PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Big bang, beliefs.
       Feasible beliefs

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Having read thru a lot of topics, particularly those on the big bang has made me wonder about one particular point.

The big bang, to be honest, although has proven to be theortically possible (to a point) is still very hard to comes to terms with.  It is a problem deciding on how the beginning happened.  But what i just dont understand is how people can honestly believe in a god without questioning this also.  God was there in the beginning...so is there no reason why the universe couldnt have just been there.  Yeah there is, scientists and other interested parties have sought more answers, and the beginning of everything would be quite a sweet one to come across.  However those who believe in a god seem to just accept the beginning without asking questions.  

Design takes intelligence is another great example, God created us in his own image.  Suggesting he has a design himself, what intelligent being created him, as it is only logical that the progression should reach this point and so on and so on... until once again we reach a point where we still need a beginning.

I really want to know where this overwhelming belief comes from.  What feeling is there that this is right.  I used to be christian, however i then sat down and thought about different religions, the reason i was christian and so on.  I decided i was christian because i was raised that way, it seemed right because i had formed a pattern, after a few troubles in life, i decided that maybe there is no greater being, no afterlife, no nothing.  Just a collection of molecules, with something special about the way they all interreact.

So i'm just wandering what gives this belief to people its obviously very powerful, but is it just because you were raised that way?  Because you havent found anything you prefer to it?  Or because you would suddenly feel very scared and alone if you didnt have this benevolent spirit watching you, and were no longer confident in the knowledge that when you die you will go to a better place, and live forever....

I know i was at first, but then i felt more confident in myself, and decided i was better off just going for happiness this time, rather than hoping i got a second go of guarenteed pleasure or pain.

Anyone reckon they can get some belief out of me again?

Unseul, atm an ardent evolutionist.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:16 PM on June 23, 2003 | IP
AMD4EVER

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One of the more interesting ideas that I had heard in the past is that perhaps the 'Big Bang' could have been caused by a God (Not necessarily the one in the Bible).  Perhaps this God was a physical being, lived in what we call the galaxy, and had a lot of time to think.  Perhaps knowing everything and being able to do anything he wanted to got him to thinking what would happen without him.  Maybe he decided he would find out and simply whipped himself out of existance and exploded causing the Big Bang.

Not that it makes a whole lot of sense but hey, I thought the idea as it was is pretty original and interesting.
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 7:21 PM on June 23, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well thats true.

The Big Bang would hold up in a court of law on the evidence - it is beyond any reasonable doubt.

But noone knows (and probably will ever know) why the big bang happened.

Hence many religious scientists believe God started the big bang. It is a very popular belief.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 07:41 AM on June 24, 2003 | IP
Evolution

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The truth will set you free. don't listen to the hate mongers who fear god ect..

the big bang could have been caused by the big crunch. (a universe that existed before ours and collapsed) read stephen hawkins "a brief history of time"


-------
Invest your love in each other not God. Uncertinity is the stuff of curiosity.
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 4:13 PM on June 28, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If a universe existed before ours and hence "the big crush" then you would be asking the same questions for the "previous" universe.
No, scientists and others who try to combine the "big bang" with God only do this because of lack of information (witch we may not know untill our death). And people who do this have to realize that a god who would do such a thing is most definetly NOT the God of the Bible!
When it comes to something like "there must have been something before God or what made God?" you first have to realize that we will not know unless God himself were to tell us. Humans can't comprehend that there was nothing before God, that God always existed just like we can't comprehend there being nothing after death. Just try to imagine that when you die you are no more anywhere ever, It is impossible to truly comprehend such a thing. This might be why people always have religions and beliefs but in an age like today we really do have the answers if you look at the facts. The Bible has to be true when you see all the fulfilled prophecies and things mentioned in the Bible we are even seeing today, "Springs of the deep" for example. Look up the information and see the truth for God is the only way to salvation.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:51 PM on November 20, 2003 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just a quick question:
Do we have any evidence for the big bang?
Does anything we see today point to it?
I would think that the burden of proof is on the creator of the theory, not anyone else.
Does that sound reasonable?
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 12:17 AM on February 4, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Just a quick question:
Do we have any evidence for the big bang?
Does anything we see today point to it?
I would think that the burden of proof is on the creator of the theory, not anyone else.
Does that sound reasonable?"



