NationStates Jolt Archive

Has anybody ever wonder which was the true cause of are universe
I have this strange theory that God made the big bang happen and made the sun and the solar system but over like a couple million years not just in like a week

Has anybody ever wonder which was the true cause of are universe
I have this strange theory that God made the big bang happen and made the sun and the solar system but over like a couple million years not just in like a week
God created the universe.

Olaf Henriksen. He's going to build a time machine 75 years from now and attempt to go back in time. Since going back in time is impossible, the machine will explode at the beginning of time and give rise to our universe.

Olaf Henriksen. He's going to build a time machine 75 years from now and attempt to go back in time. Since going back in time is impossible, the machine will explode at the beginning of time and give rise to our universe.

Or is it? I thought tachyons could travel backwards in time? :confused:

Both

*gets tackled by both scientists and Christians working together to tear me into pieces*

Olaf Henriksen. He's going to build a time machine 75 years from now and attempt to go back in time. Since going back in time is impossible, the machine will explode at the beginning of time and give rise to our universe.


Tell me, what exactly does that have to do with god or the big bang theory?

Or is it? I thought tachyons could travel backwards in time? :confused:
I think you're right. I guess that's what encourages poor Olaf to build his machine.

Tell me, what exactly does that have to do with god or the big bang theory?
Duh, Olaf caused the big bang.

Id hate to see the day where it was proven either one way or the other cause itd be war agenst the scientists or christians

I definately believe that the big bang happened, however I still don't totally rule out the possibility that there is a God (I'm agnostic) I think that if God exists then maybe he started the big bang

I think you're right. I guess that's what encourages poor Olaf to build his machine.

I knew that's what it was!

Duh, Olaf caused the big bang.

of course what am i thinking...................

well, neither. the collision of two Ms caused the beggining of the universe.

Tell me, what exactly does that have to do with god or the big bang theory?

Nothing, but I kind of agree with Lynnea_land. I do believe that God created the univers over a prolonged period of time, not just a week. I do not; however, believe that He made the big bang.

Has anybody ever wonder which was the true cause of are universe
I have this strange theory that God made the big bang happen and made the sun and the solar system but over like a couple million years not just in like a week

Why do you think this is a strange theory? I think many Christians have this belief, although the time scale is longer than millions.
I still see no conflict whatsoever between science and religion. The whole fight is manufactured by both sides because they (in general) hate each other. I am perfectly comfortable with science and religion.

Its just i find it hard to beleive god made everything in a week

I do believe current evidence supports the Big Bang theory at least somewhat better than most others so far. However, I cannot be sure whether a God was the cause of it.

Its just i find it hard to beleive god made everything in a week

That's because God didn't make everything in a week. Time would be meaningless to any being who exists outside of time, no beginning, no ending. So if that being took one second to do all or took a trillion years it would mean nothing to them.

Its just i find it hard to beleive god made everything in a week
You can destroy an anthill and all the ants within with a can of poison in a few minutes, can't you? Don't you think they'll find it hard to believe that you can destroy everything they built in a few seconds?

Provided they thought like us, of course.

Its just i find it hard to beleive god made everything in a week
The Bible says He did, so that's what happened.

Why do you think this is a strange theory? I think many Christians have this belief, although the time scale is longer than millions.
I still see no conflict whatsoever between science and religion. The whole fight is manufactured by both sides because they (in general) hate each other. I am perfectly comfortable with science and religion.

let me ask you this do you beleive god created the earth or that the big bang created it or neither for that matter

The Bible says He did, so that's what happened.
Silly :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

The bible is a cool sci-fi book (or fantisy) all kinds of incest and lovin ... death and the end of the world. Yup great piece of fiction :p

Or is it? I thought tachyons could travel backwards in time? :confused:

Yes! All tachyons that exist can travel backwards in time!

...the problem is, we don't know whether any of them exist or not.

Id hate to see the day where it was proven either one way or the other cause itd be war agenst the scientists or christians

That would be a very short war. I doubt the theologens can do much with their power of "faith" when faced with biological warfare.

My argument isnt so much with either theory its more twords the bible
for example mary Magdalen(probably spelled the name wrong) i dont beleive she was a whore at all, im even wondering if jesus really was a "pure" man

The Bible says He did, so that's what happened.

No, it doesn't:

The Hebrew words yom, ereb, and boqer

If it can be shown that Genesis does not require the meaning of twenty-four hour days, then this clearly shows that it is at least possible that the "days" are used to refer to long periods of time. It will further be demonstrated that the text actually implies an interpretation other than solar days, making the "age" interpretation likely.

Yom is the Hebrew word translated "day." According to Vine's Expository of Old Testament Words, it can be used to indicate the period of daylight as contrasted with nighttime (Gen 8:22), a period of twenty-four hours (Gen. 39:10), or a period of unspecified duration without any reference to solar days (Gen. 2:4).[4]

let me ask you this do you beleive god created the earth or that the big bang created it or neither for that matter

I believe that God is the creator of all things. I believe science is merely explaining, very slowly explaining, how it was done. So, there is no conflict between the two. God made the big bang happen if, in the end, it is proven that the big bang was the beginning. The big bang and God are not mutually exclusive. One does not eliminate the existence of the other.

Silly :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

The bible is a cool sci-fi book (or fantisy) all kinds of incest and lovin ... death and the end of the world. Yup great piece of fiction :p
:eek: You're disgusting! If you don't believe in the Bible you are going to Hell. :mad:

I definately believe that the big bang happened, however I still don't totally rule out the possibility that there is a God (I'm agnostic) I think that if God exists then maybe he started the big bang

All the Bible says, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

It doesn't say how. Even the Catholic Church has accepted the Big Bang as probably, and I'm a Protestant and I'm in agreement there.

:eek: You're disgusting! If you don't believe in the Bible you are going to Hell. :mad:

Prove it.

All the Bible says, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

It doesn't say how. Even the Catholic Church has accepted the Big Bang as probably, and I'm a Protestant and I'm in agreement there.


That is why most all scientists are atheists?

Silly :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

The bible is a cool sci-fi book (or fantisy) all kinds of incest and lovin ... death and the end of the world. Yup great piece of fiction :p


I agree, i wouldnt exactly call it a complete fiction book but mostly it is

I definately believe that the big bang happened, however I still don't totally rule out the possibility that there is a God (I'm agnostic) I think that if God exists then maybe he started the big bang

I have to agree with that. Why can't there be a median? Wouldn't technically God creating the universe be the Big Bang?

:eek: You're disgusting! If you don't believe in the Bible you are going to Hell. :mad:
No I wont ... hell is just another part of that fictional book
Cant go to a place that does not exist :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

I believe God created the Big Bang...though I doubt he would have given it the same name...but who knows...

No I wont ... hell is just another part of that fictional book
Cant go to a place that does not exist :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

With that many fluffles you'd fit in well with my Cult of Pan.

Yes, I believe in Pan.

:fluffle:

:eek: You're disgusting! If you don't believe in the Bible you are going to Hell. :mad:

troll or merely fiery in belief?

I do believe current evidence supports the Big Bang theory at least somewhat better than most others so far. However, I cannot be sure whether a God was the cause of it.

...And if a God caused it, which one??

I'd say Zeus since he's already the God of Thunder and all other things that go *bang*. I'm not however ruling out Thor as having something to do with it. Maybe they did it on a dare by The Coyote or something.

With that many fluffles you'd fit in well with my Cult of Pan.

Yes, I believe in Pan.

:fluffle:
I am a fluffle slut (can men be sluts?) LOL

I believe God created the Big Bang...though I doubt he would have given it the same name...but who knows...

He created the Big Bang? Nonesense. Why would he need to create somethign to create the universe? He is all mighty why didn't he just make it appear. That is like saying im going to create a computer to add 1+1. It makes no sense.

Or is it? I thought tachyons could travel backwards in time? :confused:
Time is perceived and is linear, it is not something you can go back on. That and tachyons are hypothetical. Even if they travel faster than light, it would be our perception that changes. If we could view through tachyons and light particles, the tachyons would reach us before the light, thus steadily slowing down our perception of time until if we looked at tachyons then light particles, it would look like we had traveled back in time. No such thing ever existed, we simply slowed our perception of time. It is IMPOSSIBLE to go backwards in time.

For me, I withhold judgement on the beginning of the universe. Whatever theory anyone can come up with can be defeated through paradox or the simple question, "Well what created [insert catalyst of creation]?"

Really theres 3 really main versions to this special event thing
1. god created the earth and all that dont beleive go to hell
2. God created everything but not to the extend that is told in the bible
3. The big bang and science created earth god doesnt exist

I say the universe was created from a miniature giant space hamster's fart.

The wonderful thing is, since nobody can know for sure, my hypothesis is just as good as anybody else's!

Id rather go to hell for not beleiveing then to beleive in something im not sure of
ill send you all post cards

He created the Big Bang? Nonesense. Why would he need to create somethign to create the universe? He is all mighty why didn't he just make it appear. That is like saying im going to create a computer to add 1+1. It makes no sense.
Um in a sence it was "just created"
And who said god couldent be economical

I mean there is no real reason he had to make everything created ... the result is the same

Really theres 3 really main versions to this special event thing
1. god created the earth and all that dont beleive go to hell
2. God created everything but not to the extend that is told in the bible
3. The big bang and science created earth god doesnt exist

How can science create the earth? I thought sciece, for the most part, was the study of the earth.

God created the universe and then caused the big bang ? well I've never thought about it like that...for me there was always the only one theory about the great beginning : big bang and I've never tried to join it with any other...however I don't deny the existence of something like God...maybe it was like that : after the whole universe was made, God came and then he created the first human and all this stuff ? what do you think ? =;>

Duh, Olaf caused the big bang.

What a fantastic quote.

So! Ummm.... what created God?

God created the universe and then caused the big bang ? well I've never thought about it like that...for me there was always the only one theory about the great beginning : big bang and I've never tried to join it with any other...however I don't deny the existence of something like God...maybe it was like that : after the whole universe was made, God came and then he created the first human and all this stuff ? what do you think ? =;>

The problem with relying on "God" as the creator is that in essense you are brought back to the same question; Who created him?

I don't believe the big bang was the BEGINNING as such. Maybe some sort of interim event. Caused by the collapse of everything into a black hole and physics going loopy for billions of years and then exploding. Or something.

Time is perceived and is linear, it is not something you can go back on. That and tachyons are hypothetical. Even if they travel faster than light, it would be our perception that changes. If we could view through tachyons and light particles, the tachyons would reach us before the light, thus steadily slowing down our perception of time until if we looked at tachyons then light particles, it would look like we had traveled back in time. No such thing ever existed, we simply slowed our perception of time. It is IMPOSSIBLE to go backwards in time.

For me, I withhold judgement on the beginning of the universe. Whatever theory anyone can come up with can be defeated through paradox or the simple question, "Well what created [insert catalyst of creation]?"

well, theoretically the movement of our galaxy through space is making us move through space too cause we're stuck on the planet, right? well, the movement of our planet through time makes us go through time also. i had a point i was going to get to from this but i forgot it. i forget everything.

miniature giant space hamster
"Go for the eyes, Boo, go for the eyes! YAAA!"

Prove it.

You're just asking for an articulate and well-reasoned post that nullifies its whole argument with its first three words: "The Bible says..."

I don't believe the big bang was the BEGINNING as such. Maybe some sort of interim event. Caused by the collapse of everything into a black hole and physics going loopy for billions of years and then exploding. Or something.

Yes, that's the Big Crunch Theory. After the Big Bang, it collapses in on itself and goes back to the tiny pin-point.

Who's to say that we were the first universe, or the last universe to be created?

"Go for the eyes, Boo, go for the eyes! YAAA!"

"Cover your nose Boo, we shall leave no crevice untouched!" *squeak*

You're just asking for an articulate and well-reasoned post that nullifies its whole argument with its first three words: "The Bible says..."

Puppets (or trolls :confused: ) are easily banished by logic!

The bible how can anyone use that peice of lies for a refrence
who exactly was the bible made by
ill tell you
people that lie
so technically the bible is as credible as if i were to say im the easter bunny

Puppets (or trolls :confused: ) are easily banished by logic!
Yes if logic is a big weighted stick

plus the bible was made centurys ago whos to say it wasnt changed or just created by some bored sheep herders

Yes if logic is a big weighted stick

The weighted stick is the magic two word phrase "Prove it"

The weighted stick is the magic two word phrase "Prove it"
I prefer a real stick ... *plays whack a troll*

I prefer a real stick ... *plays whack a troll*

?

I prefer a real stick ... *plays whack a troll*

I prefer shooting them:


*dead* Troll *Pull!* :sniper:

The bible how can anyone use that peice of lies for a refrence
who exactly was the bible made by
ill tell you
people that lie
so technically the bible is as credible as if i were to say im the easter bunny

That's just it. Maybe the bible was right and just got jumbled up over translations and various copies. Remember the old childhood game "telephone"? That's what it'd be like, the first message is correct, but after awhile it just gets messed up.

The problem with relying on "God" as the creator is that in essense you are brought back to the same question; Who created him?
hmm maybe he created himself ? =:| but there's still an other theory: there is no God, humans just created him to explain themselves the things they don't understand like...hmm a storm and other things like that...

That's just it. Maybe the bible was right and just got jumbled up over translations and various copies. Remember the old childhood game "telephone"? That's what it'd be like, the first message is correct, but after awhile it just gets messed up.

but when you think , we dont have any real solid proof it was true in the first place besides scriptures & books but those could be incorrect too

Has anybody ever wonder which was the true cause of are universe
I have this strange theory that God made the big bang happen and made the sun and the solar system but over like a couple million years not just in like a week


it was both and neither.

god created the big bang even though God deosn't exist and the big bang never happened.

god

the last post i read just said god
well why god>?

my beleif is that the only reason most people beleive in god is because they where raised that way, raised in a church going to servise and so on now if no religion was introduced till the child/adult was at an age to make his/her own disision then there would be no doubt of faith

it was both and neither.

god created the big bang even though God deosn't exist and the big bang never happened.

The Bing Bang created god, actually. And I created the big bang. Which was, of course, 5000 years ago. To question such would be an anti-Cwistian value!

so your saying your over 5000 years old and created god and the universe

so your saying your over 5000 years old and created god and the universe

Yes.

ok so you would know all the worlds secrets from being so old and coming from the begingin of time i presume

ok so you would know all the worlds secrets from being so old and coming from the begingin of time i presume

Yes, but I'm not telling you.

Has anybody ever wonder which was the true cause of are universe
I have this strange theory that God made the big bang happen and made the sun and the solar system but over like a couple million years not just in like a week

Well God said let there be light, let there be stars, let there be...

according to the bible that is, so there is your 'big bang theory right there' assuming you believe in the bible.

In terms of over a million years, well it seems God is able to create stuff so I do not know why it would take a million years for him to make it. However, the bible states a day is as a thousand years in the bible so it is possible that the creation was 7000 years not just 7 days though I personally think it was the 7 days.

Further, when God created Adam and Eve it did not state in the bible how long they lived before they sinned, though it did note that God noted once they sinned that they should not have access to the tree of life anymore. So it is possible that Adam and Eve lived on the earth for billions of years or more before they sinned (or a couple of days). We do not know this. We do however know that the church has been wrong when it has noted science incorrect in the past (science noted the world was round, the church said it was flat and was at the centre of the universe back in the 1400s). So when scientists note that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and the bible says that Adam and Eve were created they lived for a period of time, then sinned, I do not see why that cannot be for say 4.599 billion years or so. Not saying I am correct, just noting something I read and that MAY be true or maybe not.

