response that there was no such thing as Time until the 'big bang' initiation of the universe.  I don't have his supporting evidence, but I expect you could find it on the net.

Gotcha covered, kid!

"I don't have his supporting evidence, but I expect you could find it on the net."

But be careful to look for differing opinions. Don't believe the first site you stumble across on the subject. I Googled "Big Bang for Dummies" and MANY of the hits I got were religious sites talking about how this "finely tuned" universe HAD to be very carefully designed because, if tolerances were only fractionally off, there could be no life. This strikes me as looking at the issue from the wrong aspect. I'm hoping that someone with experience in debunking this point of view might post a more rational perspective or at least link to a better Big Bang primer.

As you said they are looking at this from the wrong way. The creationist point of view reminds me of something Douglas Adams said

" imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

There are many ways to counter the fine tuning argument.

One is that, if the physical constants changed,  all we can say is life as we know it could not exist. We have no way of knowing if different permutations of the physical constants would or would not be able to support life that is radically different to our own.


Another is that if an all powerful and knowing god fine tuned the universe for life then it seems to be a pretty useless god , as virtually the entire  universe is completely hostile to life as we know it . Even our own earth is pretty hostile to life as evidenced by the fact that 98% or so of all life is now extinct. If an all powerful god, who could mess with physics and biology to its hearts content , wanted to create a universe specifically for life then we should find life virtually everywhere. Instead we find a universe where life can only survive in minute isolated pockets( possibly even only on one planet in the entire universe. Though i doubt this). Which is exactly what you would expect for a universe that was not "created" to support life.

Also  how do we ascribe probabilities to sets of possible physical constants, especially when we only have one example to work from? Are they all supposed to be equally likely? Or are some more likely than others?  To speak of probabilities here seems to be just abusing the concept of probability in a situation in which it is meaningless.


This is an interesting refutation on the fine tuning argument

For a big bang primer i would actually advise some documentaries. They usually get the basic information out alot more effectively, and then if you want to explore it deeper there are plenty of scientific sites to explore.

One good one is


Another interesting one is Lawrence Krauss's "a universe from nothing"



Your mistake, Mike, lay in Googling "Big Bang for Dummies," you got what you asked for. Had you Googled, "Big Bang for Rational Human Beings," the results might have been significantly different.

thanks   MikeLong ...


thanks... Strega

Thanks Arch!

It's what I do.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service