Yes, that does sound reasonable, and we do have evidence of the Big Bang.  The poster to whom I replied obviously never bothered to do any research, that's why I questioned his intelligence (or lack of...).
The Big Bang was predicted by Einstein's General Relativity theory, but at the time an expanding universe was considered ridiculous. It wasn't until 1929 when Edwin Hubble actually observed that galaxies were were moving away from our galaxy at speeds proportional to their distance from us.  This was a prediction made by Einstein's General Relativity theory that was verified.
The Big Bang theory also predicted that the light elements Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium would be produced in the early universe, and they would be the most prevelant elements in our universe today.  So far, according to all our observations, this is true.  Another prediction made by the Big Bang theory is verified.
The Big Bang theory says that the universe was a very hot place in the begining.  Scientists predicted in the late 1940's that there should be some trace of this heat radition still left in the universe.  In 1965 this Cosmic Background Radiation was observed.
So the Big Bang theory was first proposed to explain the mathematical evidence indicated in Einstein's General Relativity theory.  Predictions were made based on the theory, those predictions were verified years later, strengthening the Big Bang theory.  If these predictions were not verified, or if something else had been observed, the Big Bang theory would have been falsified.  But it wasn't so today the Big Bang theory is the best explaination of how our universe started.
The statement "the Big Bang is BULL" is an assinine rant from someone who has no idea what the Big Bang really is and does nothing to falsify it.  Since the Big Bang theory is the leading theory and explains all the available evidence, it is the job of the poster to provide evidence that falsifies it.

(Edited by admin 2/4/2004 at 07:24 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:00 AM on February 4, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, I agree wih you that no one should be calling the theory, well, you know what...its simply not scientific to say that without evidence.

You gave some very good laws, etc., that the theory agreed with.  But you seemed to only quote those that did agree.

There are some vital questions to answer about the big bang if it is to be cited as science.  (Science means observable, testable and demonstrateable.)  
First, where did the matter come?  Where did the energy come from?  What got this ball rolling anyway?  One might ask "Where did it all start?"   Also, if the big bang occured, all of the matter should be evenly distributed (in a frictionless environment,  which it was) but it is "lumpy".  And because of the law of "the conservation of angular momentum" if the dot was spinning, all the fragments would spin in the same direction, so why are at least two planets spinning backwards?
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 11:54 AM on February 4, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are some vital questions to answer about the big bang if it is to be cited as science.


Well, the first vital question would be did you come up with these on your own or did you plagarize them?  Since we've seen these so many times before. . .

Also, if the big bang occured, all of the matter should be evenly distributed (in a frictionless environment,  which it was) but it is "lumpy".


Please explain how you can state with certainty that it was "frictionless"?  And what that would mean before it was cool enough to condense oridnary baryonic matter?

And because of the law of "the conservation of angular momentum" if the dot was spinning, all the fragments would spin in the same direction, so why are at least two planets spinning backwards?


First, you are mixing time periiods, the formation of the solar system was a long time after the BB event.  Second, you answered your own question. CONSERVATION of angular momentum just means that the total of the system remains constant.  If something spins backwards, something else gained the momentum in the opposite direction.  What's the problem?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:18 PM on February 4, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please explain how you can state with certainty that it was "frictionless"?  


Wait a minute, I did not come up with that.  That is what the evolutionists say.  Let me ask what the big bang was?  I thought that the textbooks taught "all the matter in the universe" got together in a small dot.  If all the matter in the universe was in that dot, there was no matter elsewhere, meaning the same thing as "frictionless environment".  Maybe theres a new definition of the big bang out there that I haven't heard of, I don't know.

If something spins backwards, something else gained the momentum in the opposite direction.  What's the problem?


Um, some faulty logic here.  What you mean is a fragment that is spinning "backwards" had to actually "collide" with something else to make this happen.  So, the problem is, if all the matter was in the dot, and the dot exploded, the fragments would get farther and farther away from each other, they couldn't touch each other.  What was there to take the hit?  Woulnd't whatever it was have left a dent?