You can destroy an anthill and all the ants within with a can of poison in a few minutes, can't you? Don't you think they'll find it hard to believe that you can destroy everything they built in a few seconds?

Provided they thought like us, of course.

I would be impressed if you could create an anthill in a few seconds. Destroying something is easy.

That is why most all scientists are atheists?

Because scientists are smarter than most people.

Well God said let there be light, let there be stars, let there be...

according to the bible that is, so there is your 'big bang theory right there' assuming you believe in the bible.

In terms of over a million years, well it seems God is able to create stuff so I do not know why it would take a million years for him to make it. However, the bible states a day is as a thousand years in the bible so it is possible that the creation was 7000 years not just 7 days though I personally think it was the 7 days.

Further, when God created Adam and Eve it did not state in the bible how long they lived before they sinned, though it did note that God noted once they sinned that they should not have access to the tree of life anymore. So it is possible that Adam and Eve lived on the earth for billions of years or more before they sinned (or a couple of days). We do not know this. We do however know that the church has been wrong when it has noted science incorrect in the past (science noted the world was round, the church said it was flat and was at the centre of the universe back in the 1400s). So when scientists note that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and the bible says that Adam and Eve were created they lived for a period of time, then sinned, I do not see why that cannot be for say 4.599 billion years or so. Not saying I am correct, just noting something I read and that MAY be true or maybe not.


a part in your speech thing said adam and eve (assuming you beleive in the bible) the bible however doesnt state the dinasaurs roamed the earth the bible doesnt talk about the ice age the bible says the earth was created in a mere amount of days- the big bang theory in a nut shell -is that dust particles began to compact and then all of the sudden exploded from that dust particles of a smaller magnitude began to cluster and for stars planets ect. and to think all that could happen in just a few days is highly questionable

im not saying your right or wrong either

the last post i read just said god
well why god>?

my beleif is that the only reason most people beleive in god is because they where raised that way, raised in a church going to servise and so on now if no religion was introduced till the child/adult was at an age to make his/her own disision then there would be no doubt of faith

i feel the exact same way when it comes to mattters of faith. People are just passing on the tradition. Unfortunately, this tradition includes an outdated view of the universe and its workings.

There's ample proof to at least suggest a big bang- stuff is moving away from a certain point in the universe, which means it all started from that point, if you look far enough back. (maybe not that specific point, but somewhere around there.) On top of that, there's background microwave radiation that shows the big bang itself. supposedly.

oh, this is my 100th post. :)

a part in your speech thing said adam and eve (assuming you beleive in the bible) the bible however doesnt state the dinasaurs roamed the earth the bible doesnt talk about the ice age the bible says the earth was created in a mere amount of days- the big bang theory in a nut shell -is that dust particles began to compact and then all of the sudden exploded from that dust particles of a smaller magnitude began to cluster and for stars planets ect. and to think all that could happen in just a few days is highly questionable

the bible notes that there was a change in terms of how science worked when the flood happened. prior to the flood it never rained, the ground was watered via mist from below. Some creationist scientists have speculated that the atmosphere was partially composed of water. It should be noted that the bible notes that heaven is both below and above water (according to Genesis, at least when the world was first created).

God supposedly is all powerful so it is possible for him to create something out of nothing though again possibly it (the universe or whatever was created by a 'big bang') adapted to its current state over time. How long this time is I do not know. The bible says the world was created in 7 days, however the bible also notes that 1 day to God is as a thousand years to us so exactly the length of that 1 day can be called into question when God was creating the earth (though again most would find my argument ridiculous as you might). Then again I note not that I am trying to prove my point, just that I am supposing on things, and noting things with no real purpose except to say what I know and to say what I understand and then see what you know so maybe I might learn more :)

PS: Nice birthdate, do I know you? lol (I live in Toronto) - if I do not sorry just curious

You'd make a good scientist someday I agree religion is no longer a choice its become a tradition and my last post was my 100th also

Couldn't help myself when I saw this "scientific" debate. Basically, the reason why the being bang theory is so hard for people to believe is that it defies the basic laws of classical physics, obviously due to the fact that it was a quantum system. Well, nonetheless, it is reasonably hard to believe if you do not understand the basis of a quantum system.

The first thing one must realize is that at the quantum level, the conventional laws of physics no longer apply, because you are on a level so small, that you are dealing with the fundamental fabric of matter and energy. Secondly, Einstein was wrong about one thing, "God" does indeed "play dice", so to speak. That is to say, at the quantum level, no particular system is completely predictable, and can only be "forecast" within certain degrees of probability. The Heissenburg Uncertainty Principle is one of the major underlying laws behind this fact, and it is because of this very reason that the big bang did not create a perfectly uniform sphere with even equal distribution of mass.

In order to explain how the big bang can be possible, we can look at the universe through a logically extended version of relative theory. The basis of general relativity was that gravity is caused by space-time curvature. The curvature is caused by the presence of mass. Well, seeing as how all the mass was concentrated into what was essentially an infinitely small point, you can imagine that there was a tremendous amount of curvature. If we take it even one step further, we can say that matter is nothing more than denture in space-time, which could account for how there was not even time nor space before the big bang, seeing as how they would be concentrated soley within this essentially infintessimal point. Such density would normally create a black hole, and in this case, so did our point friend. Black holes create hyperblolic planes of existance, those which can allow for infinite boundaries in finite locations. This hyperbolic space continues to expand even today, due to the emmense force of the blast. A hyperbolic universe is a very nice one for adding credability to the big bang, as it accounts for how the universe can be finite, and yet seem ever expanding, and can also help to explain why it is impossible to reach the universe's center, despite its finite properties.

What will happen to our universe? One states that eventually the force of the blast will diminish so much that the universe will stop expanding, and gravity will pull everything into a "big crunch". The other states that the universe will continually expand forever until it reaches the point of maximum entropy(basically, disorder). This would be the "big freeze" theory. Which one happens really depends on the overall mass of the universe.

PS: Sorry for the length, and I hope this helps to clarify your understanding of the big bang.

the bible notes that there was a change in terms of how science worked when the flood happened. prior to the flood it never rained, the ground was watered via mist from below. Some creationist scientists have speculated that the atmosphere was partially composed of water. It should be noted that the bible notes that heaven is both below and above water (according to Genesis, at least when the world was first created).

God supposedly is all powerful so it is possible for him to create something out of nothing though again possibly it adapted to its current state over time. How long this time is I do not know. The bible says the world was created in 7 days, however the bible also notes that 1 day to God is as a thousand years to us so exactly the length of that 1 day can be called into question when God was creating the earth (though again most would find my argument ridiculous as you might). Then again I note not that I am trying to prove my point, just that I am supposing on things, and noting things with no real purpose except to say what I know and to say what I understand and then see what you know so maybe I might learn more :)

PS: Nice birthdate, do I know you? lol (I live in Toronto) - if I do not sorry just curious


I LOVE TORONTO unfortunetly i live about 4 hours away _ i see your point and unfortunetly enough for me i was raised an athiest and when i was introduced to the bible i read the first 4 pages and decided it was complete bs -so dont blame me if my ethics are a tad off but hey i still say the bibles mostly flase

You'd make a good scientist someday I agree religion is no longer a choice its become a tradition and my last post was my 100th also

I try and follow the bible, Christ's example specifically. He tried to help people. Ghandi I think said it best. Christ yes, Christians no. :)

PS: No offence to Christians I just note that we need to follow Christ's example which is what Christians are suppose to believe anyhow :)

Couldn't help myself when I saw this "scientific" debate. Basically, the reason why the being bang theory is so hard for people to believe is that it defies the basic laws of classical physics, obviously due to the fact that it was a quantum system. Well, nonetheless, it is reasonably hard to believe if you do not understand the basis of a quantum system.

The first thing one must realize is that at the quantum level, the conventional laws of physics no longer apply, because you are on a level so small, that you are dealing with the fundamental fabric of matter and energy. Secondly, Einstein was wrong about one thing, "God" does indeed "play dice", so to speak. That is to say, at the quantum level, no particular system is completely predictable, and can only be "forecast" within certain degrees of probability. The Heissenburg Uncertainty Principle is one of the major underlying laws behind this fact, and it is because of this very reason that the big bang did not create a perfectly uniform sphere with even equal distribution of mass.

In order to explain how the big bang can be possible, we can look at the universe through a logically extended version of relative theory. The basis of general relativity was that gravity is caused by space-time curvature. The curvature is caused by the presence of mass. Well, seeing as how all the mass was concentrated into what was essentially an infinitely small point, you can imagine that there was a tremendous amount of curvature. If we take it even one step further, we can say that matter is nothing more than denture in space-time, which could account for how there was not even time nor space before the big bang, seeing as how they would be concentrated soley within this essentially infintessimal point. Such density would normally create a black hole, and in this case, so did our point friend. Black holes create hyperblolic planes of existance, those which can allow for infinite boundaries in finite locations. This hyperbolic space continues to expand even today, due to the emmense force of the blast. A hyperbolic universe is a very nice one for adding credability to the big bang, as it accounts for how the universe can be finite, and yet seem ever expanding, and can also help to explain why it is impossible to reach the universe's center, despite its finite properties.

What will happen to our universe? One states that eventually the force of the blast will diminish so much that the universe will stop expanding, and gravity will pull everything into a "big crunch". The other states that the universe will continually expand forever until it reaches the point of maximum entropy(basically, disorder). This would be the "big freeze" theory. Which one happens really depends on the overall mass of the universe.

PS: Sorry for the length, and I hope this helps to clarify your understanding of the big bang.


im not even going to attempt to read all of that but from the parts i skimmed i agrre

I try and follow the bible, Christ's example specifically. He tried to help people. Ghandi I think said it best. Christ yes, Christians no. :)

PS: No offence to Christians I just note that we need to follow Christ's example which is what Christians are suppose to believe anyhow :)

no offense taken i agree though it wouldnt kill people in this day and age to try to mimic a man who was supposedly perfect and without sin

I LOVE TORONTO unfortunetly i live about 4 hours away _ i see your point and unfortunetly enough for me i was raised an athiest and when i was introduced to the bible i read the first 4 pages and decided it was complete bs -so dont blame me if my ethics are a tad off but hey i still say the bibles mostly flase

I love the passing of information and do not judge you on what you know and what you believe, that is not my point in discussions, I like the exchange of ideas.

With the bible being BS, Time magazine Dec 18, 1995 had an excellent cover story noting what had been proven as true in the bible. That King David had existed, that Jesus of Nazareth had existed (obviously the miracles that he did are not proven of course), etc. Really interesting since you have both evolutionist and creationist scientists saying okay this is what is true from the bible and this is what has not been proven. Great article, should be able to find it in research libraries if you are ever interested

I LOVE TORONTO unfortunetly i live about 4 hours away

I went to UWindsor and UWO.

If you ever lived in Bradford or the edge of London, Ontario I may know you still, else sorry for the questions, just curious when I saw the bday of you and the posts...

There's something that all you people fail to realize -

Sure, you may think that the Universe started out as just a microscopic speck of matter that defied all laws of physics. But listen to yourselves -

A small speck of matter .

That matter, no matter how small, could not just have appeared by itself. Someone (God) must have made it.

That is to say if any of this was true. Why would God spend 4+ billion years creating the universe? He could have done it all in an instant! I'm personally shocked that he took 6 days!

I'm ready for your scorning.
:headbang:

There's something that all you people fail to realize -

Sure, you may think that the Universe started out as just a microscopic speck of matter that defied all laws of physics. But listen to yourselves -

A small speck of matter .

That matter, no matter how small, could not just have appeared by itself. Someone (God) must have made it.

That is to say if any of this was true. Why would God spend 4+ billion years creating the universe? He could have done it all in an instant! I'm personally shocked that he took 6 days!

I'm ready for your scorning.
:headbang:


I never said he spent 4+ billion years, nor 6 days. I personally believe it was 6 days. However I also believe that Adam and Eve were around for a while before they sinned which is why the earth is 4+ billion years old. During that time God in my view was not creating anything else in this part of the universe at least in my view, so I agree with you. Whether I am correct is another story though but from my understanding of the bible I could be. :)

thats not strange in fact my rabbi told me that time is relative and a week could have been millions of years.

My theory:

God was the spark that caused the Big Bang, basically.

He was also the spark that started the reactions that formed the first organic compounds (hence the fact why they're having so much trouble simulating that in laboratories)

Just to let you know, I am a very scientific individual, and thus I don't really take a stance either way on God. It is not possible to prove or disprove "his" existance, so I tend to relax and lay back from the "Great Debate".

First of all, the big bang was not really "matter". I merely simplyfied what I was saying. Techincally, it was a nearly infitesimal ball of energy. I didn't really want to go so far into the details of scientific theory, because my post would have been uber long, but it looks like I may have to.

You see, according to Einstein's relative theory, and our current physical model, matter is simply a hyper-compacted form of energy. We know this to be as certain of a fact as gravity. There are many strange factors going into what causes the energy to remain together. One has to do with no-integral angular momentums, and another is the Higgs Field theory. Long story short, matter = really dense energy.

You misunderstand the "defying physical law" thing that I said. I said that at the quantum level, the laws of CLASSICAL physics break down. Things like Newton's laws, and even the Conservation of Energy. There are still laws, they are just much harder to grasp because they are based in what is essentially a purely mathematical model, and they have no easilly recognizabe correlation to "normal" happenings. At the quantum level, matter and antimatter twin particles appear all the time, and destroy each other in such a small amount of time that the overall mass is apparently conserved. However, very strong forces, such as the immense gravity of a black hole, can separate these twins before impending doom occurs. And yes, they always appear in pairs, because the probability of creation and destruction of such particles is always equal. Now, that covers matter being created.

Frankly, I could keep this up, but I'm tired.

Actually man created God. But it was a very good creation.

The problem with relying on "God" as the creator is that in essense you are brought back to the same question; Who created him?

you see, we as humans live with time, physics, and all those other laws of the universe, but god who set these laws in place, is above the laws. in order to believe god exists you have to realize god is above everything else. god can break the laws, we call them miracles.

Big Bang. More specifically, Inflationary Cosmology. We can prove that this model is correct in 2007, if the LHC at CERN detects a certain kind of field. But there is substantial evidence for it already. Read The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.

And no offense, but anyone who thinks that God had a hand in anything is living in a cave with their head in the ground.

Step one: Read first chapter in Genisus
Step two: Forget about seven days in the literal sense and think of it instead like seven stages
Step Three: Line up the Darwinistic Stages of growth

Q. What do you have?
A. A fairly reasonable assertion that the bible and science support one another.

About the big bang, who cares? We're here now...

Its just i find it hard to beleive god made everything in a week
i am a catholic but if you believe in god who can send down his son to bring back people from the dead, who can rise from the dead, who canwalk on water. a go that can split seas it is obvious he has no limits so why is it sooooo hard to see that he created all we see in a week

Has anybody ever wonder which was the true cause of are universe
I have this strange theory that God made the big bang happen and made the sun and the solar system but over like a couple million years not just in like a week

Step one: Read first chapter in Genisus
Step two: Forget about seven days in the literal sense and think of it instead like seven stages
Step Three: Line up the Darwinistic Stages of growth

Q. What do you have?
A. A fairly reasonable assertion that the bible and science support one another.

About the big bang, who cares? We're here now...

