NationStates Jolt Archive

?
What do you think?
I think its impossible that the universe and all things known (and unknown) is/are
far too complex to be create by a simple explosion of gas or whatever.
And if the big bang created the universe, then where did the gas come from? What did the explosion blow apart? What triggered the explosion aside from the gas that has no origin?

The big bang theory is very hypothetical, and are many incosistancies in it. And faults in the formula. Other then that, I guess it's better then other scientific theories, like string theory.

What? Sex with fat chicks?

...

Oh the universe. That. *sigh*

The universe is the figment of a deranged imagination. I suspect God is a mime. *nod*

?
And if the big bang created the universe, then where did the gas come from? What did the explosion blow apart? What triggered the explosion aside from the gas that has no origin?

That my friend, is what I believe to have been God. That's just my opinion though.

yes the big bang make no sense but then again why should it if that’s the beginning of our universe that means that the laws of physics didn’t exist yet and thus anything could have been possible

I myself will not believe any theory since they are all just as likely to be wrong so why should I bother myself with such a question

(if you no idea what I’m talking about that’s good because that means I’m philosophizing:) )

?
What do you think?
I think its impossible that the universe and all things known (and unknown) is/are
far too complex to be create by a simple explosion of gas or whatever.
And if the big bang created the universe, then where did the gas come from? What did the explosion blow apart? What triggered the explosion aside from the gas that has no origin?

What you think is possible or impossible has no bearing on what did or didn't happen. You and everybody else out there doesn't have enough information to rule any theory impossible.

Where did the big bang come from? Nobody knows for sure. In fact nobody knows if it even happened, but there is some evidence that it did. The best answer we currently have is "We don't know, but some good folks who really like math are looking into it."

*pats lunatic goofball on the head*
:rolleyes:

I'm guessing you haven't really put that much thought into it.

I haven't really either (I just know the basics), but I would be rather embarrassed to present your argument to Stephen Hawking.

I think it's too fucked up to contemplate. I mean, before the universe there was no space, no time (wtf?), and the laws of physics didn't exist. Suddenly, the universe, time, and space were born for no apparent reason. I'll leave it up to science to figure out some sort of theory and I'll steer well clear of such subjects.

*pats lunatic goofball on the head*
:rolleyes:

Hey! I have a degree in physics and I say that the universe is a mime's dirty little fantasy! Prove me wrong! :p

I say it was God.
Scientists all say "ZOMG IT WAZ T3H BIG BANG! NOT GOD!"
but how can you prove the big bang? you cant!
But you cant prove god either.
Its all Faith.
I chose to believe in God, because its better than the "We were created when the empty space before existance lit it's biggest fart ever" Idea.
I like the idea that there is a powerful force looming over us that will judge us, and he will treat those loyal to him well, and send all other to a burning toture fest.

well, it's a theory.

Many Christians disagree whether or not the big bang ocurred, and many articles I read show over the past several years that many scientists disagree whether or not the big bang ocurred.

I sure hate to see another thread where alot of people come on here and look really silly on both sides. The honest thing to say, unless one is presupposing absolute knowledge of the creation of the universe (such as those who believe the Biblical account), is we're not really sure.

Hey! I have a degree in physics and I say that the universe is a mime's dirty little fantasy! Prove me wrong! :p

LG has a degree in physics :eek:

Hey! I have a degree in physics and I say that the universe is a mime's dirty little fantasy! Prove me wrong! :p

*proves you wrong* OWNED!

?
What do you think?
I think its impossible that the universe and all things known (and unknown) is/are
far too complex to be create by a simple explosion of gas or whatever.
And if the big bang created the universe, then where did the gas come from? What did the explosion blow apart? What triggered the explosion aside from the gas that has no origin?

Something had to cause the Big Bang, even if it really happened that way (which I don't believe it did). And it couldn't have been anything in the mass of matter because of inertia. Well, maybe not inertia, but something of that sort.

*pats lunatic goofball on the head*
:rolleyes:

his theory sounds very clever if you ask me it conveniently explains all but explains nothing just like a complex physics and religious cross line should

LG has a degree in physics :eek:

Yes. I really do.

What else would a physical comedian have? :D

I say it was God.
Scientists all say "ZOMG IT WAZ T3H BIG BANG! NOT GOD!"
but how can you prove the big bang? you cant!
But you cant prove god either.
Its all Faith.
I chose to believe in God, because its better than the "We were created when the empty space before existance lit it's biggest fart ever" Idea.
I like the idea that there is a powerful force looming over us that will judge us, and he will treat those loyal to him well, and send all other to a burning toture fest.

The thing is, if it was the big bang then one would expect to see certain traces of it in the current universe. If you find none of those traces you can rule out the big bang. How do you rule out god? God is supernatural and therefore can't be tested by science with it's reliance on physical laws. You can choose to believe what you want, but some beliefs are outside the realm of science.

Also reducing the other side's argument to an absurd straw man doesn't make your argument any more convincing. In fact, it makes your argument appear a little dumber.

I mean, all we really have is the sort of experiments and observations that we can make.

Those observations tell us that the universe is expanding. There is also a background radiation regardless of where you look that tells us that the universe once was a very hot place.

Put 2 and 2 together, and chances are you too would come up with the idea that the universe used to be incredibly dense and hot. Note that Big Bang Theory doesn't try to tell us why it was, it just uses the evidence we have to build a model of a very, very young universe. It's a little bit like having a bunch of formulae, and putting in something very close to 0 for x, and seeing what y comes out as.

As was said before, there are some mathematical issues, related to the fact that we really have two different sets of maths to describe very big stuff and very small stuff (and the early universe is the smallest and the biggest bit of stuff imaginable). Maybe they will unify it all one day, and then we might understand even better.

But even then, it's unlikely that we'll be able to figure out why it all happened, or even what happened "before" the big bang. So all the religious people out there are free to believe that god did it. Many physicists do.

his theory sounds very clever if you ask me it conveniently explains all but explains nothing just like a complex physics and religious cross line should

The real stumbling block for me was the Laws of COnservation. Where did the matter and energy released in the Big Bang come from? A previous universe's implosion? Where did that universe's matter and energy come from? Did it come from our own universe as the entropic collapse of the universe causes a stream of reverse-time tachyons to rocket back to the beginning of creation thus gathering until the next explosive creation? I toyed with that idea for a while. I very much like the twist of causality if our own universe's death were it's own birth. But that still doesn't explain the origin of the matter and energy.

The only possibily left was thought. The universe is a thought. But whose thought? Look around. I vote pervert mime. *nod*

I mean, all we really have is the sort of experiments and observations that we can make.

Those observations tell us that the universe is expanding. There is also a background radiation regardless of where you look that tells us that the universe once was a very hot place.

Put 2 and 2 together, and chances are you too would come up with the idea that the universe used to be incredibly dense and hot. Note that Big Bang Theory doesn't try to tell us why it was, it just uses the evidence we have to build a model of a very, very young universe. It's a little bit like having a bunch of formulae, and putting in something very close to 0 for x, and seeing what y comes out as.

As was said before, there are some mathematical issues, related to the fact that we really have two different sets of maths to describe very big stuff and very small stuff (and the early universe is the smallest and the biggest bit of stuff imaginable). Maybe they will unify it all one day, and then we might understand even better.

But even then, it's unlikely that we'll be able to figure out why it all happened, or even what happened "before" the big bang. So all the religious people out there are free to believe that god did it. Many physicists do.

Not to mention an absolutely huge amount of extra mass needed for the big bang theory to be true, which is missing. Hence the hypothetical dark matter.

That and some of you really seem to know what the big bang was about.

IF i remember, and i'm not saying i really do, its something to do with pressure being built up in one tiny tiny tiny space, with all the crap and dust in space having been absorbed into it, e.g. like a black hole. The pressure got to great and boom, popped, like a baloon, everything blasted outwards.