But aside from that you seem to have dodged my more important questions; where did the energy come from to cause this explosion?  What got this ball rolling?  Where did the matter come from?  Where did the laws of the universe come from, along with time and space?  Where did all of this begin?

 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 8:35 PM on February 4, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wait a minute, I did not come up with that.  That is what the evolutionists say.


Where?  How much theoretical cosmology have your read?  Just for your information, the theory was developed by a Christian, and one of the major hurdles it had to face to gain acceptance was the fact that it mirrors the creation account of Genesis.  However, since all of the available evidence agrees with it, even atheists accept it now.

Um, some faulty logic here.  What you mean is a fragment that is spinning "backwards" had to actually "collide" with something else to make this happen.  So, the problem is, if all the matter was in the dot, and the dot exploded, the fragments would get farther and farther away from each other, they couldn't touch each other.  What was there to take the hit?  Woulnd't whatever it was have left a dent?


And YOU still seem to not understand that the initial conditions of the Big Bang have little to do with the angular momentum state of the condensation of the solar nebula some 9 billion years later.

Look at it this way, hurricane Andrew had little to do with the car crash outside my office window last month.

Ask yourself what kind of witness for Christ ignorance presents.

Quoting the missionary once more:


Remembering the scoffer, too, is loved by God, it's incumbent upon us to consider how harmful a Kent Hovind is to the scoffer’s hoped-for acceptance of salvation.  There's no doubt that a Hovind is ruinous in this regard: his dishonesty feeds the scoffer's feelings of superior morality; and the scoffer's feelings of intellectual superiority grow as he or she listens to Hovind's ignorant, mocking dismissals of great scientists’ finest works.  Hovind adds to the disaster by saying that the scoffers refuse to accept the Gospel because they choose to be willfully ignorant of it, in order to indulge their sin natures.  Being called sinful and willfully ignorant by Hovind only hardens the scoffer against us further—who wouldn't be offended at being called such by a Believer who is himself not only ignorant, but untruthful?


An Evangelist Confronts Hovind
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 09:12 AM on February 5, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hold on, wait a minute.  Did I mention Christ?
No, you brought that up.  Its a common technique, trying to change the subject here.

To get back to our original topic, is the big bang scientific?  

How much theoretical cosmology have your read?
 

Enough.  Theoretical, eh?  Thank you for demonstrating my point.  It is all theoretical, not observable.

And YOU still seem to not understand that the initial conditions of the Big Bang have little to do with the angular momentum state of the condensation of the solar nebula some 9 billion years later.


9 billion years later?  9 billion years later the fragments would have been so far apart that they would't have been able to see each other, depending on the rate of travel, of course.  I mean, what was there to stop the angular momentum? The time factor only makes things worse here...

Look at it this way, hurricane Andrew had little to do with the car crash outside my office window last month.


Good analogy, but did you notice that it does not apply?  A hurricane sweeps over whats already there.  The big bang occured in the nothingness, making it responsible for everything.  

And once again, you have successfully dodged my most important questions.   You ignore  my questions that I have stated twice now just above your posts, while you talk to me about ignorance of the lastest theoretical cosmology.
You are the one guilty of ignorance.

I will repeat them once more: where did the energy come from to cause this explosion?  What got this ball rolling anyway?  Where did the matter come from?  Where did the laws of the universe come from, along with time and space?  Where did all of this begin?




 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 12:42 PM on February 5, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To get back to our original topic, is the big bang scientific?


YES, it is firmly backed by theory and repeatable observations.  The theological implications of creation only slowed it's adoption.

9 billion years later the fragments would have been so far apart that they would't have been able to see each other, depending on the rate of travel, of course.  I mean, what was there to stop the angular momentum? The time factor only makes things worse here...


Why wouldn't gravity pull things together?  And again, angular momentum is conserved, whether the universe started out with a zero or non-zero value for it is not important.   BTW, the "clumping" of the early universe has had some wonderful new observations recently with the WMAP.

I will repeat them once more: where did the energy come from to cause this explosion?  What got this ball rolling anyway?  Where did the matter come from?  Where did the laws of the universe come from, along with time and space?  Where did all of this begin?