EXACTLY!!!!!

Has anybody ever wonder which was the true cause of are universe
I have this strange theory that God made the big bang happen and made the sun and the solar system but over like a couple million years not just in like a week


Yeah, that's pretty much what I believe.

And no offense, but anyone who thinks that God had a hand in anything is living in a cave with their head in the ground.

I can eat food which digests, creating waste which is good for the ground. The food is grown in a variety of forms which I ingest because I like the taste, due to the taste buds I have in my mouth. I have saliva in my mouth which can help me eat the food. ...

other things to ponder:
-Reproductive organs
-How the blood works
-oxygen in carbon dioxide out
...

so many things that either happened by chance or happened because of a higher power. I take no offense to your statement about God, just curious that if you do not believe in God, then what higher power do you believe in (or is your view that we are here by luck/chance?)

PS: Whatever it is just curious for your viewpoint, I respect your right to believe how you want on things though I may disagree with your viewpoints. All I care is to share ideas :)

[SNIP]
And no offense, but anyone who thinks that God had a hand in anything is living in a cave with their head in the ground.
there is really no way to say that and then say "no offense".

So just how long was a day before human eyes saw the sun rise and set? I hope God made the Earth and the Sun first thing in the morning.

Also, why do so many people care how long it took God to make anything? Don't be so nosey, that's the almighty's business. Read the rest of The Bible. I'm sure whoever wrote the Bible stuck the '7th day' reference in as an afterthought.

Big Bang. More specifically, Inflationary Cosmology. We can prove that this model is correct in 2007, if the LHC at CERN detects a certain kind of field. But there is substantial evidence for it already. Read The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.

And no offense, but anyone who thinks that God had a hand in anything is living in a cave with their head in the ground.


how did the big bang start from absolutely nothing? :(

Just to let you know, I am a very scientific individual, and thus I don't really take a stance either way on God. It is not possible to prove or disprove "his" existance, so I tend to relax and lay back from the "Great Debate".

First of all, the big bang was not really "matter". I merely simplyfied what I was saying. Techincally, it was a nearly infitesimal ball of energy. I didn't really want to go so far into the details of scientific theory, because my post would have been uber long, but it looks like I may have to.

You see, according to Einstein's relative theory, and our current physical model, matter is simply a hyper-compacted form of energy. We know this to be as certain of a fact as gravity. There are many strange factors going into what causes the energy to remain together. One has to do with no-integral angular momentums, and another is the Higgs Field theory. Long story short, matter = really dense energy.

You misunderstand the "defying physical law" thing that I said. I said that at the quantum level, the laws of CLASSICAL physics break down. Things like Newton's laws, and even the Conservation of Energy. There are still laws, they are just much harder to grasp because they are based in what is essentially a purely mathematical model, and they have no easilly recognizabe correlation to "normal" happenings. At the quantum level, matter and antimatter twin particles appear all the time, and destroy each other in such a small amount of time that the overall mass is apparently conserved. However, very strong forces, such as the immense gravity of a black hole, can separate these twins before impending doom occurs. And yes, they always appear in pairs, because the probability of creation and destruction of such particles is always equal. Now, that covers matter being created.

Frankly, I could keep this up, but I'm tired.
OMG! I actually understood that...

So just how long was a day before human eyes saw the sun rise and set? I hope God made the Earth and the Sun first thing in the morning.

Also, why do so many people care how long it took God to make anything? Don't be so nosey, that's the almighty's business. Read the rest of The Bible. I'm sure whoever wrote the Bible stuck the '7th day' reference in as an afterthought.

Actually that last statement on the 7th day I very much doubt as an afterthought since there are those who view the Sabbath as God's day of rest while others say it is okay to worship on any sabbath day (Sunday etc).

PS: Yes I know you just want the debate to end however the 7th day reference from my study of the bible was definetly not an afterthought

Yeah, this is something I have always asked myself partially because I am Catholic. I believe that God does exist, yet it seems that he may have caused the Big Bang to me. (Remember, since God is infinite, he is not subject to time so it may pass much faster for him). So the seven days could have been the billions of years passing by from God's perspective. But in the end, we don't really know because we were not there.

From what I understand, to this day we can see and "feel" the echo from the big bang. We know it happened, we can still see it's after effects. To get an idea of what I'm talking about Click Here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2580261.stm)

This however, is irrelevant to my point. The interesting thing about the Big Bang is that from the first nano-second of the "explosion" the Universe was obeying Laws. Physics, Thermodynamics, etc, etc, etc where already there at work, they governed even in the first impersievable moment of existence. They controlled how things reacted, they controlled the expansion and they controlled the rise of order. They still to this very day govern everything we know to exist. We certainly can't claim to fully understand them, but even so we have no choice but to acknowledge their existence and just like the universe itself, obey them.

From this we must conclude that the chunk of matter that would become the universe wasn't everything. There was something beyond it, something all powerful, something that can govern the universe as we know it, something beyond the scope of human consciousness and subsequently beyond the scope of science. Here in this place, an Atheist may see darkness. I however, see Light; this is more then enough for me.

I still fail to see why the two are mutually exclusive. Clarke's statement of 'Any science advanced enough' and all that. Besides, how would you go about explaining these theories to people a few thousand years ago? We're having enough fun trying to understand them now. ;)

Of course I cannot prove this as it is faith, therefore belief, personal and unproveable. But then again I wasn't raised in any faith and came to mine later on in life because I believed that the message of love and respect for all made sense to me, so I'm probably a little strange.

If I have to choose between a god or the big bang, then I'd choose the big bang. The evidence we have so far supports it. When they discover new things that challenge the big bang theory, then they'll come up with new theories and I'll believe the best one.

I don't believe in god, but I haven't ruled out the posibility. I don't believe the bible. It was written by people, editted by people and translated by people. Even if the original was the word of god, I doubt the ones we have today are anything like it. Maybe it's a good guide for morals and how to behave (if you take out the stonings and things) but it's not a science text book and shouldn't be treated as one.

it's not a science text book and shouldn't be treated as one.

Actually Time magazine Dec 18, 1995 cover story notes what both evolution and creation scientists note are accurate pieces of information in the bible (from the story of King David onwards) so there are many parts of the bible which are fact.

Both

*gets tackled by both scientists and Christians working together to tear me into pieces*
Well, I'll stand by ya. I think that, while I think God created everything, I also think that God uses science to create everything. As it stands, it would keep the world working as it should, helps to test the faith of humans and allows for miracles to be something special.

So I think God created the universe through the use of the big bang.

Take a big old bag and fill it with enough wood for a big ol clock. Put all the nessicary parts for the clock inside. I want you shake up the bag and expect a working clock to come out; it wont happen under any probability. Even if you premade the intricate peices before putting it in the bag; they'd break before they made anything of use; let alone a clock.

If you want to live your life thinking it's an accadent; it's completely your choice. Denying God may be the worst decision you ever make.

Take a big old bag and fill it with enough wood for a big ol clock. Put all the nessicary parts for the clock inside. I want you shake up the bag and expect a working clock to come out; it wont happen under any probability. Even if you premade the intricate peices before putting it in the bag; they'd break before they made anything of use; let alone a clock.

If you want to live your life thinking it's an accadent; it's completely your choice. Denying God may be the worst decision you ever make.

umm, clocks don't evolve.

and I was an accident.

Not using the brain you have to think about the amazing universe we live in may just be the worst mistake you ever make.

The time machine side discussion doesnt make sense considering unless there is a time machine in the past there would be nothing to go back to so time traveling back to the past is impossible until a time machine is invented allowing persons going from the point of its creation forward, and the big band vs god discussion, i believe that god created the universe, but he didnt just make us he made it so that we would be able to take care of ourselves ie evolution and i don't believe that the universe will ever collapse or end just continue to expand, but its not really the beginning of the universe we should consider ourselves with, its is the end.

the big bang was caused by one universe intersecting ours for a tetra billionth of a second, causing an explosion of mass, energy, and time, therefore bringing life to our universe, the fact that we were created was a complete accident.

umm, clocks don't evolve.

and I was an accident.

Not using the brain you have to think about the amazing universe we live in may just be the worst mistake you ever make.
Think on this. I don't recall who said the quote or the exact wording, but it went something like this. When asked by his friends who didn't believe how he could believe in God, a man replied, "If I'm wrong and you're right, then in the end, we both lose and it won't matter that I wasted my life. However, if I'm right, you still lose, but I gain everything." I think I'll take my chances at winning something and believe.

Take a big old bag and fill it with enough wood for a big ol clock. Put all the nessicary parts for the clock inside. I want you shake up the bag and expect a working clock to come out; it wont happen under any probability. Even if you premade the intricate peices before putting it in the bag; they'd break before they made anything of use; let alone a clock.

If you want to live your life thinking it's an accadent; it's completely your choice. Denying God may be the worst decision you ever make.

True, but, going with your exmaple, that action for making a clock has happened billions of times until the big bang fianlly did occur. What I mean is, time before the Big Bang was non-existant as far as we know, so, given infinite time, any occurance has 100% probability (like, take the 1000 monkeys on 1000 typewriters for 1000 years theory, and extend it to infinite time. Eventually the monkeys will indeed type out every great work of man, In fact, twith infifnite time, they'll type out every single written work of man).
Personally, I am on the side of the big bang. I absolutely shun the bible, because it was written by a bunch of people who wanted to use it to their advantage (yes, I know parts of it have been proven right, but that doesn't give us reason to believ all of it). That's what angers me about fundamental christians: they've been proved wrong, but they still believe they are right on many points. scinece, however, when proved wrong, remakes its theories to be up-to-date (eg. Newtonian physics making way for Quantam Physics's new ideas). Tehir conservative ideas make every sindle one of their ideas, all created 2000 years ago, out-of-date.
But I do believe in a certain God:not the traditonal image, not even what some people here say created the first matter in the big bang. In fact, I don't think their is a seperate god, or even one god. Some of us know about how the devil is really a part inside us, nto an external influence: it is an internal enemy. I believe the same for God. He is that part inside us that makes us have morals, such as honor, honesty etc. It is his presence inside us that creates our curiosity to talk abouit these things. Frankly, I'm tired of the 2000 year old model: I don't like God taking credit for my good deeds and acconmplishments(I wasnt the right to feel good) and I hate pinning my wrongs on the devil (I accept the responsibility to learn from my mistakes and prevent them). I don't believ in the glory of god, I believe in the glory of man, of what we have become: from an animal to an intelligent being who dreams up these brain-racking concepts.
In summary, I believ in the co-existance of science and god (not science and the church, the corrupt, power-hungry church can go to hell). I believ this because God without science is a blind faith, a concept that is inside our heads, but cannot be proven by any means in the real world, and science without god is stale and immoral, lacking the intrigue that the amazing concepts of science bring us and the control we must excersie in what we do with science.

To answer the topic question in short, I would say both. Religion was created as a way to explain the unexplainable, and since religion dates as far back as we can find (in "civilized" society), the "unexplainable" would include much that we know for certain today. Much like the origin of the Big Bang could be 200 years from now. Only about 100 years ago, Einstein developed his Theory of Relativity. Only 50 years ago, we split the atom, creating a new way to destroy the world.

The latest advancement in unifying physics, which gives us the entire picture of how the universe bagan, stops at the point where the Big Bang supposedly occurs. First off, the four forces of physics (weak + strong nuclear forces, gravity and electromagnetism) begin to break down as we approach the big bang. At this point in our understanding of how the universe began, no matter how elegant the explaination, like 2 giant literally parallel universes smashing into each other thus creating more universes, you simply can't go from nothing to something. This is where a God or some sort of higher being comes in. Then the question arises "where did this 'God' come from?" Other than this one exception I am athiest, but I am 99% sure there is a higher being who created the Big Bang or at least other universes to create ours out of pure energy. There is simply too much evidence giving credit to the Big Bang, but absolutely no evidence explaining how the Big Bang happened. Someone [/I]had[I] to have created the nugget that spontaneously expleded, giving us the Big Bang.

And how do we know it was indeed a Big Bang?

i like to think of it in a way that incorporates both christian and scientific beliefs. i feel that the big bang did go on ... but that there was a divine influence that spurred it on. science shows that some form of expansion is occuring ... but can't say why, and i feel will never be able to explain why since nothing happens spontaneously. there must be something to balance the equation. its my view that most things that are debated between religion and science generally fall somewhere in the middle ... evolution for example. i believe that some form of evolution did occur, but i don't feel that life spontaneously emerged from some primordial soup. some spark of life was injected into it ... the touch of God's hand.

Has anybody ever wonder which was the true cause of are universe
I have this strange theory that God made the big bang happen and made the sun and the solar system but over like a couple million years not just in like a week

Both. God got lucky. It was a hell of a night. That's why we call it The Big Bang.

We are cosmic man goo. :D

"If I'm wrong and you're right, then in the end, we both lose and it won't matter that I wasted my life. However, if I'm right, you still lose, but I gain everything."

If you're a betting man then it makes more sense to believe in God (although I don't think he likes gambling?).

But I just don't believe. Nothing I have ever seen makes me think there's a god. Believing (or pretending to believe) just in case there really is a god just seems wrong. Nothing any person can say will convince me. If he wants me to believe, then he can come down and tell me himself. And he'd better show some ID ;)

Being agnostic/atheist doesn't make me a bad person. I'm still nice to people and give up my seat on the bus for little old ladies. I'm not promiscous, don't smoke, don't do drugs, rarely drink alcohol. I don't steal or hurt people. I'm usually very tolerant of people and their beliefs. You don't need a god to have morals.

Science just seems to give better explanations for why the universe is the way it is. Sure "God made it that way" pretty much covers everything, but I just don't find it very satifying. Why did he make things look billions of years old if they're not? Why did he make the universe look like it started with the big bang if it didn't? Why did he make it look like people and chimps (or was it another monkey-thing?) evolved from the same ancestors, if they didn't?

Has anybody ever wonder which was the true cause of are universe
I have this strange theory that God made the big bang happen and made the sun and the solar system but over like a couple million years not just in like a week
i agree with you entirely...we must remember that alot of the Bible is not literal, that God says Himself that a day could be no more than a few seconds, or more than a billion years...i would also like to point out this compelling, yet simple evidence for the existence of God, the way He is seen by Christians, at least. Science has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that all things that come into being have a cause. Science has also proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the universe came into being, therefor it must have a cause. Following the logic, there is a cause for the universe and, as such, everything in it, and this cause must be
a) intelligent
b) uncaused
c) never came into being, but rather always was, and always will be
us Christians like to call this cause "God". intelligent, on the list of attributes, comes from the fact that if the universe had expanded any differently at all, none of what has happened on earth would have, nor would it have happened anywhere else, and the "Big Bang" required and infinitessimal amount of precision "programming", if u will.

Science has proved beyond a shadow of doubt

Science hasn't proven anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. Science just says "this theory has stood up to all criticism and has survived (but we might change our minds when we know more)". Religion says "this theory has holes so big you could drive a truck through them, but that doesn't matter because god likes trucks".

Basically any argument about the creation of the universe boils down to
- something was always there
or
- something came from nothing

They're both hard for people to comprehend.

The big bang theory was debunked ages ago by many top scientists..
===================================================
The Big Bang and the Bible

Another Theory of how the world came to be is through a process starting with a "Big Bang".