There is also something that hint towards it, i remember hearing about echoes in space that could be linked to the big bang some time ago and theres redshift that shows that things that we see over the massive distance are actually moving further away from eachother at speed, I.E. big explosion pushed stuff outwards and we are still moving away from it.

Eventually leading to either the universe moving so far apart that any and all objects would be pretty isolated, or theres a giant black hole at the centre of the universe and eventually everything will be sucked back into it and sooner or later another big bang might happen, might have happened already. who knows, and don't say god knows.

I quite like the Big Bang Theory. I'm hardly a theoretical physicist, but I think I understand it better than most people. I can't be bothered to try explaining it though. People who dislike its conflict with religion will reject it no matter what. They don't want to understand it properly - they want to understand a version of it that they can easily argue against.

who knows, and don't say god knows.
God knows

I like the Big Band sound. :D

Whaddaya mean, "Bang"?

Oh. Well. Yeah. Sounds plausible. If you put in a little nudge by Him, that is.

?
What do you think?
I think its impossible that the universe and all things known (and unknown) is/are
far too complex to be create by a simple explosion of gas or whatever.
And if the big bang created the universe, then where did the gas come from? What did the explosion blow apart? What triggered the explosion aside from the gas that has no origin?

I love the Big Bang Theory, I have a statement of it embroidered on a pillow and sleep with it every night.

No one says the Theory is the be-all and end-all of the discussion. It's just the best combination of ideas that explains the evidence, so far. Nor would I lose any sleep over not understanding all of it or how it works. Does how the universe came to be really matter in your everyday life? It doesn't in mine; it makes nice contemplation on a starry summer's evening, though.

Eventually leading to either the universe moving so far apart that any and all objects would be pretty isolated, or theres a giant black hole at the centre of the universe and eventually everything will be sucked back into it and sooner or later another big bang might happen, might have happened already. who knows, and don't say god knows.

The last bit was slightly wrong. It's either that the universe is expanding slightly to quickly which means it will never return to a single reality, or that eventually the mass of the universe will pull itself back into itself again and cause another big bang.

I quite like the Big Bang Theory. I'm hardly a theoretical physicist, but I think I understand it better than most people. I can't be bothered to try explaining it though. People who dislike its conflict with religion will reject it no matter what. They don't want to understand it properly - they want to understand a version of it that they can easily argue against.

The crazy thing is that it probably agrees with religion more than most scientific theories. It's like an instant start to time, space, energy and matter. Kind of like if some god said "let there be light" and all of a sudden all this energy exploded outward. I just think, especially judging from the description of the big bang given by the OP, that this is a symptom of the anti-intellectualism our world is afflicted with today.

Hey! I have a degree in physics and I say that the universe is a mime's dirty little fantasy! Prove me wrong! :p


Everyone, especially mimes, know that a mime's dirty fantasy is never ever little. You may now choose to either abandon your theory of the propagation of the universe or alter it until it fits those bits of the riddle we do know. .

I just think, especially judging from the description of the big bang given by the OP, that this is a symptom of the anti-intellectualism our world is afflicted with today.

That's exactly how the mime wants it. *nod*

The only possibily left was thought. The universe is a thought. But whose thought? Look around. I vote pervert mime. *nod*

it must be a very imaginative mime and a darn sight lazy too but how doest hat explain fat chicks?

honestly, people who are smarter than i am who do research in this kind of thing tell me that it is for now the best explanation for HOW it happened.

thats enough for me.

someday someone else will come up with a better model based on new evidence that will be accepted by a majority of physicists and that will be enough for me too.

The last bit was slightly wrong. It's either that the universe is expanding slightly to quickly which means it will never return to a single reality, or that eventually the mass of the universe will pull itself back into itself again and cause another big bang.

Thank you, i was just reinterrating what i remembered of something i read a few years ago so i'm surprised its only that bit i got wrong :p

the anti-intellectualism our world is afflicted with today.

I don't want to thread-jack, but I'd say that anti-intellectualism is nothing new; what's new is that more people have the opportunity to be intellectual.

Everyone, especially mimes, know that a mime's dirty fantasy is never ever little. You may now choose to either abandon your theory of the propagation of the universe or alter it until it fits those bits of the riddle we do know. .

:eek:

DAMN YOU!!! :mad:

That's exactly how the mime wants it. *nod*

And that's why all right-thinking people hate mimes.

it must be a very imaginative mime and a darn sight lazy too but how doest hat explain fat chicks?

Bad experience in college after a drunken frat party. *nod*

And that's why all right-thinking people hate mimes.

SOme wrong-thinking people do too. We don't like the competition. :)

I don't want to thread-jack, but I'd say that anti-intellectualism is nothing new; what's new is that more people have the opportunity to be intellectual.

That's the horrible thing about anti-intellectualism. They reject the power of the human mind to reason and to figure things out in favor of willful ignorance. If they had the excuse of being born at a time when only the wealthy could go to school and get access to books or the ability to read it wouldn't be so bad. They'd rather have folksy, common sense explanations than work hard to understand complex ideas, or confront the possibility that there are some things we simply don't know.

SOme wrong-thinking people do too. We don't like the competition. :)

Amen.

That's the horrible thing about anti-intellectualism. They reject the power of the human mind to reason and to figure things out in favor of willful ignorance. If they had the excuse of being born at a time when only the wealthy could go to school and get access to books or the ability to read it wouldn't be so bad. They'd rather have folksy, common sense explanations than work hard to understand complex ideas, or confront the possibility that there are some things we simply don't know.

Just so. Remember Bottle's "take the reverse stand" thread a while back? Mine was on Intelligent Design, which we need because it gives us an excuse to stop thinking about very hard subjects. :rolleyes:

?
What do you think?
I think its impossible that the universe and all things known (and unknown) is/are
far too complex to be create by a simple explosion of gas or whatever.
And if the big bang created the universe, then where did the gas come from? What did the explosion blow apart? What triggered the explosion aside from the gas that has no origin?
Two major problems with your description of the big bang theory.

1) "I think its impossible that the universe and all things known (and unknown) is/are far too complex to be create by a simple explosion of gas or whatever."

Why do you think that? Do you have some evidence of what sorts of things are produced by such an explosion over a period of 15 billion years?

2) "And if the big bang created the universe, then where did the gas come from? What did the explosion blow apart? What triggered the explosion aside from the gas that has no origin?"

You're asking questions the big bang theory doesn't claim to answer. The starting conditions of the big bang aren't stated by the theory. The theory only explains events that happened after the explosion. What caused it is unknown (and possibly unknowable).

Wow... the ignorance of the Big Bang is startling.

Basically, and this deserves some emphasis, the Big Bang was NOT an explosion. It couldn't have been an explosion because there was nothing to explode. Before the Big Bang there was nothing, it was not an explosion of gases, or comets or anything, it was the sudden and rapid causation of existence.

We cannot talk about the causes of the Big Bang as there was nothing before it. But, all the evidence points out that it did happen, as we can tell from telescopy that everything in the universe is being pushed away from a central point.

The big bang theory is very hypothetical, and are many incosistancies in it. And faults in the formula. Other then that, I guess it's better then other scientific theories, like string theory.

Spoken like someone who truly has no understanding of either the Big Bang nor string theory, the latter not even being a scientific creation theory.

I will not clarify what a scientific theory is versus a lay theory again. I've had too many evolution debates in my day.

Steve Hawking's quantum cosmological model of the Big Bang is actually mathematically-viable means of explaining the entirety of the Big Bang process, including a mathematically viable explanation for how it could have "caused" itself, and I say "caused" because it isn't really quite that simple, but I happenly invite theists to research the quantum cosmological model on their own so that we may all abandon our religions and move on as happy secular humanists.

String theory, on the other hand, actually explains a number of inconsistencies and observational flaws in the original Big Bang theory, which has changed a LOT since the 1930s. In fact, there are murmers among the theoretical physics community that we might actually have had a unified field theory all along, and that theory is string theory. But anyways, yes, a tiny amount of research on your part into modern articulations of Big Bang theory will quickly resolve what, clearly, are your misconceptions about the science of the late 20th century.