I'm perfectly content to say that God spoke it into existance.  


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:21 PM on February 5, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not much time now, but

YES, it is firmly backed by theory and repeatable observations.


Obsevations?  Did you watch it happen?



Why wouldn't gravity pull things together?


Because the speed required to escape the gravity of the "dot"  Would prevent it.  More on this in a cuple days.

I'm perfectly content to say that God spoke it into existance.


So, you use God as a crutch when you know science can't explain it.  If he could speak that into existance,then he could speak anything into existance, making creation possible.  Do you really think a God smart enoughto make time, space, and matter wouldn't follow along with his universe and care about the beings?



(Edited by E-mc2 2/5/2004 at 2:58 PM).
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 2:51 PM on February 5, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

E-mc2,

You don't seem to know much about the Big Bang theory.  First of all it wasn't really an explosion, but a rapid expansion of space-time.So the laws of angular momentum don't even apply.
There was no matter for the first billion years or so in the universe, it was much to hot, there was only sub atomic particles so I don't know what your statement about lumpy matter means.  
You want to know what existed before the Big Bang, science does not know this yet.  There are hypotheses about that but nothing close to a theory.  Just becasue we don't know doesn't mean Goddidit.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:23 PM on February 5, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You don't seem to know much about the Big Bang theory.  First of all it wasn't really an explosion, but a rapid expansion of space-time.  So the laws of angular momentum don't even apply.


Mm hmm, you don't want them to apply.
A rapid expansion?  Who expanded it?

There was no matter for the first billion years or so in the universe, it was much to hot


Too hot? Where did the heat come from?  

You want to know what existed before the Big Bang, science does not know this yet.


Science would have no way of explaining the origin of time, space, matter, and the laws.  Any hypothesis you can show me?  Something outside of science would have to do this.



 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 9:44 PM on February 6, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Mm hmm, you don't want them to apply."

Ha Ha Ha, what I want doesn't matter, only the facts matter.  There was no matter for a billion years so angular momentum doesn't apply.  Why don't you explain how you think the law of angular momentum falsifies the Big Bang.

"A rapid expansion?  Who expanded it?"

Who?!?  What evidence do you have that it was a who?  Everything we understand in nature so far has not needed a supernatural explaination, it is reasonable to say that everything we don't understand yet has a natural cause we just don't understand yet.

"Too hot? Where did the heat come from? "

I don't know but since we have been studying cosmic background radiation since 1965, we know that it was hot.

"Science would have no way of explaining the origin of time, space, matter, and the laws.  Any hypothesis you can show me?  Something outside of science would have to do this."

Science has many ways of explaining this, we're just not sure if they're right yet.  There are many hypothesis, look up Brane world theory or string theory to begin with.  Why would something outside of science have to do this?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:43 AM on February 7, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Who?!?  What evidence do you have that it was a who?


Ok, allow me to rephrase that.   "What" expanded it.  Where did the energy to expand it come from?  

I don't know but since we have been studying cosmic background radiation since 1965, we know that it was hot.


Fianlly a decent answer, the "I don't know" part.  No one does.  Thats why its not science.

Science has many ways of explaining this, we're just not sure if they're right yet.  There are many hypothesis, look up Brane world theory or string theory to begin with.  Why would something outside of science have to do this?


Can science make something out of nothing?  Matter (energy) cannot be created or destroyed.  So how did it come into being if it cannot be created?  Like I said... Something outside of science...


 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 11:28 PM on February 7, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

""What" expanded it.  Where did the energy to expand it come from? "

Unknown at this time.

"Fianlly a decent answer, the "I don't know" part.  No one does.  Thats why its not science."

"I don't know" is what science is all about!  Science is a way of investigating these questions.  Of course it's science, there are thousands of astronomers and astro physicists investigating these questions everyday because we DON"T know!  Why isn't that science???

"Can science make something out of nothing?  Matter (energy) cannot be created or destroyed.  So how did it come into being if it cannot be created?  Like I said... Something outside of science..."