The Big Bang is a theory that sounds impressive on the surface, but simply does not hold up to extensive examination.

Here is how the Big Bang is presented:

Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the dot on a page. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigbang.html

The Big Bang theory also ignores the First law of Thermodynamics, which says:
"matter cannot be created or destroyed"

Those who believe in the Big Bang theory are also either unaware of, or ignore the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" which says:
"Everything tends towards disorder"


======================================================

Something must have given the spark of life,whether it be to the big bang or something else.You cannot discard the possibility of A god of such of giving this.Scientists will never ever find out where this spark came from..so they cant be to smart.
==================================================

but hey you cant believe everything you hear, or believe all scientists, especially this bloke..

Einstein's relative theory

My Son, The Fraud
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/15/einstein_relativity/

A theoretical physicist at the University of Nevada has published a paper
alleging that Einstein did not derive the gravitational field equations at the
heart of the General Theory of Relativity, and might in fact have copied
key equations from fellow physicist David Hilbert. This story doesn't
bother to tell you that Olinto De Pretto discovered E=mc2 and published
it twice before jew Einstein.
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/t-28362_Einstein_did_not_derive__E_=mc2_first.html

How much of what you think you know is merely jewish P.R.?

*snip*A theoretical physicist at the University of Nevada has published a paper*snip*

I won't even touch on how mistaken some of your conclusions are, but I would ask you not to name my university in it.

Thank you.

please feel free to show us all the mistakes in my conclusions.

are you saying Olinto De Pretto didnt discover E=mc2 and published
it ?

ill check back for your answers later shall i...toodles..

The Big Bang theory also ignores the First law of Thermodynamics, which says:
"matter cannot be created or destroyed"


Except a nuclear explosion does just that.
Also a collision between matter and antimatter.

If you're a betting man then it makes more sense to believe in God (although I don't think he likes gambling?).

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play
dice, the dice are loaded."

-- Chairman Sheng-ji Yang,
"Looking God in the Eye"

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play
dice, the dice are loaded."

-- Chairman Sheng-ji Yang,
"Looking God in the Eye"

There's a reason Einstein was the smartest man alive.

Except a nuclear explosion does just that.
Also a collision between matter and antimatter
=====================================
Does it, how does a nuclear explosion create matter and what matter does it create? How does a nuclear explosion destroy matter(other than smashing it to smithereens) and where does the matter go?

Has anybody ever wonder which was the true cause of are universe
I have this strange theory that God made the big bang happen and made the sun and the solar system but over like a couple million years not just in like a week
Yay, I see we share opinions. So hard to find someone who can look at things that way.

I guess the only real thing is to go to the authority and ask...
Let's see...
Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...
well, that rules out the Big Bang Theory.

You Kidding me? I talked to God last night and he said that he dropped his margarita and the impact of the glass shattering created the universe. Duh
:headbang:

A lot of you are saying I believe God exists, but...
If you believe He exists, why then is it so hard to believe that He couldn't make creation in six days and rested (Hebrew word for this means He was finished, not that He was tired) on the seventh. Why can't you believe that He would influence people to write down what happened? After all, He was there, He knew what happened, He would have gotten the story right. So either you believe in God, with everything that goes with it or you don't. If you don't than don't say that you do. Crap or get off the pot, as my daddy used to say. Stand up for what you believe in, don't be wishy-washy. I have more respect for the people who say I don't believe in God, than those who say I believe in Him, but...
'Nuf said

Except a nuclear explosion does just that.
Also a collision between matter and antimatter
=====================================
Does it, how does a nuclear explosion create matter and what matter does it create? How does a nuclear explosion destroy matter(other than smashing it to smithereens) and where does the matter go?


It is transformed to energy according to the formula E=mc2. Did yuo even know that that's what that formula is used for? Matter is just densely packed energy, nothing more, and energy can be converted to other types of energy. Did you know, that a Plutonium's mass is greater than the sum of the masses of all of its protons, electrons and neutrons, and when it breaks down to lead and some stray neutrons, the result weighs less! The change in mass is actually transformed to a tremendous amount of energy; energy which a nuclear explosion uses for that "explosion" part.

I guess the only real thing is to go to the authority and ask...
Let's see...
Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...
well, that rules out the Big Bang Theory.
But it doesn't say that G-d created the heavens and the earth without a big bang. Notice how it says heavens first, which could mean that He created the universe first, and then put earth in it.

But it doesn't say that G-d created the heavens and the earth without a big bang. Notice how it says heavens first, which could mean that He created the universe first, and then put earth in it.

But it does give a sense that it all happened very quickly.

My take on it is this: somewhere beyond our ability to detect, the universe has en edge. It is finite. Our perception of time is somehow defined by the distance across the universe.

On the first day, at the first singular point in time space, God took a superdense speck (like that found in a black hole) and plopped it down in the center of the universe (which, by all appearances, is the middle of the Milky Way galaxy.)

The enormous energy God stored in the speck exploded outwards termendously fast and began to expand. Because the edges of the universe were still so close to each other, time passed much more slowly, since the universe as a whole was more dense.

Hence, because time was moving slower than we perceived it today, infinitely more things could happen in a second:, God had plenty of 'time' (which you should have noticed by now is a relative concept) to make rocks look as though they were super old.

God also had plenty of 'time' to design the animals. However, I don't believe in evolution, since there is no physical proof of that. No fossils or basic spontaneous life generating materials of any kind. A couple intriguing skeletons, which Darwinists jump on and say "This has to mean evolution is true!" without any real science, but rather just using force of words.

Now, assuming that the rate at which the universe exploded out from the center was exponentially decreasing, by the time man got on the scene time should have been moving a lot closer to rate at which we perceive it now.
Which also theoretically means that when the universe is stretched to it's breaking point, it might just fold back in on itself... and when it does, it will end just as fast as it began (our perception of time will slow down, but it would in fact shrink to nothingness in days minutes and seconds.)

If you think this is a crackpot theory, consider this: When you take an atomic watch up in the shuttle and accelerate at Mach 17 through the atmosphere, time will slow down for you. In fact, the closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time gets. If an actual clump of particles could travel at light speed, they would be frozen in time. (This is why only photonic quanta can travel at the speed of light.)

Therefore, a universe rippling out from it's center at near the speed of light would have this confusing effect on the age of the earth. We assume that the rate of the advance of time has always been constant... but someone in the Andromeda galaxy would take one look at our watch and say, "Why does your second hand tick so fast?" because they are further away from the origin of the singularity.

anyways; it all really comes down to your belief.

every1 believes in something; you may believe yur an accadent; you may believe your accually here for a reason.

even athiestz have a religeon, but they believe in unbelief.

The earth is in the perfect orbit for the perfect environment. If the Sun, Earth or moon came out of any degree of un-alignment; we'd all die. I dont believe I'm a probability; i have purpose.

anyways; it all really comes down to your belief.

every1 believes in something; you may believe yur an accadent; you may believe your accually here for a reason.

even athiestz have a religeon, but they believe in unbelief.

The earth is in the perfect orbit for the perfect environment. If the Sun, Earth or moon came out of any degree of un-alignment; we'd all die. I dont believe I'm a probability; i have purpose.

Wouldn't it be great if everyone could find their purpose?

Think about the simple power in these words: "God created me. I have purpose."

I dare you to say it out loud if you are skeptical.

As you wish then.

First, the First law of Thermodynamics states that energy, not matter, cannot be created or destroyed. In Newtonian physics, the two are not interchangeable. In Einstinian phyics, they are (thus realitivity), from my limited understanding of quantum phyics, the difference doesn't matter. However, you are pulling from the Newtonian sphere when, as it has been noted previously in the thread, the Big Bang theory aptly explained on the quantum sphere where Newton's laws no longer function.

As for Olinto De Pretto, given that all references checked were either the one paper you posted or mention University of Perugia historian of mathematics, Umberto Bartocci, I am more inclined to discount it. There is no peer reviewed or credible scource for this statement. The orginal papers exsist only in Professor Bartocci's book, which he states he has not translated to English, which is odd given the idea that it was because the papers were in Italian was why they were not given credit.

As for the University of Nevada, I would suggest you actually read that paper. Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg is talking about a gravatational equation, not the whole theory. Even then, the faculty of the Physics Department has registered some reservations about Dr. Winterberg's conclustions

Think about the simple power in these words: "God created me. I have purpose."

Otherwise known as "I'm lonely, I need a hug."

Otherwise known as "I'm lonely, I need a hug."
Stolen from Terry Pratchett:
The Universe sprang from the semen of the gods after they procreated. The sex of the gods brought the world and all things into creation. This is known as the Big Band theory."

I find it kind of interesting that the defunct Norse concept of Ginnungagap (the great void) is far closer to the truth than the ridiculous concept of a bearded floating white man with human mores and values creating the universe.

Those supporting Genesis should look up the phenomenon known as redshift. Spectroscopy provides some fascinating theorems. The universe is indeed in a state of expansion, but this is only a small part of the overall process. Eventually, it will contract once again to the subatomic particle, from whence it will begin the process again. Life and existence are essentially part of an everlasting wheel; things change and evolve only to eventually return to the point from which they came. Think of the universe (or multiverse, more likely) as a pair of lungs, in a constant flux of expansion and contraction. The idea of roughly 18 billion years as the age of our current universe is more accurate in measuring the time (which is actually nonexistent in the strict interpretation) since the latest incarnation. The process of life had to wait billions of years for the Earth's ability to accommodate it, and began as a long photosynthetic process between the Sun and what amounts to pond scum for the creation of the first unicellular plant life which, in turn, over very long periods of time, increased in complexity until primitive animalian life appeared. This and billions of other seeming "coincidences" naturally bring the question of "Why?"

The mere existence of said phenonema does not preclude a gnostic argument. It very well may be that the existence of life is merely an autonomous process which may or may not take place under the rarely found proper circumstances, which our planet certainly has (nitrogen content, temperature, and equality of inward and outward pressure being foremost).
Being that humans are generally discontented with the idea of a meaningless existence, or one for which we must provide a meaning, however, they fabricate in their own minds the existence of a higher power to have it all make sense. Be it Ysmir/Odin, Yahweh (Jehovah), God, Jupiter, Zeus, Allah, or any other of the assorted father figures man has transformed from wishful thinking into his own reality, we've made it apparent that, one way or the other, we will create an answer if none is readily apparent to fill that empty void many feel when searching for a ready-made answer and not finding it.

This is the thing that gets me about creationists who label science as arrogant, being man's folly as he tries to cast aside God's mysteries for his own enlightenment. It is actually the complete opposite that is true. Rather than the concept of a changing universe largely beyond our comprehension whose secrets we hope to gather some vague understanding of through empirical observation and analysis, throughout time men have sought to short-cut this process by claiming THEY have the answers, and that others merely need take a leap of faith to see that they indeed hold the key to existence. In their servility, the great idiot-masses allow themselves to be ensorcelled by the fabrications and fairy tales of "enlightened" seers who, by seeming coincidence, tend to hold a set of rules and acceptable behaviors along with their insight to the nature of existence. It is easier to belong and fit in than to seek one's own truth; easier to pull the wool over one's own eyes and succumb to the dreamlike euphoria of community and group thought than to fashion a proverbial microscope, see for oneself, and analyze for oneself. The power brokers of religion have always profited from the willing servility of the masses, seducing them with the lies of their forefathers, determining the proper and improper ways to live one's life under the guise of their holding a special relationship with God which no one else can be a party to (until Martin Luther saw at least this folly), while breaking every rule they ever set for the sake of the very hedonism they warn against. Chaucer's "Prelude to the Canterbury Tales" doesn't tell half the story. The truth is hidden, or changed before our very eyes, to continue the privileged position of those who determine God's will (and I'm a Republican, the difference is that the rich earn their position to some extent). It's no small coincidence God is depicted as a caucasian male, as is Jesus. Jesus was a slightly overweight, dark skinned Jew with a large nose. He did plenty of good, but he got his f--k on like everyone else, he lied, he got piss drunk; he was a nice Jew who let his fame get to his head. He was an ordinary human with powers of persuasion over extremely gullible followers who saw what they wanted to see, all in a time of omens, prophesies, and countless mystery cults. If not for the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, and Constantine's ensuing calculating moves at Nicaea and Nantes (and to a lesser extent the work of Theodosius), Christianity would be a far different religion than we know today. Such is the nature of religion; it is made by man, it is revised by man, it is revised again, then again, and again, so long as the original lies maintain their power and influence. Look at the disputes over the nature of the Trinity in the early Byzantine Empire. At the very least, the more ridiculous aspects of the Bible are increasingly conceded as essentially fairy tales, falsehoods with a moral to their stories, though they were actually written to be believed as truth. It is pleasing to see the trend of people slowly throwing away the self-blinding crutch of religion, seeking answers based in reality, and not placing faith in what essentially amounts to "what that guy over there said". Why have men such as Copernicus been threatened with death? The concept of heresy is a convenient means of silencing those who threaten the power of the Church. This power, to the masses, represents the sanctity and atonement of Man, but to the men carrying out such silencing practices, it is the means of protecting the power base they have built. When their lies are exposed, their lofty positions are threatened, their influence over their slaves undermined. It is disgusting, to me, to disguise historical barbarism and autocratic determinism with the mask of charity and salvation, to kill in the name of what amounts to "My God is better than your God", sending forth the servile idiot masses to increase the prestige and temporal holdings of a few. If the traditional God did exist, he would be ashamed of a very large portion of his followers in ALL religions(and would be tenfold as ashamed of himself for the shoddiness of the world he created). God would be a rather vain individual as well to feel the need to have temples, churches, mosques, and so forth built for his glory, have his name constantly praised, have savage cultures subdued and converted to follow HIS way, and a rather petty individual to punish those who don't join his cult, would he not be, considering his inherent infallibility? Religion is so very obviously a manmade hoax to anyone able to attain that somehow near-impossible position of objectivity (the right to which is intentionally stolen at birth from the children of most adherents); I'm sure the prophets and saviors who began the mystery cults (a handful in the sea of thousands in the same area at the same time, prophets and messiahs common as grains of sand) which blossomed into all-encompassing religions, in their megalomania, truly felt a loftiness and special bond with God in the same way priests in South America see statues of the Virgin Mary crying blood, and drunk hicks hunting in Montana are abducted by aliens. It is an inherent human trait to see what one wants to see, to not-so-coincidentally believe one hears the voice of God and be "saved" when one wants to do so. Their belief by itself, however, does not make truth, nor the "faith" of their followers. Perception is reality in the eyes of the foolish, and that reality becomes skewed and diverges from the truth when one intentionally distorts or allows their perception to be distorted. The world continues to exist when we close our eyes, and benevolent, omnipotent Gods do not exist simply we want them to, and place faith in others who say they do. The term faith is merely a euphemism for taking the guess or deliberate mistruth of another and affording that person power to rule one's own life, for the simple fact that empirical analysis for the sake of one's own enlightenment is too difficult for the majority of humans, who are generally simpler beings and can only fathom the affairs of the temporal and mundane without assistance. Heaven and Hell, with all their various interpretations, are nothing but bedtime stories to reward or punish the consciences of those who defy the mores decided upon by those with the all too easily delegated power to do so.