AIM- ChrisRay6000

If you take the stance of the synthetic and design arguments, they quite easily dennounce the 'big bang theory.' Why is there a need to recognise beauty? Between humans perhaps it is necessary for pro-creation and the like... but why do we see things such as waterfalls as beautiful? Surely this would suggest that the world had a designer/creator, rather than random chance.

I love the Big Bang Theory, I have a statement of it embroidered on a pillow and sleep with it every night.

No one says the Theory is the be-all and end-all of the discussion. It's just the best combination of ideas that explains the evidence, so far. Nor would I lose any sleep over not understanding all of it or how it works. Does how the universe came to be really matter in your everyday life? It doesn't in mine; it makes nice contemplation on a starry summer's evening, though.

So you not only love it, but you sleep with it too. Your passion for this theory puts us all to shame!

...last I'd heard (several years back), the pendulum was swinging back somewhat in favour of the old 'steady-state' model of the Universe. Not that I necessarily put a lot of stock in it, I'm just making note of it. Would one better versed in the current state-of-the-art care to either describe or discount this model for the rest of us?

God died in the big bang.

Wow... the ignorance of the Big Bang is startling.

Basically, and this deserves some emphasis, the Big Bang was NOT an explosion. It couldn't have been an explosion because there was nothing to explode. Before the Big Bang there was nothing, it was not an explosion of gases, or comets or anything, it was the sudden and rapid causation of existence.

We cannot talk about the causes of the Big Bang as there was nothing before it. But, all the evidence points out that it did happen, as we can tell from telescopy that everything in the universe is being pushed away from a central point.

So... your scientific opinion is that the universe was born from nothing?

Could you explain how the Laws of COnservation allow for something to come from nothing?

So... your scientific opinion is that the universe was born from nothing?

Could you explain how the Laws of COnservation allow for something to come from nothing?

As far as I know the universe came from something. It came from a very, very contracted piece of something that big banged.
Now eggs exist.

Can someone well versed in Big Bang theory explain how it's possible that from the same Big Bang there could be planets and moons that spin in opposite directions from each other? Somebody asked me that once and I wasn't sure what to say.

As far as I know the universe came from something. It came from a very, very contracted piece of something that big banged.
Now eggs exist.

Where did that superdense something come from?

Can someone well versed in Big Bang theory explain how it's possible that from the same Big Bang there could be planets and moons that spin in opposite directions from each other? Somebody asked me that once and I wasn't sure what to say.

There are numerous possible explanations, but what planet and moon are you talking about?

So... your scientific opinion is that the universe was born from nothing?

Could you explain how the Laws of COnservation allow for something to come from nothing?
They don't.

But they don't have to. The laws of conservation only describe the universe, which presumably didn't exist prior to the big bang.

They don't.

But they don't have to. The laws of conservation only describe the universe, which presumably didn't exist prior to the big bang.

Why wouldn't they exist before the Big Bang?

There are numerous possible explanations, but what planet and moon are you talking about?

I believe the specific examples came from our solar system. Aren't there two planets in our solar system that spin the opposite direction from all the others? This isn't my area really, just going from stuff I've heard.

Can someone well versed in Big Bang theory explain how it's possible that from the same Big Bang there could be planets and moons that spin in opposite directions from each other? Somebody asked me that once and I wasn't sure what to say.
Ah, Venus?

For one thing, the Big Bang has NOTHING to do with planet roations.

And two, the current theory is something big managed to hit Venus, just like something hit Uranus and knocked it on its side.

Why wouldn't they exist before the Big Bang?
The laws or the mater?

Why wouldn't they exist before the Big Bang?

because the universe is everything and thus it includes the laws of physics and the areas they apply to hence why the outside of the universe is unimaginable because we have nothing to compare it to

Where did that superdense something come from?

That's what "we" don't know.
I'm not trying to prove the big bang, I myself am not sure what it is. What I know so far is that, that superdense something exploded, created stars, planets and eggs, and continued expanding. They say the universe is still expanding due to that, and well, right now I don't really have nothing better to believe in.

*sigh* this thread is becoming too troublesome for my tired mind, so my last post in it will be the Russian Reversal!
"In Soviet Russia, big bang argues YOU!!"

"In Soviet Russia, big bang argues YOU!!"

"In soviet Russia big bang makes you" :D

I always love these threads. The basic premise: "Humankind has yet to be able proveably understand every single thing in the universe to my satisfaction, ergo I accept God"

If you need that validation to accept God, you are headed for a crisis in faith when the time comes that a scientist DOES prove any of the current unknowns that you pin your beliefs to.

Validating faith simply on the gaps in human knowledge is a sad testament.

But if you are going to do that, can you at least select wierd gaps to discuss? You know - like "until science proves the purpose of the appendix, God exists."

or, "until scientists prove why belly-button lint occurs - even at nudist camps - then God exists."

What the hell. They're just as valid suppositions as the one you're going with.

The big bang theory is very hypothetical, and are many incosistancies in it. And faults in the formula. Other then that, I guess it's better then other scientific theories, like string theory.

Oh, they fixed that wih the Standard Formula.

It is that the universe's original mass now is

4% (anti)-matter
21% "dark" matter
75% "dark" energy

also, Srting Theory is dead. It is replaced by M-Theory (basically, they added a dimension to String Theory and called it M-Theory.)

I always love these threads. The basic premise: "Humankind has yet to be able proveably understand every single thing in the universe to my satisfaction, ergo I accept God"

If you need that validation to accept God, you are headed for a crisis in faith when the time comes that a scientist DOES prove any of the current unknowns that you pin your beliefs to.

Validating faith simply on the gaps in human knowledge is a sad testament.

But if you are going to do that, can you at least select wierd gaps to discuss? You know - like "until science proves the purpose of the appendix, God exists."

or, "until scientists prove why belly-button lint occurs - even at nudist camps - then God exists."

What the hell. They're just as valid suppositions as the one you're going with.

wow thank you for just bashing my religion because i said there wasnt a logical explanation for the big bang

wow thank you for just bashing my religion because i said there wasnt a logical explanation for the big bang

And thank you for entirely missing the point. I'm not bashing your religion. I'm bashing the odd notion that gaps in our understanding of all things is presented as a premise for faith.

A couple of hundred years ago, the mystery of flight was proof of God's existance. Now we understand aerodynamics.

A bit before that, outbreaks of disease were proof of God's wrath. Now we understand microbiology.

On today's menu, we don't satisfactorily understand how the universe came into being. Ergo, God must exist...

Or, as you put it on page 1:


I say it was God.
Scientists all say "ZOMG IT WAZ T3H BIG BANG! NOT GOD!"
but how can you prove the big bang? you cant!
But you cant prove god either.
Its all Faith.
I chose to believe in God, because its better than the "We were created when the empty space before existance lit it's biggest fart ever" Idea.
I like the idea that there is a powerful force looming over us that will judge us, and he will treat those loyal to him well, and send all other to a burning toture fest.


I am glad that your faith brings you comfort. However tying that into a question of the exent of the body of scientific knowledge as you are doing here seems a paltry excuse for why you have faith.

Faith is what it is. You shouldn't feel the need to scrounge around for things like this to explain why you have it.

Can I just clear up a pet peeve misconception about the Big Bang Theory? The Big Bang theory does NOT discuss where the superdense whatchamacallit came from. It does NOT discuss what was there before the superdense whatchamacallit. It simply deals with the creation of the universe from the moment of the expansion onwards, and it is grounded very verifiably in real, understandable, quantifiable science. What created it? Where did it come from? What was there 'before'? The Big Bang Theory deals not with these things, and science does not have good answers to those questions. Could be God. Sure. But to denounce the Big Bang Theory for not explaining concepts it is, by definition, not designed to explain is ignorant. Attack the model for what it is, not for what you believe it ought to be. Unless you are a quantum physicist. Then, by all means, attack.