Science doesn't 'make' anything, it is a way of investigating the natural world.  Matter cannot be created or destroyed is questionable since the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanices says energy can spontaneously appear uncaused.  So it is within the realm of possibility that our universe spontaneously appeared with no need of a "god".  The burden is on you to show proof of god as the originator of this universe.  And you keep saying it's outside of science like that's evidence of your god, but once again, just because we don't know yet, doesn't mean goddidit!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:07 PM on February 8, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Its not that we don't know yet, its that we have no way of knowing.  

"I don't know" is what science is all about!


Thats the newest definition I've heard.  I thought its about what we test, demonstrate, you know the definition.  

The burden is on you to show proof of god as the originator of this universe.


What else could be the originator?
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 8:32 PM on February 8, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Its not that we don't know yet, its that we have no way of knowing."

What do you mean, are you saying it's inherently unknowable?  Right now there are theoretical physicists conducting experiments to test these hypothesies.  Are you saying they're just wasting their time because we can never know what came before the Big Bang?

"Thats the newest definition I've heard.  I thought its about what we test, demonstrate, you know the definition."

What??  Science starts with what we don't know!  It's a method of investigation!  We investigate what we don't understand, so every scientific theory must start out with "I don't know..."  Please tell me what you think science is...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:07 PM on February 8, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What do you mean, are you saying it's inherently unknowable?


Exactly, you hit the nail on the head.

What??  Science starts with what we don't know!  It's a method of investigation!  We investigate what we don't understand, so every scientific theory must start out with "I don't know..."  Please tell me what you think science is...


Science starts with what we don't know and ends in what we observed.  Not what we fantisized.  For example, we observe by experimentation that big rocks fall at the same speed as little rocks given the same conditions.


 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 12:06 AM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Exactly, you hit the nail on the head."

What makes you right and the  thousands of theoretical physicists who are experimenting with these, according to you, unknowable areas of reality, wrong?  What evidence do you have that says it's impossible to know these things?  Why is the research on the origins of reality being conducted if it's ultimately unknowable?  Do you know anything about the hypothesies of what came before the Big Bang?  Or are you just saying that because you're afraid it will destroy the basis of your faith?

"Science starts with what we don't know and ends in what we observed.  Not what we fantisized.  For example, we observe by experimentation that big rocks fall at the same speed as little rocks given the same conditions."

Nope, you're wrong again!  Science starts with what we don't know, forms a hypothesis on what we observe, tests these observations and forms an explaination for them.  That is what  scientific theory is, an explaination.  Yes we observe gravity at work, but what causes it, what is gravity?  It's still a theory.  But evolution is observed, we know the mechanisms like mutation and natural selection, we know that life has been evolving for aproximately 3.5 billion years, this is overwhelmingly displayed in the fossil record.  We know much more about evolution than we do about gravity, but it is still the theory of evolution because that's the best it gets in science, when an explaination explains all related facts, when it can't be falsified, when it makes predictions that are confirmed it becomes a scientific theory.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:03 AM on February 9, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you know anything about the hypothesies of what came before the Big Bang?  Or are you just saying that because you're afraid it will destroy the basis of your faith?


I have been asking for some  of these, but you apparently know none of them yourself.

Science starts with what we don't know, forms a hypothesis on what we observe, tests these observations and forms an explaination for them.  That is what  scientific theory is, an explaination.


You are talking about theories, not science.  Science is facts that we can observe.  i.e. large objects pull small objects toward them...gravity.  Where gravity came from is theory, we have no way of observing it.   And what we don't know isn't evidence for anything.






 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 1:34 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Science is facts that we can observe.


Where did you get this definition?

It is unlike any I've ever seen or heard.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:44 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Science is knowledge.  Its basically what we know.  Not what we think.

From the dictionary...

1.Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.

2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge.

3.Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living tissues, etc.; -- called also natural science, and physical science.

Source- Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

The dictionary says even more, but its basically the first defintition I'm looking at:

Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.



(Edited by E-mc2 2/9/2004 at 2:00 PM).
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 1:58 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How can you change:

"knowledge of principles and causes"

to:

"Science is facts that we can observe."

They are not the same thing whatsoever.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:07 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I have been asking for some  of these, but you apparently know none of them yourself."