There very well may a "creator" which governs existence. It is not, however, a sentient being. It is not a "he", not a "she", not even an "it". It is everything, it is nothing. Not a being, but a force, and a force which cannot speak, or create and destroy at whim. It is a force of balance, and it works very, very slowly, in eons and epochs of time. It doesn't make judgments on the basis of "right" and "wrong". These are human values, they have no meaning whatsoever in universal terms. Can one presume whether a neutron star sucking up a nearby meteor is "fair", or "right or wrong" to the meteor? It merely is; the concept of justification has no application outside our own society and planet. It does not think, or know, or speak, or physically exist. One cannot communicate with it, as it has no mind. It is not a being, it is a force of balance.

It is transformed to energy according to the formula E=mc2.( oh yes the theory einstein the jew stole) Did yuo even know that that's what that formula is used for?( are you trying to be condescending or are you just a jewish political mouth piece?) Matter is just densely packed energy, nothing more, and energy can be converted to other types of energy.( no joke einstein, so where does the energy/matter go when a there is a nuclear explosion?, please try and answer that point) Did you know, that a Plutonium's mass is greater than the sum of the masses of all of its protons, electrons and neutrons, and when it breaks down to lead and some stray neutrons, the result weighs less! The change in mass is actually transformed to a tremendous amount of energy; energy which a nuclear explosion uses for that "explosion" part( yes but that enery a nuclear explosion uses does not actually disapear does it?)

=============================================

As you wish then.

First, the First law of Thermodynamics states that energy, not matter, cannot be created or destroyed. In Newtonian physics, the two are not interchangeable. In Einstinian phyics, they are (thus realitivity), from my limited understanding of quantum phyics, the difference doesn't matter. However, you are pulling from the Newtonian sphere when, as it has been noted previously in the thread, the Big Bang theory aptly explained on the quantum sphere where Newton's laws no longer function.( ENERGY/MATTER, EXPLAIN HOW A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION DESTROYS IT COMPLETELY TO WHERE IT NO LONGER EXISTS?)

As for Olinto De Pretto, given that all references checked were either the one paper you posted or mention University of Perugia historian of mathematics, Umberto Bartocci, I am more inclined to discount it. ( OF COURSE YOUD DISCOUNT IT, BUT THEN YOUR PROBABLY A BELIEVER IN THE HOLOHOAX AS WELL)There is no peer reviewed or credible scource for this statement.( THERE IS NO PEER OR CREDIBLE SOURCE WHICH PROVES IT WRONG EITHER) The orginal papers exsist only in Professor Bartocci's book, which he states he has not translated to English, which is odd given the idea that it was because the papers were in Italian was why they were not given credit.(ANY EXCUSE WILL DO..LOL..WHATS A MATTER MATE YOU CANT DISCOUNT IT SO YOU VILIFY IT, JUST FACE THE FACTS MATE, EINSTIEN WAS A CHEATING JEWISH DUD, SMARTEST MAN ALIVE, HARDLY, NOT EVEN CLOSE...TESLA WAS A MUCH SMARTER MAN)

As for the University of Nevada, I would suggest you actually read that paper. Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg is talking about a gravatational equation, not the whole theory. Even then, the faculty of the Physics Department has registered some reservations about Dr. Winterberg's conclustions( YES BUT THE FACULTY OF PHYSICS DEPARTMENTS ARE MADE UP OF JEWS ARE THEY ARE ARE THEY NOT, SHOULD WE PRINT THE NAMES?EVEN THE CHRISTIAN NAMES THE JEWS HAVE ADOPTED..)

BY THE WAY, I DONT FOLLOW JESUS THE JEW......NOR ANY SECT, I DO BELIEVE IN A HIGHER POWER....

SCIENTIST WILL NEVER EVER EVER, BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHERE THAT SPARK/LIFE/ENERGY/MATTER COMES FROM, THATS WHY THEY WILL ALWAYS STAY DUMB, EINSTIEN WAS A FRUIT CAKE WHO STOLE WHITE MANS IDEAS..LIKE MANY OTHER PAT5ENT HOLDING JEWS.

I haven't bothered reading any posts (sorry) but

God
- The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Big Bang

don't be so absurd, big bang theory doesn't contradict creation at all! There's nothing in creation that says that the big bang didn't happen, unless you interpret it to refer to steady state theory. Besides, it's impossible for science to conflict with belief, because science is about answering hows, and belief about whys. The problems only come about when people decide to put their own interprettation forward as divine revelation.

Just because the the universe is expanding, doesn't mean that god didn't create it. There's a good guy to talk to here in the UK called John Polkinghorn - he's a professor of mathematical physics at oxford, and also an ordained anglican minister... He doesn't see any conflicts, and has written and spoken numerous times on the subjects.

Also, Aryanis, you're making some very dangerous assumptions... for one thing, you're assuming that anyone who follows a religion or believes in god or one of the myriad prophets of the past you refer to clearly didn't get there through rational or empirical means - I'd disagree with you on that.

Not really, empiricism defines that without visibly seeing a tangible God before our eyes, the conclusion that he does exist is fallacious. One can surmise that he might exist, or probably exists, or probably does not exist, but without specific evidence, it is harder to say he/it definitely does not exist, and impossible to conclude that he definitely does exist. There's a reason they call it faith; it is belief in a system that one person or a group of people create and support, with complete and utter disregard for all things empirical, or observable, or an intentional perversion of that which is observable to support whichever particular dogma when whatever is being observed does nothing of the sort, going back to people seeing what they want to see.

That being said, I did say that a higher power is completely feasible, only that the concept of a humanoid being with a human view of moralism (which varies greatly even among us), and a dual nature of cruelty and benevolence is ridiculously transparent in its manmade nature. The application of earthly concepts to the universal is just man's way of pretending his ways and customs are shared by the divine, so that he may essentially create his own apotheosis as the deification of false understanding, so long as it explains that which we are by nature not (at this time) meant to understand. We see it here on Earth, the attempt to apply our viewpoints to others, why not create a God with the same traits? By the way, your statement about people not reaching religion by empirical/rational means is ironic, because Empiricism and Rationalism are considered opposite sides of the great debate. The "rationale" used by religious types though is sort of questionable, though, being of the "We exist, therefore there is a God" school of rationalization. Sort of like the Emperor Gaius and his declaration of being Neos Helios :P.

Back up your argument if you got one, man, don't just say something without support or there is no point in writing it.

Everyone knows that it was infact a fuel tank ejected from a spaceship at the beginning of time which then exploded into the Big Bang. Says so in Dr Who.

*long snip*
I could say any number of things and bring up any points of proof, but I gave up talking to brick walls a long time ago. Claim victory or victim status as you will.

don't be so absurd, big bang theory doesn't contradict creation at all! There's nothing in creation that says that the big bang didn't happen, unless you interpret it to refer to steady state theory. Besides, it's impossible for science to conflict with belief, because science is about answering hows, and belief about whys. The problems only come about when people decide to put their own interprettation forward as divine revelation.
I've always wondered where that initial lump of matter came from. Sure was handy to have it in place. Almost miraculous, huh?

I think my monitor's capslock function broke around post 148 and started picking up interference from a neonazi pirate radio station.

Yeah Tesla was neat, I love AC electricity as much as the kid in The Ice Storm. But he never really did write one paper that would have made him worthy of being Newton's successor, let alone two, back to back. In case you're wondering where E=mc^2 comes from, it's an inevitable, and oddly simple, deduction from Einstein's, essentially intuited postulate, that the speed of light is the same in all frames. This leads to the Lorentz transforms, which in turn lead one to an accounting of energy, which has a weird little left over term Newton never expected. Indeed a term no one expected. An explosion is a release of energy. This energy can take a lot of forms. In the ealier case of antimatter matter annihilation the release will typically be in high energy gamma rays or a shower of other particals. How these particles arise is potentially complicated depending on the amount of energy involved and pretty much a question for quantum electro/chromodynamics. In the simple cases it results in two gamma rays and a neutrino to conserve momentum. Matter -> Energy. This "radiation" spreads the energy out over a large volume of space, potentially, eventually, the universe. In interacting with the universe it may change forms many many times. Inevitably some of it, or even all of it, will be lost and rendered useless for doing anything useful. And that is entropy.

The big bang didn't necessarily start off with matter per se. Matter froze out later. In fact one of the more interesting recent developments in cosmology and high energy physics is the possibility of indirectly detecting other universes. Some people think a ekpyrotic scenerio could leave a unique kind of finger print in the cosmic background radiation. Investigations by ever more powerful supercolliders might be able to generate blackholes just large enough to demonstrate a gravity deficit leaking into a near by universe. Such experiments though far off would cast the familiar Genesis style creation myths in quite a bit harsher light. If God's out there creating whole other universes our privileged quotient goes down significantly. Doesn't it? And it certainly seems like it'd be something worth mentioning, particularly given His omniscent nature and, if proven, the inevitability of that particular revealation. It could be quite the anvil on which to reform the great religions. Tantalizing that our silly little species only 5 million or so years removed from the savannah, on a quite unremarkable rock, orbiting an unremarkable little star, tucked away in a quite corner of a pretty plain galaxy, might just be able to have a meaningful, if vague, answer to the question "What came before everything?" And once more, that answer might, just maybe, come within the lifetimes of some of the people reading this thread. Quite the legacy and promise to deny oneself in favor of a smaller less perfect God. (And no man made blackholes won't swallow up the earth, that's just being silly.)

Except a nuclear explosion does just that.
Also a collision between matter and antimatter
=====================================
Does it, how does a nuclear explosion create matter and what matter does it create? How does a nuclear explosion destroy matter(other than smashing it to smithereens) and where does the matter go?

The Heissebburg Uncertainty Principle allows for such denials of the first law. Also, beta-nuetron particle decay shows that this law can be overidden for extremely ephemeral instances, as the mass of the W+ and W- bosons that regulate most decay are over 80 times more massive than the original particles. They dissapear quickly, and thus they are "allowed" to exist. The overall energy of the system is, in the long run, conserved, but there is a temporary hill of uncertainty. This is allowed, because such temporal or "virtual" particles escape "the eye of reality".

(And no man made blackholes won't swallow up the earth, that's just being silly.) Awww... I wanted to see that.

Thank you for the physics explinations, they have been very helpful in helping me undertstand. The science was willing, but the math is weak in my case. ;)

Both are just unproven theories, religious and scientific. I myself believe the big bang is no longer a theory but it itself has turned into a religion, after all, scientists believe in it, as I do a god, what is the difference?

Of course you can say its based on data, but the Big bang is not, it like most scientific theories is based on assumptions of what the Universe used to be like, but guys, why argue about it? We’re all going to find out in the end.

Both are just unproven theories, religious and scientific. I myself believe the big bang is no longer a theory but it itself has turned into a religion, after all, scientists believe in it, as I do a god, what is the difference?

The difference is that there are solid arguments for the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the conclusion of the interpretation of the data.
The god hypothesis has no solid arguments, and the conclusion is predefined. Afterwards, the data are interpreted to fit the preconceived conclusion. Comparing the two is wrong. For some reason, believers often like to impose their belief onto non-believers, but that makes it no more right and no less annoying.


...but guys, why argue about it? We’re all going to find out in the end.

No, we're not. I would like you believers to have a brief second of thinking, "Darn! I was wrong. Should've copulated more." But I don't think you'll get the chance. When it's over, it's over.

Here's a crazy idea: why not....both?

Wow, that was so mad i'm going to have to go and lie down for a bit.

The Heissebburg Uncertainty Principle allows for such denials of the first law. Also, beta-nuetron particle decay shows that this law can be overidden for extremely ephemeral instances, as the mass of the W+ and W- bosons that regulate most decay are over 80 times more massive than the original particles. They dissapear quickly, and thus they are "allowed" to exist. The overall energy of the system is, in the long run, conserved, but there is a temporary hill of uncertainty. This is allowed, because such temporal or "virtual" particles escape "the eye of reality".

I do believe it's called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Just thought I'd point that out. Your knowledge of the science seems solid, but it does help to know the name. :)

EDIT: also noted neutron was spelt wrong. (this is just a friendly correction - you sound considerably more credible if you have the words spelt right).

The big bang? I'm sorry, but that's a laugh! Not trying to be insensitive, but it takes a lot more faith to believe that some big explosion caused all these things that work perfectly together. For example....a human being? oh ya...i forgot....we uh..evolved....i really do enjoy thinking that i came from ooze and slime instead of God's creative design (not my own quote), ya right! And why did we stop evolving then......hmmmmmm

Now...which is harder and takes more faith......

1. A big bang happened! An explosion (which, if u notice...most explosions don't end up with everything working in place)! This complicated and intricate world was formed by it....and then humans evolved....slowly over millions of years........my umpteenth great grandpa was a slime ball! Yay!

2. God tenderly and gently created the world with a loving hand. His wonder is seen in everything. He made me carefully and specially. I was made exactly by his design. I look around this universe and realize he must exist....there must be a higher power! And notice....humans have found control of so much involving science....but no one can ever control the creator of it!

Thoughts?

Lady Katia

3rd Option: Big Bang caused by God...

The big bang? I'm sorry, but that's a laugh! Not trying to be insensitive, but it takes a lot more faith to believe that some big explosion caused all these things that work perfectly together. For example....a human being? oh ya...i forgot....we uh..evolved....i really do enjoy thinking that i came from ooze and slime instead of God's creative design (not my own quote), ya right! And why did we stop evolving then......hmmmmmm

Now...which is harder and takes more faith......

1. A big bang happened! An explosion (which, if u notice...most explosions don't end up with everything working in place)! This complicated and intricate world was formed by it....and then humans evolved....slowly over millions of years........my umpteenth great grandpa was a slime ball! Yay!

2. God tenderly and gently created the world with a loving hand. His wonder is seen in everything. He made me carefully and specially. I was made exactly by his design. I look around this universe and realize he must exist....there must be a higher power! And notice....humans have found control of so much involving science....but no one can ever control the creator of it!

Thoughts?

Lady KatiaMy thoughts - your's are all wrong

Thoughts?


We really should post a sign somewhere saying something like:

people who rely on the argument:"Its just all too complicated! I do not understand physics but something that intricate does not seem natural to me!" should not be allowed to post in this thread.

:sniper: The universe was created by the destruction of our universe last time in an infinite loop :headbang:

:mp5: Why do you think this is a strange theory? :mad: I think many Christians have this belief, although the time :gundge: scale is longer than millions.
I :sniper: still see no conflict whatsoever between science and religi :sniper: on. The whole fight is manufactured by both sides because they (in general) hate each other. I am perfectly comfortable :mp5: with science and religion. :fluffle: :(

You sir, are an idiot. :sniper:

Something interesting......you say something such has the Bible has no proof? Well i suggest you look harder, or in fact, you might want to actually look. The Bible is not simply a singular book, the facts in this book have been found in many other historical documents. There are stories passed down that haven't changed on the history side of it.....
Oh, and, explain to me...how a "simple" book has not only survived...but also existed without any significant change for all these years.

There are some books out there written by great scientists who went out to write a book to disprove Christianity...when low and behold they found too much proof opposing them and became Christians themselves.

I will try to find out the names of the book or books if u are interested.

After all, you don't believe it anyway.....so it wouldn't change your mind...now would it?

Lady Katia

Something interesting......you say something such has the Bible has no proof? Well i suggest you look harder, or in fact, you might want to actually look. The Bible is not simply a singular book, the facts in this book have been found in many other historical documents. There are stories passed down that haven't changed on the history side of it.....
Oh, and, explain to me...how a "simple" book has not only survived...but also existed without any significant change for all these years.