Right before the big bang, all matter in existance is compacted into one tiny space. With such a huge density, there will be great instability, so once the instability forces a single atom out of place, then suddenly there's a huge chain reaction that results in a rapid expansion of all the matter. All of this happens within a fraction of a second. The expansion, though, is still continuing to this day, and some scientists suggest that it will some day collapse into itself and restart the process.

That is a simplified version of the Big Bang Theory as I understand it.

?
What do you think?
Of course it happened.
I think its impossible that the universe and all things known (and unknown) is/are far too complex to be create by a simple explosion of gas or whatever.
*shrug* OK. But it wasn't just combustion and pressure increase, there were a lot of other factors involved in the creation of the universe as we percieve it today.
And if the big bang created the universe, then where did the gas come from?
Either from the last universe (if you believe time is cyclical) or from a Creator being.
What did the explosion blow apart?
Nothing. Explosions and demolitions aren't mandatorily inclusive... BIG WORDS! YAY!
What triggered the explosion aside from the gas that has no origin?
Pressure.

What do I think of the Big Bang? I think that if leading physicists support it, I trust them a hell of a lot more than a bunch of half-assed theologians banging their fists in protest of the though that it wasn't GAWD!

Yes, it's all impossible. Quite litterally. Either God came from nothing (something coming from nothing) or Existence came from nothing (once again... Something coming from nothing), so somewhere along the line, SOMETHING came from nothing, and the world is impossible.

Therefore, we don't exist, everything we see is an illusion, and nothing is. Have a nice night.

What do I think of the Big Bang? I think that if leading physicists support it, I trust them a hell of a lot more than a bunch of half-assed theologians banging their fists in protest of the though that it wasn't GAWD!

Yes, it's all impossible. Quite litterally. Either God came from nothing (something coming from nothing) or Existence came from nothing (once again... Something coming from nothing), so somewhere along the line, SOMETHING came from nothing, and the world is impossible.

Therefore, we don't exist, everything we see is an illusion, and nothing is. Have a nice night.

You only fuel the proponents of the Dirty Mime Theory.

Ah, Venus?

For one thing, the Big Bang has NOTHING to do with planet roations.

And two, the current theory is something big managed to hit Venus, just like something hit Uranus and knocked it on its side.

That's a nice theory (a hint of sarcasm). What in the world would it take to change the rotation of a planet?!!!

What do I think of the Big Bang? I think that if leading physicists support it, I trust them a hell of a lot more than a bunch of half-assed theologians banging their fists in protest of the though that it wasn't GAWD!

Yes, it's all impossible. Quite litterally. Either God came from nothing (something coming from nothing) or Existence came from nothing (once again... Something coming from nothing), so somewhere along the line, SOMETHING came from nothing, and the world is impossible.

Therefore, we don't exist, everything we see is an illusion, and nothing is. Have a nice night.

That was ironically kinda NOT sensible.

That was ironically kinda NOT sensible.

Good Ad Hominem. May I have another?

You only fuel the proponents of the Dirty Mime Theory.

I'm fine with the dirty mime theory. If I had to have a God, I'd want a dirty mime too!

That's a nice theory (a hint of sarcasm). What in the world would it take to change the rotation of a planet?!!!

A fairly large hunk of rock (our solar system seems to have a lot of them).

Hit the planet in question early enough when it was forming, and you have it going the other direction.

That's a nice theory (a hint of sarcasm). What in the world would it take to change the rotation of a planet?!!!

We call them "celestial bodies" or "astronomical objects" :rolleyes:

The laws or the mater?

Both.

because the universe is everything and thus it includes the laws of physics and the areas they apply to hence why the outside of the universe is unimaginable because we have nothing to compare it to

Like Fred Phelps!

...

:eek: Oh, shit. I just did, didn't I? :p

Can I just clear up a pet peeve misconception about the Big Bang Theory? The Big Bang theory does NOT discuss where the superdense whatchamacallit came from. It does NOT discuss what was there before the superdense whatchamacallit. It simply deals with the creation of the universe from the moment of the expansion onwards, and it is grounded very verifiably in real, understandable, quantifiable science. What created it? Where did it come from? What was there 'before'? The Big Bang Theory deals not with these things, and science does not have good answers to those questions. Could be God. Sure. But to denounce the Big Bang Theory for not explaining concepts it is, by definition, not designed to explain is ignorant. Attack the model for what it is, not for what you believe it ought to be. Unless you are a quantum physicist. Then, by all means, attack.

Oh, I concur. The evidence greatly supports the way the universe expanded, and the evidence also supports that the expansion began at a central point. I don't see how anyone can logically refute that. At least, not right now. The Big Bang Theory most closely fits the available evidence. The fact that we don't have all the pieces of the puzzle doesn't really matter. Unless we find more of those pieces and they change the theory.

That was one fucked-up mime. :p

You only fuel the proponents of the Dirty Mime Theory.

:D

The big bang theory is very hypothetical, and are many incosistancies in it. And faults in the formula. Other then that, I guess it's better then other scientific theories, like string theory.

String theory isn't a theory. It's an excuse athiests use for not believing in god. I don't care wether a person actually does or not, but please don't tell me that the reason for his non-existence is something far more rediculus than a being who can control all matter.

Before Big Bang? That's easy. Before Big Bang there was Dick Clark.

"And lo, Dick Clark did declare: Here is your first subject. GO!
And the Universe did so begin."

Also, I'd like to point out that matter springs into existence all the time. Usually it is annihlated by the antimatter that springs into existence at the same time, but sometimes it isn't.

Also, is it just me, or does it sound like the OP's horrible misunderstanding of the Big Bang comes from Hovind?

String theory isn't a theory. It's an excuse athiests use for not believing in god. I don't care wether a person actually does or not, but please don't tell me that the reason for his non-existence is something far more rediculus than a being who can control all matter.

Did this make sense to anyone?

Wow... the ignorance of the Big Bang is startling.

Basically, and this deserves some emphasis, the Big Bang was NOT an explosion. It couldn't have been an explosion because there was nothing to explode. Before the Big Bang there was nothing, it was not an explosion of gases, or comets or anything, it was the sudden and rapid causation of existence.

We cannot talk about the causes of the Big Bang as there was nothing before it. But, all the evidence points out that it did happen, as we can tell from telescopy that everything in the universe is being pushed away from a central point.

Prior to this causation of existence, there would be no time, therefore therre would be no need for a "before".

That was ironically kinda NOT sensible.

I understood his post.

Prior to this causation of existence, there would be no time, therefore therre would be no need for a "before".

Exactly... sometimes I worry about my willingness to except acausality, it doesn't make sense to most people, but the idea of something perhaps not having a cause just doesn't feel wrong in my head.

Anyway, my personal theory is not that the universe is expanding, as there is nothing for it to expand into and that that makes little sense. Rather I theorise that instead everything within the universe is shrinking at a constant rate - imagine every molecule and particle in the universe shrinking relative to eachother, to a being made of those particles it would seem that things are expanding away from eachother, whereas actually the space between objects stays the same, it is the objects themselves which are actually shrinking. This theory more appropriately resonates with the macroscopic concept of entropy, and, if true, seems to disprove an eventual big crunch.

I think its impossible that the universe and all things known (and unknown) is/are
far too complex to be create by a simple explosion of gas or whatever.
Actually, it wasn't "whatever" but everyever.

And if the big bang created the universe, then where did the gas come from? What did the explosion blow apart? What triggered the explosion aside from the gas that has no origin?
"Explosion" is just a metaphor for the event, because it describes movement of energy outward from a central point.

I'm guessing you haven't really put that much thought into it.

I haven't really either (I just know the basics), but I would be rather embarrassed to present your argument to Stephen Hawking.

And if you do, wear tough boots. He has a habit of running over the toes of people who waste his time.