I told you to look up string theory or Brane world theory, they give hypothesies about what came before the Big Bang.

"You are talking about theories, not science.  Science is facts that we can observe.  i.e. large objects pull small objects toward them...gravity.  Where gravity came from is theory, we have no way of observing it.   And what we don't know isn't evidence for anything."

No science is made up of theories.  Science is how we investigate the natural world.  Science is the explaination of gravity.  And we do have ways of observing gravity, testing it, experimenting with it.  So your wrong again.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:37 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No science is made up of theories.


I'm sorry, science is knowledge, not theories.

1.Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.

2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge.

3.Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living tissues, etc.; -- called also natural science, and physical science.

Source- Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

I told you to look up string theory or Brane world theory, they give hypothesies about what came before the Big Bang.


I see why I am supposed to look them up, you can't explain them...they don't make much sense.


 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 5:00 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from E-mc2 at 5:00 PM on February 9, 2004 :
No science is made up of theories.


I'm sorry, science is knowledge, not theories.

1.Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.

2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge.

3.Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living tissues, etc.; -- called also natural science, and physical science.




And the definition of Theory, in Science, is as follows:

A statement of what are held to the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed ....Oxford English Dictionary.



 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:05 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I see why I am supposed to look them up, you can't explain them...they don't make much sense."

To quote Dirty Harry from the movie "Magnum Force":

"A man's got to know his limitations..."

And I freely admit your right E-mc2, I can't explain these hypothesies very well, I'm not that smart.  But since stuff like string theory is some of the most sophisticated, complex physics ever proposed, I don't feel too bad.
Here's a good site to look at if you want an introduction to it:

Stringtheory

And you're right again, quantum mechanics is very counter intuitive, it doesn't make sense.  
But many aspects of quantum theory have been tested and observed, so just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean it's wrong.  Just because you and I don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.  And if you really want to falsifiy the Big Bang, instead of just saying "I don't understand it, so it must be wrong and God created everything magically..." like you have been doing, you have to really understand this stuff.  Good luck!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:17 AM on February 10, 2004 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the big bangs pathetic



-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 7:24 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the big bangs pathetic

It's the best explaination we have.  You've got nothing else.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:22 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i sure do. want some?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:50 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i sure do. want some?

Sure, bring it on...
All you have to do is better explain:

Large-scale homogeneity of the universe.
An expanding universe.
Abundance of light elements in the universe.
the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
Large-scale structure of the universe
The Age of stars.
Evolution of galaxies.
Time dilation in supernova brightness curves.

Each of these observable phenomenon are best explained by the Big Bang.  In order to refute the Big Bang, you must show the evidence that falsifies the Big Bang and better explains each of these facts.  If you can't do this, don't bother.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:15 AM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok. here it is.

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.


There are many problems with this theory. And the theory itself still does not answer many important questions.. Such as where did all the matter come from?

If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together?

If this "dot" spun rapidly until it exploded., then where did the energy come from to start the spinning?

Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this "spinning dot" would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from.

This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum.


This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from.



So therefore, all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction.

However two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards.


 
Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.



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"

So rather than the chaos (big bang) becoming ordered (our universe), just the opposite would be true.. And it is. Our complex universe is wearing down, and becoming more chaotic...

Paul was aware of this when he wrote his letter to the Hebrews:
Everything ".. waxes old like a garment"

Things wear down. Nothing gets better by itself.

If I told you that thousands of pieces of timber were set in motion by a tornado in a lumberyard and this ultimately resulted in the amazing design and complexity of the house you live in, you would think this was absurd to say the very least.



Yet in essence this is what the Big Bang theory teaches.

Now I know that anyone whose bedroom resembles mine might say that a tornado ripped through it, the tornado did not create my room. It created the mess that is throughout my room.

Even if millions of years of tornados did somehow randomly land in a complex pattern thus assembling my room, this would still not explain where the trees came from that were made into the lumber.

It would not explain who planted, or cut the trees, or even how the trees grew.

You see, such theories do not give an absolute answer of truth. They only serve to cause people to become distracted and lose sight of the larger picture of the Creator and who God is. Satan is a master of deception and distraction. He wants you to lose sight of Christ, and focus on impossible things.