There are some books out there written by great scientists who went out to write a book to disprove Christianity...when low and behold they found too much proof opposing them and became Christians themselves.

I will try to find out the names of the book or books if u are interested.

After all, you don't believe it anyway.....so it wouldn't change your mind...now would it?

Lady Katia

Completely off topic. Go away.

We really should post a sign somewhere saying something like:

people who rely on the argument:"Its just all too complicated! I do not understand physics but something that intricate does not seem natural to me!" should not be allowed to post in this thread.

Well....how about a sign saying
People who can't quote others correctly, especially in context should not be allowed to post.

Also, I did not inform you if i did or did not know anything about physics. Is it just possible that i have seen enough of science to realize that it can't stop there.

Well....how about a sign saying
People who can't quote others correctly, especially in context should not be allowed to post.

Also, I did not inform you if i did or did not know anything about physics. Is it just possible that i have seen enough of science to realize that it can't stop there.

It wouldnt have made any difference if i quoted your whole post. I cut it to save room. If you know enough about physics to prove the big bang is impossible, I suggest you join a university. You'll rock the world of science in a matter of months.

:eek: You're disgusting! If you don't believe in the Bible you are going to Hell. :mad:


You tell him he is disgusting (which he is)! What about u? Tell me something...when was the last time God told you to go out and tell everybody that they are going to hell? Now, I have to technically agree theologically with your comment, but have you ever thought about the fact that Jesus never went around simply condeming people to hell. I think most people are aware of the fact that Christian's believe (know) that if you don't have salvation in Christ you go to hell, plain and simple. Of course, how many have you told that Christ came to save them. How many have you told about his grace? Now, I am not perfect either, and i don't mean to pass judgement, I just want to help.

God Bless!

The big bang? I'm sorry, but that's a laugh! Not trying to be insensitive, but it takes a lot more faith to believe that some big explosion caused all these things that work perfectly together.

Quit imposing your faith onto others, please!



For example....a human being? oh ya...i forgot....we uh..evolved....i really do enjoy thinking that i came from ooze and slime instead of God's creative design (not my own quote), ya right! And why did we stop evolving then......hmmmmmm

So because you would rather have been tenderly and gently created with a loving hand, rather than descend from ooze and slime, that makes it true? My oh my, that’s a bulletproof argument...



1. A big bang happened! An explosion (which, if u notice...most explosions don't end up with everything working in place)!

Ever hear of gravity, sweetie?



2. God tenderly and gently created the world with a loving hand. His wonder is seen in everything. He made me carefully and specially. I was made exactly by his design. I look around this universe and realize he must exist....there must be a higher power! And notice....humans have found control of so much involving science....but no one can ever control the creator of it!

Thoughts?

I’m thinking how sad it is to see people letting their ignorance dictate their lives, and still manage to arrogantly show off this ignorance of theirs as if it were some sort of badge of honor.

Why don’t you actually learn some science so you don’t have to publicly embarass yourself?

Did i say i knew enough about physics to prove the big bang was impossible? Did i ever in fact say that? My goodness, u should never be a lawyer.


But, do u know enough about physics to prove it could have happened?

Of course...if you did...most likely i would get very little of what you were saying, enough....but still only a little. After all, i never said i wanted to be a scientest.

Still, i reckon that if i talked about the creator of science you wouldn't have a clue either.

While u are proving that God doesn't exist.....prove to me that the wind does. Oh yes...also prove that hot, cold, and room temperature also exist.

Did i say i knew enough about physics to prove the big bang was impossible? Did i ever in fact say that? My goodness, u should never be a lawyer.


But, do u know enough about physics to prove it could have happened?

Of course...if you did...most likely i would get very little of what you were saying, enough....but still only a little. After all, i never said i wanted to be a scientest.

Still, i reckon that if i talked about the creator of science you wouldn't have a clue either.

While u are proving that God doesn't exist.....prove to me that the wind does. Oh yes...also prove that hot, cold, and room temperature also exist.

Well i'll return the compliment: you should never be a lawyer either. I didnt make any mention of god in my post. I dont really know if he exists or not. That wasnt what i was taling about.

I do know a bit of physics. I have a joint degree in it with mathematics so i know some of the big bang theory. But for the details i tend to rely on the astronomers say as it is their job to understand it.

Quit imposing your faith onto others, please!


(imposing my faith? Hmm....i never said u had to believe it now did i? I stated what i thought, just like you are doing...)


So because you would rather have been tenderly and gently created with a loving hand, rather than descend from ooze and slime, that makes it true? My oh my, that’s a bulletproof argument...


(I never said what i want makes it true. I wish i could make that happen! I could just want something and it would be true! That would be cool! Tell me if you ever find the invention to make that one possible! I simply stated an idea, luckily the one i believe is a more pleasent one to believe. Unfortunatley, there is more in the Bible that isn't something that u necessarily want to do or believe because it isn't pleasent -not in our opinions-but how about this, just because i don't like the fact that i will burn if i jump into lava doesn't make it not true. Of course....the same way....just because i believe when looking at a wild bear that it is soft and cuddly...i discover it's not true when it's trying to kill me. Still, i base mine on fact my dear, not opinion)


Ever hear of gravity, sweetie?


(Since when did gravity put everything into the right place? Do me a favor, take some books off your desk and through them wildly up into the air, now, if they fall exactly in perfect order, i might believe you. But also, since you seem like such a science buff.....tell me about blood, the essence of life. Oh, while your at it, tell me how it came to be, all it's uses, and why we can't seem to create it from a mass of havoc. Or evolve it for that matter)


I’m thinking how sad it is to see people letting their ignorance dictate their lives, and still manage to arrogantly show off this ignorance of theirs as if it were some sort of badge of honor.

Ignorance my dear? Take a look at your argument and say that one again...

Why don’t you actually learn some science so you don’t have to publicly embarass yourself?

I have learned some science....but no, i am not planning to major in it. To be quite honest, if you see enough of the world around u, u have to realize that science does not answer all the questions.

I do know a bit of physics. I have a joint degree in it with mathematics so i know some of the big bang theory. But for the details i tend to rely on the astronomers say as it is their job to understand it.

Well that poses an interesting idea, so u admit u don't know all the details? Or is that not what "for the details i tend to rely on..." mean?

Then we have something in common, for specific physics details, i rely on the scientists who have proved against the big bang theory, not on my own knowledge. My own knowledge results from the world i live and breathe in.

I just can't figure out why u aren't answering the questions i have asked. Now, if you honestly don't know how u, urself personally can disprove God, and then prove wind, hot, cold, and room temperature (i am asking, not because u mentioned it, but since you claim to know so much about science) then i will understand.

Because, i do not know enough of science to personally discredit the big bang....yet, like they way you trust the astronomers to do their job, i trust the scientists who have repeatedly disproved the big bang to do theirs.

note that when i said personally discredit the big bang, i meant "scientifically."

Here's my version (not only mine): The Big Bang Theory: God Spoke and BANG it happened!

Well that poses an interesting idea, so u admit u don't know all the details? Or is that not what "for the details i tend to rely on..." mean?

Then we have something in common, for specific physics details, i rely on the scientists who have proved against the big bang theory, not on my own knowledge. My own knowledge results from the world i live and breathe in.

I just can't figure out why u aren't answering the questions i have asked. Now, if you honestly don't know how u, urself personally can disprove God, and then prove wind, hot, cold, and room temperature (i am asking, not because u mentioned it, but since you claim to know so much about science) then i will understand.

Because, i do not know enough of science to personally discredit the big bang....yet, like they way you trust the astronomers to do their job, i trust the scientists who have repeatedly disproved the big bang to do theirs.

Did you even read my post? or just latch on to the details you were most uncomfortable with. Like i said before I am not talking about god. I dont know if he exists and right now i dont care. Why beleiving in the big bang and god is such an anathema to you guys i really dont know.

I dont think anyone could know all the details of astronomy, up to research level so no, i dont know them all. For the scientists you rely on: name me one (just one!) professor of physics who doesnt beleive in the big bang.

Well that poses an interesting idea, so u admit u don't know all the details? Or is that not what "for the details i tend to rely on..." mean?
The big bang is a "theory" in the sense that it is now incontrovertable fact, and all that left is to determine exactly what it looked like, and just maybe what came before it. As it just so happens I know a perfect short book covering exactly this subject from it's beginings to almost present day from an astrophysics perspective (as opposed to high energy physics which is certainly less intuitive and maybe more amazing).

It's called "The Very First Light: A Scientific Journey Back To the Dawn of the Universe." It's a pure science book easily digestible for the layman, with only a small glossary that likely won't be needed. It's only 281 pgs and is written as a more traditional story following the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation to the revealations provided by COBE (a tool built to measure it). It's even got pictures. Anyone should be able to find it used for around $5. ISBN 0-14-027220-8

It's not the whole story, which really requires at least some investigation of high energy physics, but it's an excellent place to start.

The universe was obviously created by a giant Cucumber. :D

I have learned some science....but no, i am not planning to major in it. To be quite honest, if you see enough of the world around u, u have to realize that science does not answer all the questions.

What questions might those be, and why does science not answering them automatically lead to your God's excistence?

I beleive in the big bang rather than god creating the universe (not that I don't think god exists, there just isn't enough evedince to prove to me that there is a god, or isn't a god). It's more realistic to me.

Again, to those denying the big bang, explain redshift and you have a case. To believe anything with no credible data to support the belief is only pulling the wool over one's eyes and willingly submitting to slavery of the mind. There is also a big difference between what is proposed as a theory and what is presented as the undeniable word of God, despite the fact that the latter is coincidentally the one which seems to be, rather than expanded upon with new supporting data, constantly revised and reinterpreted for the sake of continually disguising its inherent transparency as manmade nonsense arrogantly misrepresented as the word of God. Religion is something like the Wizard of Oz, being the little man hiding behind the curtain with the big booming voice and facade of power. The neverending farcical play, attracting audiences worldwide willing to murder to keep up the illusion because the big booming voice tells them he can speak for the God of whom he knows nothing.

Something interesting......you say something such has the Bible has no proof? Well i suggest you look harder, or in fact, you might want to actually look. The Bible is not simply a singular book, the facts in this book have been found in many other historical documents. There are stories passed down that haven't changed on the history side of it.....
Oh, and, explain to me...how a "simple" book has not only survived...but also existed without any significant change for all these years.

There are some books out there written by great scientists who went out to write a book to disprove Christianity...when low and behold they found too much proof opposing them and became Christians themselves.

I will try to find out the names of the book or books if u are interested.

After all, you don't believe it anyway.....so it wouldn't change your mind...now would it?

Lady Katia

Books by Plato, priests of other religions and Egyption pharoahs have survived longer without change but we do not go around forming religions around them. By the way the Bible has change many times over the years as it is rewritten and reinterprited (sp?) over the years. There are many different versions of the bible out there each one slightly different. What one is the original?

In the beggining god made the earth but it took him millions of years. Later the Isralelites said ok god how long did it take you to finish the universe. God said Billions of years. They replied well how long is that? God said seven days. Most of the creation stories are moderated.

Also the flood and other bible stories were written after the Bablonian Captivity. Many of those stroies ar in Bablonian stories that came first.

Evolution is one of Gods greatest works. I mean how could evolution happen with out him? God and the big bang go hand in hand. Same with god and Evolution. Darwin never said that god didn't give evolution a push. Darwin was actually deeply religous. Sorry I'm on a roll.

this is the first time i can express my thoughts without being heckled on the spot.

:)

Evolution is one of Gods greatest works. I mean how could evolution happen with out him? God and the big bang go hand in hand. Same with god and Evolution. Darwin never said that god didn't give evolution a push. Darwin was actually deeply religous. Sorry I'm on a roll.
That's the Catholic church's take on the issue.

whats up... ok heres the deal.. theres lots of theories out there about the origins of the universe, whether a supernatural being created it or the big bang.. since i dont really believe in the former and i dont believe that proof is unfindable, i must agree to the theories of the latter... however there are so many thoeries out there. The Big Bang, for example is when pressure in the absolutley blank, vacuum of space condensed to something so small that an explosion occurred.. creating the entire universe.. not just our small solar system. Another theory is the expansion-collapse theory... IT has been scientifically proven as fact, that the universe is expanding every year... from this data, it is concludible (if thats a word) that the universe expands to a point where it cannot hold itself intact (kind of like a star going super-nova and then creating a black hole b/c its too massive and unstable to remain suspended in space). The universe then collapses in on itself for hundreds of trillions of years until it condenses back in on itself to a point where there is too high a concentration of mass in a small area, and the whole thing explodeds outwards again. For all we know, we can be the product of the hundredth big bang (since we cannot accurately date the universe). Life on earth or in our solar system is a completely different story. IT is also proven fact that our solar system was created b/c a cloud of gas (what wud one day be our sun) was affected by the displaacement of space (due to waves) from an exploding star less than 100 light years away. The shock waves sent the gas spinning. Eventually it condensed and heated up (due to friction) and became the sun (our own little star). Becasue of its massiveness and the spinning due to the shock waves.. rock masses near by becasme attracted by the sun's gravity. and became planets (due to their own spinning on their axes) and moons... Thats just a strong theory of how our universe and solar system took form... there are many others out there... all, which i think hold more water than a supernatural being causing it (since there cannot ever be proof)... Someone also wrote a message about someone building a time machine... Time travel is physically and utterly imossible. Time is a constant. and only the measurements can be changed based on position in comparison to either the sun or a moon or something... time cannot be bypassed. the only thing that comes close to time travel is travelling faster than the speed of light (impossible speed since electrons are the fastest moving things in the universe) to,for instance mars... you can see the light coming from the sun that would normally be seen a few seconds after you are seeing it.... but you yourself cannot turn back time and go back to when your parents were kids (back to hte future) for example... anyway im done preaching.. peace - The Oppressed Peoples of Bobby Prime (-in Hockeyland )->telegram me sometime if you want

God had to start the Big Bang if the Big Bang actually happened.

are you not tired to make a thread,based on belief?
What about life ?

Big, important post here

Evolution is one of Gods greatest works. I mean how could evolution happen with out him? God and the big bang go hand in hand. Same with god and Evolution. Darwin never said that god didn't give evolution a push. Darwin was actually deeply religous. Sorry I'm on a roll.
Thats's the compromise many people have come to adopt- God made the big bang, set everything in motion, and created a universe where life could change and evolve without him interfering. This springs out of the fact that many people believe there is no explanation for the big bang. Well, there is. I'll assume nobody's mentioned it because the debate is still going, and not many people know this much science.

One of the basic rules of Newtonian physics is that you can not create something from nothing. Therefore, the question "where did everything come from" arises. However, there is the quantum level of the universe, and at this level every rule of the universe breaks down. In a vacuum, small pieces of matter can be spontaneously created, provided at the same time a bit of "antimatter" is created at the same spot. It's like shoveling dirt out of the ground and throwing it away. You have dirt, and you have a hole, but you haven't gained anything.

These two whiz around at high speeds for an extraordinarily short amount of time, and then come back together and destroy each other. These "virtual particles" are so small and exist for such a short amount of time, that they can not be directly seen. Their existance is known only by observing their effect on electrons and other very tiny things.

Every time this happens, the fabric of space bulges and stretches a little. If you get enough of these virtual particles appearing at the same time in the same place, the fabric stretches so violently, that the expansion known as "the big bang" begins. This is the amount of stretching which will cause a warping of the gravitational field, meaning the universe does not revert back to normal, and instead continues to expand. The warping is what provides the additional energy.