String theory isn't a theory. It's an excuse athiests use for not believing in god. I don't care wether a person actually does or not, but please don't tell me that the reason for his non-existence is something far more rediculus than a being who can control all matter.

Oh, please... there are far better reasons for not believing in god, ones that average people can actually understand (i.e. doesn't require a university degree).

Oh, please... there are far better reasons for not believing in god, ones that average people can actually understand (i.e. doesn't require a university degree).

I like "the universe is a cold, unforgiving hell" one, meself.

I say it was God.
Scientists all say "ZOMG IT WAZ T3H BIG BANG! NOT GOD!"
but how can you prove the big bang? you cant!
But you cant prove god either.
Its all Faith.
I chose to believe in God, because its better than the "We were created when the empty space before existance lit it's biggest fart ever" Idea.
I like the idea that there is a powerful force looming over us that will judge us, and he will treat those loyal to him well, and send all other to a burning toture fest.

Regardless of the cause of existance, I have a hard time accepting 'magic sky king' as a credible theory.

Big bang or no big bang, I don't need to fall back on mythology to explain my existance. Just because is good enough.

String theory isn't a theory. It's an excuse athiests use for not believing in god. I don't care wether a person actually does or not, but please don't tell me that the reason for his non-existence is something far more rediculus than a being who can control all matter.

Yeah. It's totally retarded. It's almost as bad as this friend of mine who uses "travel" as an excuse not to believe in the Antipodeans. I thought that people more or less accepted their existence as fact when it was determined that the world was round and had a bottom.

If there are no Antipodeans, then these "Australians," just walk around upside down on their upsidedown ground? That doesn't make any sense. If you can't understand the complexities of universal gravity, fine, but don't tell me that there aren't any Antipodeans on the underside of the Earth just because you "actually went there."

I find the idea of a Theist that thinks the Big Bang is "Silly", to be silly.

So, a magical sky pixie can wave his magic pixie-dust and spawn life throughout the cosmos....and thats not more rediculous than the Big Bang?

I say it was God.
Scientists all say "ZOMG IT WAZ T3H BIG BANG! NOT GOD!"
but how can you prove the big bang? you cant!
But you cant prove god either.
Its all Faith.
I chose to believe in God, because its better than the "We were created when the empty space before existance lit it's biggest fart ever" Idea.
I like the idea that there is a powerful force looming over us that will judge us, and he will treat those loyal to him well, and send all other to a burning toture fest.

Really, this comes as such a shock that you are religious. I doubt you chose to believe in god, rather you were raised in an environment where believing in god was what everyone did. Could you send us a reference to where the scientists all say
'"ZOMG IT WAZ T3H BIG BANG! NOT GOD!"' as it sounds like a very unlikely quote to me.

There is much in the world IMO that science will never explain. Is there some sort of experiment that we can do that will prove that the big bang occured? Unless we can look back into the past and see what happened no one will ever know what happened.

Many people in the world think there is some kind of spiritual dimension a plane of existence over and above that we can peceive. This plane is foriegn to us and we can't give it any tangible form. How impossible is it for a being that lives in a higher plane... a single plane or many planes higher... to have created the universe. Setting the laws of physics, the constants, balancing everything. Essentially like a big SimUniverse. Determining how different things react with other.

Science is never going to prove one way or the other if the world was created or just came into existance. All we know before time existed whatever existed existed and whatever didn't didn't. It all comes down to religion.

What I mean by religion is a what single persons believes about things that he cannot see, touch or perceive though the 5 senses. You can't go to a local cafe and have a chat and a coffee with God, nor can you go back in time and see the universe come into existance. Those are beyond our perceptions and faith is faith. The only question is what happens if you are wrong in the person or concept you put your faith in?

I know what I have faith in and it is that God, as described in the Old Testament, created the world. I have no proof of what I put my faith in but neither does anyone else on this topic. All we truely have are observations and conjecture. I believe the more we go back further in history from the observations we make the wider scope we have for error and making the chance that anyone gets at the exact truth exponentially get slimer and slimer.

Looking at things today and then asking for an extrapolation billions of years into the past has a 1 major flaw... How do we even know what pattern to try? linear, polynomic (bi, tri, quad, etc.), logarithmic, exponential, sinusodial? There are many potential patterns that we can put on and even Stpehen's Hawking's best guess (even if it is mathematically plausable) is exactly that a guess. Our view of the big bang comes down to the question "What do we have our faith in?"

Both.
The laws started only when the universe started, at least since science is grounded on the idea that the universe exists. Since Space/Time came into existance with the universe, we can only use the laws of Space/Time to get back to when the universe was actually around.

That's why we cannot know what was going on before it, or where the super-singularity came from. It may be the dirty mime, it may be those universe donuts, it may be God, we can't know.

Personally I favor the cow licking the singularity out of a block of ice as it explains so much about this universe. ;)

I think it is just a theory. Like global warming. And gravity.

I think it is just a theory. Like global warming. And gravity.

Yeah! That gravity one, I'm not buying that. I find it far more plausible that it is in fact the earth that sucks, keeping us grounded.

I think it is just a theory. Like global warming. And gravity.

Ummm... isn't gravity a little more than a theory? Seems like I remember studying about the LAW of gravity somewhere once.

Ummm... isn't gravity a little more than a theory? Seems like I remember studying about the LAW of gravity somewhere once.

Psst... a law in science is a theory. Those two terms are interchageables.

God died in the big bang.



Moreover, he was the Big Bang. God asploded.

Good Ad Hominem. May I have another?

I was not trying to be harsh, just having fun with your nation's name more than anything. But primarily responding to the logic of . . .

Yes, it's all impossible. Quite litterally. Either God came from nothing (something coming from nothing) or Existence came from nothing (once again... Something coming from nothing), so somewhere along the line, SOMETHING came from nothing, and the world is impossible.

Therefore, we don't exist, everything we see is an illusion, and nothing is. Have a nice night.

And the options that are left out of your conclusion are that a) the Universe has always existed; or b) The eternal God that created the Universe has always existed. And if it were b - then the fact that something came from nothing does not follow that the world is impossible. That would be the premise of the creation account in Genesis.

Your conclusion doesn't follow. If there were an eternal living God who created the universe and that is how we got here (an option we should not rule out) - then that would not suggest we don't exist or everything is an illusion or nothing "is".

I'm sorry you saw my brief response as ad hominem attack on you. I actually try not to attack anyone for their beliefs even if I vehemently disagree. My fault for posting without much time to get into it like I had at this moment.

Psst... a law in science is a theory. Those two terms are interchageables.

No, I don't accept that. The scientific method suggests you have a hypothesis that develops into a theory and if that theory is tested and found to be accurate without exception then it's a law. There is a difference between scientific theory and scientific law.

A fairly large hunk of rock (our solar system seems to have a lot of them).

Hit the planet in question early enough when it was forming, and you have it going the other direction.

I'm naturally skeptical to a fault, I know. But it's difficult for me to imagine a large hunk of rock hitting a planet and changing the direction of it's rotation. I'm sorry for seeming arrogant about that earlier, but I am indeed skeptical of this.

I say it was God.
Scientists all say "ZOMG IT WAZ T3H BIG BANG! NOT GOD!"
but how can you prove the big bang? you cant!
But you cant prove god either.
Its all Faith.
I chose to believe in God, because its better than the "We were created when the empty space before existance lit it's biggest fart ever" Idea.
I like the idea that there is a powerful force looming over us that will judge us, and he will treat those loyal to him well, and send all other to a burning toture fest.

Except the bang left background radiation ... more evidence then god has left us. Well more verifyable

I'm naturally skeptical to a fault, I know. But it's difficult for me to imagine a large hunk of rock hitting a planet and changing the direction of it's rotation. I'm sorry for seeming arrogant about that earlier, but I am indeed skeptical of this.

It's difficult to imagine two things hitting each other? Take a couple of billiards, and knock 'em together a bit.