The Big Bang theory also teaches that in another 80 to 100 billion years, all of the matter that makes up our Earth and solar system will become compressed again, drawing in on itself and fold up once again into a tiny dot.

A Big Bang is said to occur every 80 to 100 billion years.

If the Big Bang theory is true, then I sure hope Jesus comes back soon, otherwise we’re all going to get squished!



As absurd as the "Big Bang" theory is, it is widely accepted because the only other choice is a Divine Creator. And some people will believe the most ridiculous theory, rather than even entertaining the possibility that there could be a Creator.

As I see it, there are only 2 choices.
Either someone created the Earth,
or the Earth created itself..
(despite all the known Laws of Science saying it couldn't have happened this way).



Now there are those who say that maybe God used the "big bang" to create the world.

Well, God is God, and he can do anything he wants but scripture tells us that this is not how he created.

God’s creation was one of order, not random processes.

Those who try to reconcile the Big Bang with scripture do themselves and the Bible injustice. For the Creation account and the Big Bang differ greatly in the order of events.



-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:28 AM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

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.

Right off the bat, you are completely wrong.  There was NO MATTER for 100's of thousands of years after the Big Bang.  So you are already completely wrong.  All the matter of the universe was NOT compressed into a dot.
Nothing spun and nothing exploded!
Since you have these 2 fundamental concepts completely wrong, everything that follows can't possiblely be right.  Can't you understand, the Big Bang WAS NOT AN EXPLOSION!!!  Just about every claim you make about the Big Bang is completely wrong.

And I see you failed to explain all the evidence for the Big Bang I listed.  I knew you didn't have chance.  If you ever want to be able to falsify the Big Bang, you have to learn what it really is.  AS shown above, you are completely clueless about what the Big Bang theory really says.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:42 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If it wasnt an explosian, then wat was it?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:12 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If it wasnt an explosian, then wat was
it?


You come here trying to debunk the Big Bang theory and you don't even know what it was???  Unreal!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:35 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i have been taught that it was an explosian. But if it wasnt then wat was it?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:35 AM on August 12, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i have been taught that it was an explosian. But if it wasnt then wat was it?

From here:BigBang

"Because of its name many people think of the Big Bang as a kind of explosion that happened at some specific point in space, but this isn't correct, as the Universe didn't spring from one central ignition point. Instead, during the Big Bang space was first created and then stretched."

This is an important point.  The Big Bang wasn't an explosion in space that threw out all the matter in the universe.  It was the actual creation and rapid expansion of space time.

Virtually all astrophysicists accept the Big Bang theory.  And to falsify that theory you would have to explain the observed phenomenon that I listed in a previous post.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:53 AM on August 13, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how was it  created?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:30 AM on August 16, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how was it  created?


I'm having a lot of trouble seeing the relevance in your question, Creationest6. The same could be asked of an Intelligent Designer: how did He create his designs? I'm sure you're bright enough to see that simply not knowing the answer does not falsify anything.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:53 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if tere is an "Intelligent Designer" then he could surely have easily created a universe by saying it.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:29 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if tere is an "Intelligent Designer" then he could surely have easily created a universe by saying it.


Let's try to keep on topic, Creationest6. The connection between a universe created by an intelligent designer and a universe created through natural processes is that neither one requires an explanation to be true.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:48 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how was it  created?

According to quantum physics, it could have spontaneously appeared, no need for any creation.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:37 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"spontaneously appeared"? Ha! Give me proof of a "spontaneously" appearing universe!


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:45 AM on August 17, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"spontaneously appeared"? Ha! Give me proof of a "spontaneously" appearing universe!

Quantum fluctuations.

Now give me proof of an eternal intelligent designer!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:25 PM on August 17, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i am giving proof of spiritual creatures at a new topic.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 09:52 AM on September 1, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i am giving proof of spiritual creatures at a new topic.

OK, fine.  But let's get back to the point.  In the quantum world, events can and do happen uncaused.  The universe wouldn't need a first cause, it could have appeared spontaneously.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:11 PM on September 1, 2007 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.