And that is the currently accepted theory.

-edit- Up Up Down Quards touched upon this back on page 6.

So? I find my self protestant and catholic. I'm Cathastant

BIG BANG or GOD?
So, if God is infinite, the size of the universe, and taken to impregnating virgins, I suppose you could say that that would be a... big bang.

Big, important post here


Thats's the compromise many people have come to adopt- God made the big bang, set everything in motion, and created a universe where life could change and evolve without him interfering. This springs out of the fact that many people believe there is no explanation for the big bang. Well, there is. I'll assume nobody's mentioned it because the debate is still going, and not many people know this much science.

One of the basic rules of Newtonian physics is that you can not create something from nothing. Therefore, the question "where did everything come from" arises. However, there is the quantum level of the universe, and at this level every rule of the universe breaks down. In a vacuum, small pieces of matter can be spontaneously created, provided at the same time a bit of "antimatter" is created at the same spot. It's like shoveling dirt out of the ground and throwing it away. You have dirt, and you have a hole, but you haven't gained anything.

These two whiz around at high speeds for an extraordinarily short amount of time, and then come back together and destroy each other. These "virtual particles" are so small and exist for such a short amount of time, that they can not be directly seen. Their existance is known only by observing their effect on electrons and other very tiny things.

Every time this happens, the fabric of space bulges and stretches a little. If you get enough of these virtual particles appearing at the same time in the same place, the fabric stretches so violently, that the expansion known as "the big bang" begins. This is the amount of stretching which will cause a warping of the gravitational field, meaning the universe does not revert back to normal, and instead continues to expand. The warping is what provides the additional energy.

And that is the currently accepted theory.
All i have to say is that the baptist are wrong The Earth was not made in 7 days. There are aliens. And The dinosaurs are real.

<snip>
Time travel is physically and utterly imossible. Time is a constant. and only the measurements can be changed based on position in comparison to either the sun or a moon or something... time cannot be bypassed. the only thing that comes close to time travel is travelling faster than the speed of light (impossible speed since electrons are the fastest moving things in the universe) to,for instance mars... you can see the light coming from the sun that would normally be seen a few seconds after you are seeing it.... but you yourself cannot turn back time and go back to when your parents were kids (back to hte future) for example... anyway im done preaching.. peace - The Oppressed Peoples of Bobby Prime (-in Hockeyland )->telegram me sometime if you want

Your physics are a little messed up here, however I agree that time travel is probably impossible. First of all, photons are faster than electrons. They are in a state of flux between matter and energy. Sometimes photonic quanta are waves, sometimes they are particles. This is why light can go at the speed of light. Because it is at such a high frequency, and is a wave, it can go "point-to-point" at the speed of light. Other wave radiation like radio has such a huge waveform that they wander about and go nowhere near the speed of light.

Secondly, time is not a constant, and never will be. You arbitrarily say it is a constant, because you can't detect fluctuations in the rate of time. How could you? If time was running slower, your perception of it would run slower as well.

Going back to the shuttle analogy, they found that two identical atomic clocks, one on earth and one accelerated at 17000 mph, had different times when they next compared them side by side. The most likely explanation for this is that time elapses slower when a body is traveling at speeds closer and closer to the speed of light.

Since the universe is in a constant state of flux, and galaxies travel past each other at speeds beyond our comprehension (which seem slow only because of the sheer gargantuan size of a galaxy), it logically follows that an outside observer (God) would have a different perception of time than an entity measuring the elapsation of time using relative measurements.

Almost all of modern science (except for physics) is based on the popular assumption that time is a constant, an assumption that cannot be correct unless the universe was always the same size, and all the positions of the galaxies were fixed, not flying by each other at speeds of up to half the speed of light.

Your physics are a little messed up here, however I agree that time travel is probably impossible. First of all, photons are faster than electrons. They are in a state of flux between matter and energy. Sometimes photonic quanta are waves, sometimes they are particles. This is why light can go at the speed of light. Because it is at such a high frequency, and is a wave, it can go "point-to-point" at the speed of light. Other wave radiation like radio has such a huge waveform that they wander about and go nowhere near the speed of light.

Secondly, time is not a constant, and never will be. You arbitrarily say it is a constant, because you can't detect fluctuations in the rate of time. How could you? If time was running slower, your perception of it would run slower as well.

Going back to the shuttle analogy, they found that two identical atomic clocks, one on earth and one accelerated at 17000 mph, had different times when they next compared them side by side. The most likely explanation for this is that time elapses slower when a body is traveling at speeds closer and closer to the speed of light.

Since the universe is in a constant state of flux, and galaxies travel past each other at speeds beyond our comprehension (which seem slow only because of the sheer gargantuan size of a galaxy), it logically follows that an outside observer (God) would have a different perception of time than an entity measuring the elapsation of time using relative measurements.

Almost all of modern science (except for physics) is based on the popular assumption that time is a constant, an assumption that cannot be correct unless the universe was always the same size, and all the positions of the galaxies were fixed, not flying by each other at speeds of up to half the speed of light.

Einstien said that Time travel would be attined before faster than light travel. That time treavel is more plausable.

Einstien said that Time travel would be attined before faster than light travel. That time treavel is more plausable.

Ah, but if humans could engage in time travel, wouldn't we be messing with God's timeline? ;)

I personally feel that even if time travel is physically possible that God wouldn't allow it, because it is so open to abuse.

Big, important post here


Thats's the compromise many people have come to adopt- God made the big bang, set everything in motion, and created a universe where life could change and evolve without him interfering. This springs out of the fact that many people believe there is no explanation for the big bang. Well, there is. I'll assume nobody's mentioned it because the debate is still going, and not many people know this much science.

One of the basic rules of Newtonian physics is that you can not create something from nothing. Therefore, the question "where did everything come from" arises. However, there is the quantum level of the universe, and at this level every rule of the universe breaks down. In a vacuum, small pieces of matter can be spontaneously created, provided at the same time a bit of "antimatter" is created at the same spot. It's like shoveling dirt out of the ground and throwing it away. You have dirt, and you have a hole, but you haven't gained anything.

These two whiz around at high speeds for an extraordinarily short amount of time, and then come back together and destroy each other. These "virtual particles" are so small and exist for such a short amount of time, that they can not be directly seen. Their existance is known only by observing their effect on electrons and other very tiny things.

Every time this happens, the fabric of space bulges and stretches a little. If you get enough of these virtual particles appearing at the same time in the same place, the fabric stretches so violently, that the expansion known as "the big bang" begins. This is the amount of stretching which will cause a warping of the gravitational field, meaning the universe does not revert back to normal, and instead continues to expand. The warping is what provides the additional energy.

And that is the currently accepted theory.

-edit- Up Up Down Quards touched upon this back on page 6.
Things can be created and destroyed in the absolute infinite and Absolute Zero. The Absolute infinite adds an infinite amount of matter and is only a theroy. The absolute zero has happened it is where all matter is destroyed in an object. Thus destroy and desintegrating the object. Very few people have this kind of scientific knowledge though.

We humans cannot comprehend this there fore we shouldn't try.

We humans cannot comprehend this there fore we shouldn't try.
God doesn't want us to comprehend there fore we shoudn't. If we should have understood god would have made us comprehend. But we just can't comprehend god. So don't try.

Ah, but if humans could engage in time travel, wouldn't we be messing with God's timeline? ;)

I personally feel that even if time travel is physically possible that God wouldn't allow it, because it is so open to abuse.
We can't engage in time travel yet. That's what i'm trying to say. By the way i'm only 15 but i have a genius IQ.

Things can be created and destroyed in the absolute infinite and Absolute Zero. The Absolute infinite adds an infinite amount of matter and is only a theroy. The absolute zero has happened it is where all matter is destroyed in an object. Thus destroy and desintegrating the object. Very few people have this kind of scientific knowledge though.

I'm pretty sure thats wrong. I dont think absolute zero has ever been attained and its my understanding that it is impossible to attain.

Also the time line is set. The magic bullet that killed Kenedy may have been a bullet that has yet to be invinted or it could have been a million to one shot. But what i'm saying is that even if we try to mess with the time line we can't. Because what is going to happen already did. You can't change it. It is really complicated.

I'm pretty sure thats wrong. I dont think absolute zero has ever been attained and its my understanding that it is impossible to attain.
Absolute Zero has happened but it is an anmomoly. It is Nigh on Impossible to attain. It is just pure luck that it happened at all. It is an another Einstien Theroy not Scientific Law.

Absolute Zero has happened but it is an anmomoly. It is Nigh on Impossible to attain. It is just pure luck that it happened at all. It is an another Einstien Theroy not Scientific Law.

If it has happened, why is it not a scientific law? I'm inclined not to beleive you. Have you got a link to something explaining this. I'm just interested.

Gosh didn't any of you watch back to the future? LOL

Things can be created and destroyed in the absolute infinite and Absolute Zero. The Absolute infinite adds an infinite amount of matter and is only a theroy. The absolute zero has happened it is where all matter is destroyed in an object. Thus destroy and desintegrating the object. Very few people have this kind of scientific knowledge though.
First off, are you agreeing or disagreeing? I can't tell.

I have not heard of absolute infinite, and the only thing absolute zero means to me is 0 K temperature, where all matter should slow down and cease to exist. That hasn't been reached yet. It's been gotten down to within a few billionths of a degree, but hasn't been reached.

We can't engage in time travel yet. That's what i'm trying to say. By the way i'm only 15 but i have a genius IQ.
A genius would figure out how to use the edit button, no? :)

Please, don't toot your own horn. IQ is simply a measure of how fast you can process information, it doesn't measure how much you know, or how innovative you are. Genius changes the world. People with sky high IQ's have the capacity to be genius, it doesn't mean they have the innovative ability.

By the way, I'm 15 as well. I'm curious, what is your "genius IQ".

If it has happened, why is it not a scientific law? I'm inclined not to beleive you. Have you got a link to something explaining this. I'm just interested.

Scientific Law has to happen every time. Since it is an anomoly it doesn't happen every time. Therefore it is just a theroy not a law.

I dont believe absolute zero is possible to obtain. Heat flows from hotter objects to colder objects. In order to have absolute zero, instead of minimizing this flow you have to eliminate it. Also, in order to observe or detect it, that involves outside influence which would contaminate it.

First off, are you agreeing or disagreeing? I can't tell.

I have not heard of absolute infinite, and the only thing absolute zero means to me is 0 K temperature, where all matter should slow down and cease to exist. That hasn't been reached yet. It's been gotten down to within a few billionths of a degree, but hasn't been reached.


A genius would figure out how to use the edit button, no? :)

Please, don't toot your own horn. IQ is simply a measure of how fast you can process information, it doesn't measure how much you know, or how innovative you are. Genius changes the world. People with sky high IQ's have the capacity to be genius, it doesn't mean they have the innovative ability.

By the way, I'm 15 as well. I'm curious, what is your "genius IQ".

I may have the capacity to be a genius. I'm not saying i am. I'm to lazy to be a genius. But i do comprehend things beyond most human capacity.

I dont believe absolute zero is possible to obtain. Heat flows from hotter objects to colder objects. In order to have absolute zero, instead of minimizing this flow you have to eliminate it. Also, in order to observe or detect it, that involves outside influence which would contaminate it.

Once again i am just saying that it has happened once or twice and only because of pure luck.

I may have the capacity to be a genius. I'm not saying i am. I'm to lazy to be a genius. But i do comprehend things beyond most human capacity.
May be, but then again there are many smart people around. So I ask again, what is your IQ?

-edit- There is no luck. If something can happen once, it can happen again. If absolute 0 was reached once, it can be reached as many times as scientists want. I have heard nothing about this, and I'm sure I would have, since it would not only disprove conservation of energy, but the ability to reach absolute 0 would allow for 100% efficient heat engines, as well as superconductors without any resistance.

Absolute zero would change the world, I want proof that it has been reached.

First off, are you agreeing or disagreeing? I can't tell.

I have not heard of absolute infinite, and the only thing absolute zero means to me is 0 K temperature, where all matter should slow down and cease to exist. That hasn't been reached yet. It's been gotten down to within a few billionths of a degree, but hasn't been reached.


A genius would figure out how to use the edit button, no? :)

Please, don't toot your own horn. IQ is simply a measure of how fast you can process information, it doesn't measure how much you know, or how innovative you are. Genius changes the world. People with sky high IQ's have the capacity to be genius, it doesn't mean they have the innovative ability.

By the way, I'm 15 as well. I'm curious, what is your "genius IQ".
I'm agreeing. But i'm also Christian so i am quite biased.

I may have the capacity to be a genius. I'm not saying i am. I'm to lazy to be a genius. But i do comprehend things beyond most human capacity.

If you're so clever by now you should have learnt that talking about IQs is one of the least interesting and most annoying things you can possibly do.

When and where did these instances of absolute zero occur?

May be, but then again there are many smart people around. So I ask again, what is your IQ?

-edit- There is no luck. If something can happen once, it can happen again. If absolute 0 was reached once, it can be reached as many times as scientists want. I have heard nothing about this, and I'm sure I would have, since it would not only disprove conservation of energy, but the ability to reach absolute 0 would allow for 100% efficient heat engines, as well as superconductors without any resistance.

Absolute zero would change the world, I want proof that it has been reached.
First There are superconductors.
Second I have no idea what my IQ is I haven't taken the test for a long time.

Sorry guys i have to go. My dad and i are going home from his Law Office. I work there.

If you're so clever by now you should have learnt that talking about IQs is one of the least interesting and most annoying things you can possibly do.

When and where did these instances of absolute zero occur?
Learned

Once again i am just saying that it has happened once or twice and only because of pure luck.


Quantum Theory is based a lot on chance. Hypothetically, one could say that a particle has no heat for a split second. However, gravity compresses things causing heat. Interactions cause heat. Radiation causes heat. Thus, you could have absolute zero if the particle lies in an absolute vacuum.

I happen to believe that the Big Bang was created by God...but that's just me talking...

Per definition no object can ever reach absolute zero. Temperature is movement, and without movement there is nothing. In theory, if you created true emptiness, the temperature there would be 0K, but there can be no such thing (partly because of the randomness of quantum mechanics)

I happen to believe that the Big Bang was created by God...but that's just me talking...
I knew this would happen. In truth, nobody reads an entire thread of this length, and at the rate replies are being posted, soon despite the fact that I gave cold, hard evidence for the creation of the big bang without god, nobody will see it anymore, and there will be a new wave of people reposting the exact same arguments.

Check out page 14.

I knew this would happen. In truth, nobody reads an entire thread of this length, and at the rate replies are being posted, soon despite the fact that I gave cold, hard evidence for the creation of the big bang without god, nobody will see it anymore, and there will be a new wave of people reposting the exact same arguments.

Check out page 14.
Cold hard evidence??? Prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. One thing you don't take into account is that the human brain's ability to deduce is restricted by what is already known. If there's a being such as God, do you REALLY think you would be able to even come close to grasping any action he might perform?

Big, important post here


Thats's the compromise many people have come to adopt- God made the big bang, set everything in motion, and created a universe where life could change and evolve without him interfering. This springs out of the fact that many people believe there is no explanation for the big bang. Well, there is. I'll assume nobody's mentioned it because the debate is still going, and not many people know this much science.