From my understanding the use of 'Laws of Nature' was dropped in the 18/1900s when scientists realised that their current 'Laws' had limits at which they broke down (like Newtonian physics - including gravity - breaking down at very fast speeds and very small distances etc), so they figured that as one model (which is all current theories are) can probably never accuratly and simply descibe everything that the from then on they would have Theories. In that sense they are completly interchangable.

(Its a lot easier to think of it as scientists using their own language with slightly different definitions than what people are used to)

From my understanding the use of 'Laws of Nature' was dropped in the 18/1900s when scientists realised that their current 'Laws' had limits at which they broke down (like Newtonian physics - including gravity - breaking down at very fast speeds and very small distances etc), so they figured that as one model (which is all current theories are) can probably never accuratly and simply descibe everything that the from then on they would have Theories. In that sense they are completly interchangable.

(Its a lot easier to think of it as scientists using their own language with slightly different definitions than what people are used to)

Thanks for that information. I can accept that this is true. I just find it contradicts my earliest teachings about the scientific method.

No, I don't accept that. The scientific method suggests you have a hypothesis that develops into a theory and if that theory is tested and found to be accurate without exception then it's a law. There is a difference between scientific theory and scientific law.

Nope. A law is an obsolete term for a theory. Ask any scientist on the entire planet, and they'll tell you the same. Theory is the absolute highest rank an idea can reach in science.

It's difficult to imagine two things hitting each other? Take a couple of billiards, and knock 'em together a bit.

It's not difficult at all for me to imagine two things hitting each other :)

What's difficult was the complete thought I expressed: that an object hitting a planet could change it's rotation. Call me a skeptic. I'm guilty.

There is much in the world IMO that science will never explain. Is there some sort of experiment that we can do that will prove that the big bang occured? Unless we can look back into the past and see what happened no one will ever know what happened.

Amazingly enough, we can look back to the past, thanks to light having a set speed. And guess what we see? Exactly what the Big Bang Theory predicts we will see.

Amazingly enough, we can look back to the past, thanks to light having a set speed. And guess what we see? Exactly what the Big Bang Theory predicts we will see.

Or that God "stretched out the heavens"
I see this as two people from different points of view looking at the same evidence and reaching different conclusions based on their viewpoints.

It's not difficult at all for me to imagine two things hitting each other :)

What's difficult was the complete thought I expressed: that an object hitting a planet could change it's rotation. Call me a skeptic. I'm guilty.

Here's an experiment you can do. Take a globe. Spin it. Keep it spinning somehow. Now, take a bat and swing at the globe as far as you can, with the movement of the bat being in the opposite direction to globe's spin. If you do it right, the globe's spin will reverse. It's the same principle.

Or that God "stretched out the heavens"
I see this as two people from different points of view looking at the same evidence and reaching different conclusions based on their viewpoints.

I'm guessing you don't actually know what we see, and can't be bothered to look it up. It's called background radiation.

It's not difficult at all for me to imagine two things hitting each other :)

What's difficult was the complete thought I expressed: that an object hitting a planet could change it's rotation. Call me a skeptic. I'm guilty.

again, play billiard a bit. Use effect on balls you hit. You'll soon find that the rotation of a billiard ball changes sometimes when it hits something.

?
What do you think?
I think its impossible that the universe and all things known (and unknown) is/are
far too complex to be create by a simple explosion of gas or whatever.
And if the big bang created the universe, then where did the gas come from? What did the explosion blow apart? What triggered the explosion aside from the gas that has no origin?

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. The Big Bang involves no gas, and no "explosion." It's the rapid expansion of a quantum singularity.

Sometimes it is amusing watching other people trying to explain things that they have no clue about whatsoever. Like the "big bang." Ha ha! So funny. Like it was an explosion or something.

OK expending universe theory 101. At one time in the universe, the universe was dense. How dense was it? Very dense. It was so dense we can practically call the universe opaque. Then suddenly, as the universe expended. The universe shifted from opaque to transparent. Those photons that were constantly bumping into something stopped bumping into that something.

Of course that transition period wasn't exactly uniform and there are rather interesting variations in the cosmic background radiation (the light from the transition point of opaque to transparent when all those photons got their free pass in the new transparent universe) can be interesting in and of itself.

Please note, due to the opaque nature of the universe prior to the big bang, what happened then is a rather "closed" subject that one can only speculate about. Because we can't observe anything before that time. Because the universe was opaque!

It's rather sad that the Hawkings closed temporal universe model seems to be unraveling. It's rather interesting that multiple intersecting universe models seem to be gaining some degree of momentum.

I believe in big bang. and i don't believe the world was designed, sure, it's really beautifull at some places, but at some places it is ugly, i think it's just random, everybody has their own opinion about what's ugly and what's not ugly so saying the world is designed is like saying everybody have to be and think the same way for it to be perfect. <

and, for those who believe god did it, who the hell made god? If the answer is "god has always been" the question is, can't it have been that big bang has "always" been?

Proof for big bang is that the universe has always been expanding, and tests have been made to show that for now, big bang is more than just a theory.

I believe in big bang. and i don't believe the world was designed, sure, it's really beautifull at some places, but at some places it is ugly, i think it's just random, everybody has their own opinion about what's ugly and what's not ugly so saying the world is designed is like saying everybody have to be and think the same way for it to be perfect. <

and, for those who believe god did it, who the hell made god? If the answer is "god has always been" the question is, can't it have been that big bang has "always" been?

Proof for big bang is that the universe has always been expanding, and tests have been made to show that for now, big bang is more than just a theory.

Ah, but you're now proving my point. I think there are really three possibilities we are considering here (there are possibly more?):
1) There was a "big bang" that started it all
2) The Universe always existed
3) God always existed and caused the universe to come into existence (as the name "universe" implies).

Since you have stated evidence towards the universe having a beginning, then it rules out #2 in your mind anyway. And number one, as a possibility, also assumes alot happened - life coming from non-life and all. So would it be safe to say those who do not believe option #3 have to have a more complex faith than those who do? After all, those who believe #3 do not have to explain the scientific difficulties that follow not allowing for the intervention of the supernatural.

Man.

I haven't read the whole thread, but from just the few posts I've read, including the OP and the whole first page, it's scary how little people understand about science.

Ah, but you're now proving my point. I think there are really three possibilities we are considering here (there are possibly more?):
1) There was a "big bang" that started it all
2) The Universe always existed
3) God always existed and caused the universe to come into existence (as the name "universe" implies).

Since you have stated evidence towards the universe having a beginning, then it rules out #2 in your mind anyway. And number one, as a possibility, also assumes alot happened - life coming from non-life and all. So would it be safe to say those who do not believe option #3 have to have a more complex faith than those who do? After all, those who believe #3 do not have to explain the scientific difficulties that follow not allowing for the intervention of the supernatural.

The Big Bang has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Try again.

Man.

I haven't read the whole thread, but from just the few posts I've read, including the OP and the whole first page, it's scary how little people understand about science.

It gets worse.

The Big Bang has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Try again.

I will give you there are some who believe in God and The Big Bang, if that's where you're going with this. But to those who have ruled out the possibility of the supernatural, then it would follow that life arising from non-life comes into the picture somewhere along the timeline right?

I will give you there are some who believe in God and The Big Bang, if that's where you're going with this. But to those who have ruled out the possibility of the supernatural, then it would follow that life arising from non-life comes into the picture somewhere along the timeline right?

The Big Bang has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Jesus.

I will give you there are some who believe in God and The Big Bang, if that's where you're going with this. But to those who have ruled out the possibility of the supernatural, then it would follow that life arising from non-life comes into the picture somewhere along the timeline right?

Right, but I think Cthulhu's point is that the Big Bang doesn't connect with life arising from non-life, and you can't argue against one to discredit the other.

Thanks for that information. I can accept that this is true. I just find it contradicts my earliest teachings about the scientific method.

Anyone who told you this:

No, I don't accept that. The scientific method suggests you have a hypothesis that develops into a theory and if that theory is tested and found to be accurate without exception then it's a law. There is a difference between scientific theory and scientific law.

didn't understand the scientific method at all. Thus, you weren't learning the scientific method. It is impossible, with the scientific method, to test something and find it to be accurate without exception. In order to do so, you would have to test it an infinite number of times in an infinite number of ways - something we cannot accomplish. This is the reason that all theories in science (even those we label "laws") are open to question - are open to possibly being disproven by further information.


People in this thread seem to have this idea that science can prove something beyond all doubt. It cannot, nor is it meant to. The purpose of the scientific method isn't even to prove anything, but instead to disprove hypotheses, thus moving closer to the truth.

Anyone who told you this:



didn't understand the scientific method at all. Thus, you weren't learning the scientific method. It is impossible, with the scientific method, to test something and find it to be accurate without exception. In order to do so, you would have to test it an infinite number of times in an infinite number of ways - something we cannot accomplish. This is the reason that all theories in science (even those we label "laws") are open to question - are open to possibly being disproven by further information.


People in this thread seem to have this idea that science can prove something beyond all doubt. It cannot, nor is it meant to. The purpose of the scientific method isn't even to prove anything, but instead to disprove hypotheses, thus moving closer to the truth.

And as Pilate famously asked, "What is truth?"

And as Pilate famously asked, "What is truth?"

According to Google, it's the fact that cigarettes are bad for you.

There is much in the world IMO that science will never explain. Is there some sort of experiment that we can do that will prove that the big bang occured?

Of course not. No experiment within the scientific method proves anything at all. The result of a scientific experiment is either that the hypothesis is disproven (and thus thrown out) or is supported. If it is supported enough, it becomes accepted theory until such a time that it is disproven by new evidence, in which case it is either modifed to fit that evidence or thrown out altogether.

Unless we can look back into the past and see what happened no one will ever know what happened.

Actually, we can kind of look into the past with astronomy, as we know that anything we are seeing that is light years away actually happened years ago.

Science is never going to prove one way or the other if the world was created or just came into existance.

Indeed. Nor is science trying to disprove the existence or interference of the supernatural. It cannot, as the supernatural is outside the realm of the empirical and thus cannot be tested with science. Of course, for the same reason, science cannot include the existence or the interference of the supernatural in its explanations.

I know what I have faith in and it is that God, as described in the Old Testament, created the world.

Really? Which account?

I will give you there are some who believe in God and The Big Bang, if that's where you're going with this. But to those who have ruled out the possibility of the supernatural, then it would follow that life arising from non-life comes into the picture somewhere along the timeline right?

Doesn't making man from dirt or something count as life from non-life?

Anyone who told you this:



didn't understand the scientific method at all. Thus, you weren't learning the scientific method. It is impossible, with the scientific method, to test something and find it to be accurate without exception. In order to do so, you would have to test it an infinite number of times in an infinite number of ways - something we cannot accomplish. This is the reason that all theories in science (even those we label "laws") are open to question - are open to possibly being disproven by further information.


People in this thread seem to have this idea that science can prove something beyond all doubt. It cannot, nor is it meant to. The purpose of the scientific method isn't even to prove anything, but instead to disprove hypotheses, thus moving closer to the truth.


You may be right that some people here hold that science can prove something beyond all doubt, but since you were quoting me I do hope you were not believing that's what I thought. I just questioned the same weight be given to a theory as being given to a law.

For example, gravity has a little more weight (haha!) than chemical evolution. And regardless of whether or not both or neither of them are true - more people hold higher regard for the former over the latter.

Doesn't making man from dirt or something count as life from non-life?

It would if one believed that dirt arose by itself into life - pretty incredible really. But the key there was in the word you used "making" implying a "maker" who "breathed the breath of life into his nostrils." You cannot argue the difference between the two positions is one allows for the belief in the supernatural to create life from non-life and the other one has non-life coming from life on it's own.

You may be right that some people here hold that science can prove something beyond all doubt, but since you were quoting me I do hope you were not believing that's what I thought.

I apologize if you didn't mean to imply it, but this statement:

The scientific method suggests you have a hypothesis that develops into a theory and if that theory is tested and found to be accurate without exception then it's a law.

pretty clearly suggests that a law must be proven beyond all doubt. That is what "accurate without exception" would mean - that there is absolutely no exception, and we have shown this to be true.

I just questioned the same weight be given to a theory as being given to a law.

That all depends on the the theory and law in question. The theory of evolution would certainly be given more weight than, say, Newton's Laws. this is because Newton's Laws have already been disproven while evolutionary theory has not. We continue to use them because they are very good approximations in most cases - providing the level of accuracy we need at the time - but they have been disproven nonetheless and cannot be the backbone for actual scientific theory.

A theory that has been tested more and over a longer period of time is generally going to be more accepted than a newer one with less testing. And so on....


For example, gravity has a little more weight (haha!) than chemical evolution.

Not really. Much of the theory surrounding gravity is pure mathematics, with very little empirical evidence yet done. For instance, current theory holds that gravity involve a particle known as the graviton. We have no empirical evidence of such a particle, but the mathematics holds that it must be there.

For example, gravity has a little more weight (haha!) than chemical evolution. And regardless of whether or not both or neither of them are true - more people hold higher regard for the former over the latter.

Gravity is actually one of the worst supported theories around. It might even be the worst, assuming abiogenesis doesn't have an associated theory yet. See, there's a differences between scientific theories and scientific facts. We know gravity happens, we're just not as sure how as we are with, say, the Theory of Evolution. (Which is probably the single best supported theory in science, since fast reproducing organisms such as bacteria allow us to observe the actual mechanisms.)

Gravity is actually one of the worst supported theories around. It might even be the worst, assuming abiogenesis doesn't have an associated theory yet. See, there's a differences between scientific theories and scientific facts. We know gravity happens, we're just not as sure how as we are with, say, the Theory of Evolution. (Which is probably the single best supported theory in science, since fast reproducing organisms such as bacteria allow us to observe the actual mechanisms.)

Thank you for the respect and patience then in responding to this I confess I am no scientist - although I do love science. Sheesh! You think you know something about gravity and then you and Dempublicents1 start talking gravitons and stuff . . . I have to admit I do not know enough to confirm or deny any of that.

And I purposely picked "chemical evolution" in my previous post instead of "The theory of evolution" because nobody would argue the theory of evolution when you mean adaptation. Unfortunately, too many people will have a cow when they read your post thinking evolution means more than it really does.

Thank you for the respect and patience then in responding to this I confess I am no scientist - although I do love science. Sheesh! You think you know something about gravity and then you and Dempublicents1 start talking gravitons and stuff . . . I have to admit I do not know enough to confirm or deny any of that.

And I purposely picked "chemical evolution" in my previous post instead of "The theory of evolution" because nobody would argue the theory of evolution when you mean adaptation. Unfortunately, too many people will have a cow when they read your post thinking evolution means more than it really does.

I ignored chemical evolution because there is no such thing.

I ignored chemical evolution because there is no such thing.

I agree, at least I believe, that there is no such thing as chemical evolution. Doesn't mean people don't believe that though (Chemical evolution = higher elements origination from hydrogen).

I agree, at least I believe, that there is no such thing as chemical evolution. Doesn't mean people don't believe that though (Chemical evolution = higher elements origination from hydrogen).

That's not chemical evolution. That's nuclear fusion. And hydrogen did become all the remaining elements.

Actually, we can kind of look into the past with astronomy, as we know that anything we are seeing that is light years away actually happened years ago.

Really? Which account?

Time Dilation. It's a recorded phenomena. Gravty, speed and I think there is one other known method. The question is how do we know how long from our time perspective for the. We could be watching 1 year, 1000 years, 1 million years in the past. Perhaps Red Shift is not caused by things rocketing away from us, but perhaps this time dilation is changing the speed of light in comparison to what it was originally from the astronomical body? Not that I am saying this is what it happening. What I am trying to get to is that there are scientific facts... but it seems that most theories today are purely scientific speculation with untested or untestable assumptions.