One of the basic rules of Newtonian physics is that you can not create something from nothing. Therefore, the question "where did everything come from" arises. However, there is the quantum level of the universe, and at this level every rule of the universe breaks down. In a vacuum, small pieces of matter can be spontaneously created, provided at the same time a bit of "antimatter" is created at the same spot. It's like shoveling dirt out of the ground and throwing it away. You have dirt, and you have a hole, but you haven't gained anything.

These two whiz around at high speeds for an extraordinarily short amount of time, and then come back together and destroy each other. These "virtual particles" are so small and exist for such a short amount of time, that they can not be directly seen. Their existance is known only by observing their effect on electrons and other very tiny things.

Every time this happens, the fabric of space bulges and stretches a little. If you get enough of these virtual particles appearing at the same time in the same place, the fabric stretches so violently, that the expansion known as "the big bang" begins. This is the amount of stretching which will cause a warping of the gravitational field, meaning the universe does not revert back to normal, and instead continues to expand. The warping is what provides the additional energy.

And that is the currently accepted theory.

-edit- Up Up Down Quards touched upon this back on page 6.
Where did space come from? And who created matter and antimatter in the first place? You haven't proved anything.

This thread is not going to change anyones mind about this. You are all going to argue your view to people that will not listen and instead they will just argue their view to you...and you won't listen. It will just lead to all of you doing this :headbang:

Believe what you want...I know the truth. Do not reply to me in this thread because I will never visit it again.

Where did space come from? And who created matter and antimatter in the first place? You haven't proved anything.
In a lab created vacuum, this matter is found to sponteneousely appear, as a vacuum is dynamic, despite the original idea that it is static. Therein lies proof that the universe was created without outside intervention of a divine being. I eagerly await evidence to the contrary.

First, I must say that I believe entirely in a scientific explanation, because with the god theory, there's still a problem: EVERY SINGLE CRITISISM YOU GIVE US SCIENCE SUPPORTERS, LIKE "SOMETHING CAN'T COME FROM NOTHING" APPLIES TO THIS SO-CALLED GOD OF YOURS AS WELL. This totally rules out a material God. But, what if you took "God" as a figurative meaning?

Most of you know that E=mc2 is Energy=Mass*Speed of Light squared. Now, the speed of light sqaured is 90000000000 km/s. This means that even something with a small mass can have massive amounts of energy. This, compared to the ususal energies, like light and heat, a a lot more. Since mass is a property of matter, you could say that matter is really just very compressed energy.
Going back to the figurative god, you can say that god is the driving force behind creation, that it was he who created everything. What if this "force", this god, was really just the energy that was pulled together so compactly that it created something new: matter. Yopu have creation, caused by a "divine" force, and the big bang as well.

Note:I know many of you will point out that the first law of thermodynamics demands yet another answer: where did all that energy before the big bang come from? Foir now, I honestly say that I don't know, but maybe some of you could expand on this idea.

In a lab created vacuum, this matter is found to sponteneousely appear, as a vacuum is dynamic, despite the original idea that it is static. Therein lies proof that the universe was created without outside intervention of a divine being. I eagerly await evidence to the contrary.

look Robot, while you may stubbornly believe this to be true, just because you say it happens doesnt prove it started the universe. i mean, what made this vaccuum spontaneously occur? but i seriousl dont care either way; for me, life is life, however it was created. and i think that's all that matters because it doesnt matter where we go when we die or how we all came to be in teh first place, all that matters is that we relish in what life has to offer and live in the now. ... but that's just me. :)

First, I must say that I believe entirely in a scientific explanation, because with the god theory, there's still a problem: EVERY SINGLE CRITISISM YOU GIVE US SCIENCE SUPPORTERS, LIKE "SOMETHING CAN'T COME FROM NOTHING" APPLIES TO THIS SO-CALLED GOD OF YOURS AS WELL. This totally rules out a material God. But, what if you took "God" as a figurative meaning?...
Whoa... you're so totally right.... but can you imagine if it was true that nothing can be created from nothing? i mean, if because nothing existed and nothing was created there was only nothing in the universe.... doe sthe universe need something to exisit, or would that make it so the universe didnt exist? but how is that possible? just emptiness and no anything anywhere and no anything to know that there is no anything anywhere... Whoooaoaoa crazy! i think im in over my head... enough of this... O.o

First, I must say that I believe entirely in a scientific explanation, because with the god theory, there's still a problem: EVERY SINGLE CRITISISM YOU GIVE US SCIENCE SUPPORTERS, LIKE "SOMETHING CAN'T COME FROM NOTHING" APPLIES TO THIS SO-CALLED GOD OF YOURS AS WELL. This totally rules out a material God. But, what if you took "God" as a figurative meaning?

Most of you know that E=mc2 is Energy=Mass*Speed of Light squared. Now, the speed of light sqaured is 90000000000 km/s. This means that even something with a small mass can have massive amounts of energy. This, compared to the ususal energies, like light and heat, a a lot more. Since mass is a property of matter, you could say that matter is really just very compressed energy.
Going back to the figurative god, you can say that god is the driving force behind creation, that it was he who created everything. What if this "force", this god, was really just the energy that was pulled together so compactly that it created something new: matter. Yopu have creation, caused by a "divine" force, and the big bang as well.

Note:I know many of you will point out that the first law of thermodynamics demands yet another answer: where did all that energy before the big bang come from? Foir now, I honestly say that I don't know, but maybe some of you could expand on this idea.
Do you really think God has to abide by our "laws" of science? He's God, our puny brains could never come close to a "law" he'd have to follow.

Do you really think God has to abide by our "laws" of science? He's God, our puny brains could never come close to a "law" he'd have to follow.

Not that I believe there is a God. But if He makes laws, which science only observes and seeks to understand, He has to, and emperically obeys them without fail eons at a time. If he didn't all of the monkeying around would break scientific theories in ways that cannot be reconciled. At this point, given that we understand Quantum Electrodynamics to better than one part in a billion, believing that the "big bang" is only an untested hypothesis is equivalent to believing that television is impossible and if it were possible it would have to run on magic.

As to your earlier questions about what the big bang was. It WASN'T into space it was an explosion *OF* space. There is no "outside" per se. Or center for that matter. As to where matter comes from, it comes from energy. If water is energy, the formation of ice as it cools would be EXACTLY equivalent to matter "freezing" out of the early universe. Again, at this point we know the story from about the first 10^-33 ths of a second out to about 10^40 years (which is a LONG way into the future). Science only took about 400 years to do that, what has prayer achieved in that same period of time? Not much. It there is a God, He's hardcore on that faith thing, and chooses to keep to the shadows science has not yet illuminated. And if he's all-powerful and all-knowing, it's because that's the way He wants it, and because he knows something you don't.

And about faith. That's what this kind of argument is really all about. The people who want to believe in God, but they can't bring themselves to believe without rockhard proof and complete understanding. They need evidence to point to, footprints. And the monotheistic Gods, at least, say that's not what faith is about, and to expect it to be that way is folly. I think that faith, of all kinds, can be quite powerful, and it's certainly had a role in advancing science. But to mistake superstition for that refuge of certainty in the storm tossed seas of powerful uncertainty is a tragic misfortune.

I just think God was Banging something, and that something was possibly Big.

I could say any number of things and bring up any points of proof, but I gave up talking to brick walls a long time ago. Claim victory or victim status as you will. ( how can anybody claim victory over something that will never be proven?)( again, with a nuclear energy, it does not completely destroy that mass/energy(which are basically the same thing , you stated that it completely destroys it, it doesnt...)..



more on einstien the fraud...

=========================================

Ultra-Zionist Albert Einstein, aggressive promoter of nuclear attacks on the people of Europe, whom exceptional physics professor William Pierce called a "a very competent physicist, though not due the credit his tribe has given him" was, as a matter of fact, a plagiarist.

Reproduced from NEXUS magazine Vol 11, No1 (December 2004)
by Richard Moody, Jr.

Abstract

Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time magazine's "Person of the Century", wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it was actually called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," 1905a), without listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were known to Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincare' before Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.
read the rest of the story

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4928

I could say any number of things and bring up any points of proof, but I gave up talking to brick walls a long time ago. Claim victory or victim status as you will. ( how can anybody claim victory over something that will never be proven?)( again, with a nuclear energy, it does not completely destroy that mass/energy(which are basically the same thing , you stated that it completely destroys it, it doesnt...)..



more on einstien the fraud...

=========================================

Ultra-Zionist Albert Einstein, aggressive promoter of nuclear attacks on the people of Europe, whom exceptional physics professor William Pierce called a "a very competent physicist, though not due the credit his tribe has given him" was, as a matter of fact, a plagiarist.

Reproduced from NEXUS magazine Vol 11, No1 (December 2004)
by Richard Moody, Jr.

Abstract

Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time magazine's "Person of the Century", wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it was actually called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," 1905a), without listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were known to Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincare' before Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.
read the rest of the story

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4928


Do my eyes decieve me. Albert Einstein being criticized for being a zionist? The man dedicated his life to science and people are taking stabs at him like this. Wow just wow. So do you have any other credible unbiased sources which back up this accusation?

tHAT SOURCE IS A CREDIBLE SOURCE, IF IT WASNT THE JEWS WOULD HAVE THEIR LAWYERS ONTO THEM..

WHAT WOULD BE A CREDIBLE SOURCE FOR YOU MATE? REMEMBERING THE JEWS OWN OVER 70% OF WESTERN WORLDS MAJOR MEDIA OUTLETS?..

PLEASE DO TELL MATE, WHAT IS WRONG OR NOT CORRECT IN THAT ARTICLE YOU THINK IS BIASED?

DISPROVE THE ARTICLE AND WHAT IT SAYS, I DONT GIVE A DAMN WHERE IT COMES FROM..

IS FOX NEWS MORE BELEIVABLE THAN THE SITE I GAVE? ONLY TO FRIGGEN IDIOTS LIKE YOURSELF...BY THE WAY DOPEY, EINSTEIN WAS A WELL KNOWN ZIONIST, THERES NO BLOODY SECRET ABOUT IT...

NO DOUBT YOULL BE CELEBRATING JEWISH PASS OVER ( A CELEBRATION OF GENTILE(NON JEWISH) CHILDREN BEING SLAUGHTERED LIKE ANIMALS.)

SORRY TO TELL YOU ALL ABOUT YOUR JEWISH FRAUDSTER SCIENTIST, BUT HEY DONT WORRY MATE, IM SURE HE DID HAVE IDEAS OF HIS OWN, IM SURE HE DIDNT STEAL THEM ALL FROM THE WHITE MAN...

I SEE THE WHITE PEOPLE WERE IN EAST ASIA BEFORE THE ASIANS?..WHITEMANS HISTORY BEING HIDDEN FROM THE POPULACE...JUST PROVES THE WHITE MAN OUT OF AFRICA BULLSHIT THEORY DOESNT IT ....LOL

After years of controversy and political intrigue, archaeologists using genetic testing have proven that Caucasians roamed China's Tarim Basin 1,000 years before East Asian people arrived .

The research, which the Chinese government has appeared to have delayed making public out of concerns of fueling Uighur Muslim separatism in its western-most Xinjiang region, is based on a cache of ancient dried-out corpses that have been found around the Tarim Basin in recent decades.

cont...
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=3549

IS FOX NEWS MORE BELEIVABLE THAN THE SITE I GAVE? ONLY TO FRIGGEN IDIOTS LIKE YOURSELF...BY THE WAY DOPEY, EINSTEIN WAS A WELL KNOWN ZIONIST, THERES NO BLOODY SECRET ABOUT IT...
Flaming and trolling are not acceptable behavior on these boards, Dazzlingdazza. Knock it off, NOW.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator


Also, you'll find the Caps Lock button next to the letter "A" on your keyboard. Try turning it off before you shout another post at us.

tHAT SOURCE IS A CREDIBLE SOURCE, IF IT WASNT THE JEWS WOULD HAVE THEIR LAWYERS ONTO THEM..

WHAT WOULD BE A CREDIBLE SOURCE FOR YOU MATE? REMEMBERING THE JEWS OWN OVER 70% OF WESTERN WORLDS MAJOR MEDIA OUTLETS?..

PLEASE DO TELL MATE, WHAT IS WRONG OR NOT CORRECT IN THAT ARTICLE YOU THINK IS BIASED?

DISPROVE THE ARTICLE AND WHAT IT SAYS, I DONT GIVE A DAMN WHERE IT COMES FROM..

IS FOX NEWS MORE BELEIVABLE THAN THE SITE I GAVE? ONLY TO FRIGGEN IDIOTS LIKE YOURSELF...BY THE WAY DOPEY, EINSTEIN WAS A WELL KNOWN ZIONIST, THERES NO BLOODY SECRET ABOUT IT...

NO DOUBT YOULL BE CELEBRATING JEWISH PASS OVER ( A CELEBRATION OF GENTILE(NON JEWISH) CHILDREN BEING SLAUGHTERED LIKE ANIMALS.)

SORRY TO TELL YOU ALL ABOUT YOUR JEWISH FRAUDSTER SCIENTIST, BUT HEY DONT WORRY MATE, IM SURE HE DID HAVE IDEAS OF HIS OWN, IM SURE HE DIDNT STEAL THEM ALL FROM THE WHITE MAN...

I SEE THE WHITE PEOPLE WERE IN EAST ASIA BEFORE THE ASIANS?..WHITEMANS HISTORY BEING HIDDEN FROM THE POPULACE...JUST PROVES THE WHITE MAN OUT OF AFRICA BULLSHIT THEORY DOESNT IT ....LOL

I believe this is the single most ignorant statement i have read here. I really hope this is a joke because if not I will do two things. First weep for humanity as a whole and second celebrate the fact that man can split the atom. The reason I asked if you had any other credible non biased sources is because saying one website backs up your opinion lessens the credibility of it. And where an article comes from has everything to do with how credible it is. You could have an article that says smoking causes no damage whatsoever but if it comes from the website of a cigarette company that significantly lessens the credibility of it. This last post just is so idiotic words fail me at this moment.

Yeah, I pretty much felt that way when I read it too. Way to derail the thread.

Now where was everybody...?

sorry but that post kind of killed the thread.

And on that .... note.

I just think God was Banging something, and that something was possibly Big.

Someone should make a "Yo mamma" joke here so we can potentially discuss the hugeness of God's wang, the fatness of the aforementioned mother, or the mountains of disparate evidence for the big bang, the various problems it solves, or the utter failure of religion to apply any of the available highly refined dogma to concieve of various useful devices.

Has anybody ever wonder which was the true cause of are universe
I have this strange theory that God made the big bang happen and made the sun and the solar system but over like a couple million years not just in like a week

Well, if we assume that there indeed was a big bang - what was before?

I'd like to think that it was God who made the big bang happen and his plan was so perfect that after a couple of billion years we are able to talk about it here.

(And that after only a week's planning - imagine the universe had He taken a little bit longer...)

The more I look at nature, they way plants grow, insects live, animals and birds thrive, the way the chemical elements match - everything is just perfect! If that doesn't install some kind of revery in me - I wouldn't know what else would or could!!!

everything is just perfect! If that doesn't install some kind of revery in me - I wouldn't know what else would or could!!!
Perfecness is not proof of planning. It rather disproves planing and proves evolution. It is not possilbe to plan something perfect. Perfectness evolves, just as private enterprises evolve through competition, so does biological evolution evolve flowers, animals and everything else through competition. Biological perfectness is the result of millions of years of evolution.

It is not possilbe to plan something perfect.

For God it would be.