As for the last questions. Someone has I believe has already answered this in this thread but I will answer it to. They are different accounts of the same thing. Chapter one in wide brush strokes covering the creation of everything, Capter 2 focusing on the detail.

As for the order of creation man or beast. I'm not sure, but the order of importance of man in God's creation. Man is special "let us make man in our own image" in ch 1 "But for Adam was there no Helper comparable to him" in ch 2 (before women came along). God has essentially leased out his world to us and so what is not in doubt is the dominance of man over beast (Though like-wise the dominance of God over man is also not indoubt and as leasees we are going to have to be accountible to God to how we handle his earth and all it's creatures)

Time Dilation. It's a recorded phenomena. Gravty, speed and I think there is one other known method. The question is how do we know how long from our time perspective for the. We could be watching 1 year, 1000 years, 1 million years in the past. Perhaps Red Shift is not caused by things rocketing away from us, but perhaps this time dilation is changing the speed of light in comparison to what it was originally from the astronomical body? Not that I am saying this is what it happening. What I am trying to get to is that there are scientific facts... but it seems that most theories today are purely scientific speculation with untested or untestable assumptions.

Of course it *could* be something different - and science allows for that by ensuring that all theories, no matter how much evidence they have behind them, are open to question. Something need not be 100% correct to be theory. If it did, we'd never have a theory, as we will never know if we are 100% correct using the scientific method. A theory must simply be consistent with all available data.

Meanwhile, I am aware of no scientific theories with untestable assumptions. Untested, yes, but not untestable.

As for the last questions. Someone has I believe has already answered this in this thread but I will answer it to. They are different accounts of the same thing. Chapter one in wide brush strokes covering the creation of everything, Capter 2 focusing on the detail.

As for the order of creation man or beast. I'm not sure, but the order of importance of man in God's creation. Man is special "let us make man in our own image" in ch 1 "But for Adam was there no Helper comparable to him" in ch 2 (before women came along). God has essentially leased out his world to us and so what is not in doubt is the dominance of man over beast (Though like-wise the dominance of God over man is also not indoubt and as leasees we are going to have to be accountible to God to how we handle his earth and all it's creatures)

This still doesn't really tell me anything. If you think that the importance of the Creation accounts is the importance of man, you still have to pick just one. In the first, humankind (male and female) is the pinnacle of creation - the best of creation - and is thus told to rule over it, but it is not made for humankind. In the second, all of creation is created for the use of man (gender specificity intentional).

Meanwhile, if you are going to say that one or the other of the accounts is a literal account (and it can only be one or the other, unless Creation happened twice), then it does become important which you pick. After all, which order of creation is correct? Is it a literal 6 days? There are many questions that must be answered if you insist that one or the other account is literal, rather than being a metaphorical account meant to teach a lesson.

Only an idiot with the most basic basic basic understanding of theology would say that religion only spurs from gaps in scientific knowledge.

Only an idiot with the most basic basic basic understanding of theology would say that religion only spurs from gaps in scientific knowledge.

I don't think anyone said it spurs from those gaps. I think they meant that it lurks in those gaps like mildew or some other sort of fungus that lives in cracks and dank basements because exposure to the light destroys it.

I don't think anyone said it spurs fromthose gaps. I think they meant that it lurks in those gaps like mildew or some other sort of fungus that lives in cracks and dank basements because exposure to the light destroys it.

Then one doesn't understand religion at all.

Religion is not a substitute for science.

?
What do you think?
I think its impossible that the universe and all things known (and unknown) is/are
far too complex to be create by a simple explosion of gas or whatever.
And if the big bang created the universe, then where did the gas come from? What did the explosion blow apart? What triggered the explosion aside from the gas that has no origin?

How good of a grasp of quantum mechanics do you have? Until you understand it pretty well, don't try to argue with standing scientific theories. If you have a scientific basis for questioning the Big Bang theory, well and good, because questioning is the only way to gain knowledge. But simply asking mundane questions such as these shows nothing except the fact that you are very into causality.

Then one doesn't understand religion at all.

Religion is not a substitute for science.True, on so many levels.

Unfortunately, the popular ones tends to demand unreason.

No, I don't accept that. The scientific method suggests you have a hypothesis that develops into a theory and if that theory is tested and found to be accurate without exception then it's a law. There is a difference between scientific theory and scientific law.

In science, a Law is a very strong Theory; One that has numerous corroborations of it's correctness from many sources and from many methods.

Absolute certainty are big words in science, but a law is a close as it gets.

In science, a Law is a very strong Theory; One that has numerous corroborations of it's correctness from many sources and from many methods.

Absolute certainty are big words in science, but a law is a close as it gets.

Not quite. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law):

Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens, in terms of the more fundamental laws.

Not quite. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law):

Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens, in terms of the more fundamental laws.

Bah. Close enough.

Interesting definition though. I wonder if gravity would be a law or a theory by that definition.

Bah. Close enough.

Interesting definition though. I wonder if gravity would be a law or a theory by that definition.

It's both. The law of gravity (Newton's, anyway) is the simple mathematical equation describing the attractive forces between two masses:

F = G(m1*m2/d^2)

The theory, or rather theories of gravity explain exactly what it is that causes the phenomenon. Einstein's curved space theory is one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

It's both. The law of gravity (Newton's, anyway) is the simple mathematical equation describing the attractive forces between two masses:

F = G(m1*m2/d^2)

The theory, or rather theories of gravity explain exactly what it is that causes the phenomenon. Einstein's curved space theory is one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Heh. Yes. I know. I've been dabbling in process physics theory of gravity which suggests that objects with mass may not be moving toward eachother at all, but the space between them is growing smaller. Weird stuff. :p

?
What do you think?
I think its impossible that the universe and all things known (and unknown) is/are
far too complex to be create by a simple explosion of gas or whatever.
And if the big bang created the universe, then where did the gas come from? What did the explosion blow apart? What triggered the explosion aside from the gas that has no origin?
I think the big bang theory is the least unrealistic theory that exists. It was not from gas. I believe the idea is that the collision of extradimensional particles is behind it. Not sure. In any case I see it as the first step down the right path. The big bang theory will be revised, rejected, superceeded and such until we get closer to the truth. Right now we should be examining the theory, rather than criticising it as a whole. Look for reasons why it can't be possible, and suggest better ones. Remember to use Ockhams razor at all times (i.e. why suggest that the christian god did it when any god could have? Why suggest an anthropomorphic god did it when a cosmic force could have? Why suggest a cosmic force could have done it, if it could have happened without one?...)

?
What do you think?
I think its impossible that the universe and all things known (and unknown) is/are
far too complex to be create by a simple explosion of gas or whatever.
And if the big bang created the universe, then where did the gas come from? What did the explosion blow apart? What triggered the explosion aside from the gas that has no origin?

Why is it impossible? Because you don't understand it? I don't understand the ideas of dimensions outside the four we knowingly experience, doesn't make them impossible (just hurts my brain).

Scientific theories are improved and changed over time. Perhaps the Big Bang theory needs some changes, but thats for smart scientist guys to figure out.

Not quite. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law):

Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens, in terms of the more fundamental laws.

Of course, even those laws are still "theories" in that they can be disproven by further data.

Scientists tend to shy away from labeling anything new a "law" anymore, because people begin to think that such a label means that you can no longer question whatever is posited.

It's Big!

Why is it impossible? Because you don't understand it? I don't understand the ideas of dimensions outside the four we knowingly experience, doesn't make them impossible (just hurts my brain).

Scientific theories are improved and changed over time. Perhaps the Big Bang theory needs some changes, but thats for smart scientist guys to figure out.

Try thinking about what's "outside" (for lack of a better word) of the universe.

Yeah, that one hurts.