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?
       True or false.

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
TheCman66

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They said they have proven the big bang by seeing the galaxies expanding away from each other. They have only seen a tiny fraction of the galaxies of the universe. Just those Galaxies are expanding, doesn't mean that the entire universe is.


-------
"I can't Fail English! Thats Un-possible!"

Ralph, The Simpson's.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 8:37 PM on February 6, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They said they have proven the big bang by seeing the galaxies expanding away from each other. They have only seen a tiny fraction of the galaxies of the universe. Just those Galaxies are expanding, doesn't mean that the entire universe is.

That's not the only evidence for the Big Bang.
How do you account for the rest of this evidence and why does it agree with universal expansion?
And you don't understand how expansion of the universe is measured.  And I question your claim that we've only seen a tiny fraction of the galaxies in the universe.  One of the most distant galaxies observed is the Galaxy Abell 1835 which is 13.23 billion light years distant, if formed roughly 500 million years after the big bang.  We observed a huge number of distant galaxies and they are all expanding.
We're all waiting for your answers to these guestions...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:00 AM on February 7, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is good evidence supporting the Big Bang theory.

1.  Astronomers can see that the universe is expanding.  Not only is it expanding, but it appears to be expanding outward from a specific point in time & space.

2.  Cosmic background radiation - this was the famous discovery made by two Bell Lab researchers back in 1964.  They detected with sensitive instruments the cosmic microwave radiation that is the remaining 'fingerprint' of the Big Bang.  The temperature measured in this radiation is only a few degrees above absolute zero K.  But it matched the figures predicted by the Big Bang theory.  This is an example of one of the criteria of establishing a credible scientific theory - that it can make accurate predictions.  Theoretical calculations preceded discovery - and they agreed with one another.  

The theory of evolution has also met such criteria in establishing itself as an extremely powerful and accurate theory.

3.  Helium abundance.  About 25 % of the mass of the universe is helium - the next most simplest atom after hydrogen.  This is too large a quantity to have been produced in stars alone given the age of the universe.  Theory predicts that large quantities of helium was produced shortly after the Big Bang, as the universe cooled.  Again, theory matches observation.

A theory is useful if it explains what we see and makes accurate predictions.  The Big Bang and evolution do both.  And evolution does it extremely well.  That doesn't mean that either theory will not be further refined with new knowledge.  While new findings in the past 100 years have refined the details involved in evolution, the basic ideas behind evolution have not changed.  The new findings, while refining the workings of the theory, have only proved to strengthen it.  

So far, the same is true for the Big Bang theory in physics.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:22 PM on February 7, 2008 | IP
TheCman66

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Visit this link.
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html


-------
"I can't Fail English! Thats Un-possible!"

Ralph, The Simpson's.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 6:45 PM on February 7, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

John Kierein's premise that cosmic redshift is caused by the Compton effect rather than the Doppler effect is incorrect - just plain wrong.  

See http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/kierein.html

More on this later.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:16 AM on February 8, 2008 | IP
Wolflord

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

okie dokie something for you darwinists or neo-darwinists or whatever to ponder

Where did the earth and universe come from

some say gases and other crap like that

well where did the gases come from

and where did the source of the gases come from

and so on and so on.

So do you know
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 5:54 PM on February 15, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

okie dokie something for you darwinists or neo-darwinists or whatever to ponder

Biologists don't ponder this, it's the astonomers and theorectical physicists that investigate this!

Where did the earth and universe come from

some say gases and other crap like that

well where did the gases come from

and where did the source of the gases come from

and so on and so on.


Well, quantum theory shows us that the universe could have self started.

I turn the questionback to you, where did God come from?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:18 PM on February 15, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon, you beat me to the punch - I was going to ask the same thing.

Where did God come from?  Oh, he was always there!  That's really no answer.  

If you would like to read something about the history of cosmology, a good book to read is 'On Coming of Age in the Milky Way' by Timothy Ferris.  It's about 20 years old, but gives an excellent overview of the history of astronomy, evolution, and modern physics - including quantum theory and the Big Bang.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:41 PM on February 15, 2008 | IP
FROGGER

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What the supporters of the big bang theory basically state is that the whole entire universe (a completely unimaginable size) once fit into a small ball smaller then an atom.

Against the big bang supporters I have 3 questions:
1. Were did this incredibly small ball (which would have had the weight of the entire universe according to the theory that matter is neither created or destroyed) come from?
2. Theoretically, what else was in the space around this ball? just a blank white screen like in those tv adds?
3. How did this small (but extremely heavy) ball expand into everything we see and know, plus an eternity more?

I find it difficult to believe that the fact that zinc and silicone can be converted in a way to make a computer run, how there are different species of organisms, etc. appeared here by accident. If the big bang theory and evolution is correct, all organisms, minerals, everything would look exactly the same if it all came from one tiny space. Please answer me to the best of your abilities, and please don't counter with other questions, though I will answer them if you answer mine.



-------
Fully<br>Rely<br>On<br>God<br>G<br>E<br>R
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 9:56 PM on February 29, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What the supporters of the big bang theory basically state is that the whole entire universe (a completely unimaginable size) once fit into a small ball smaller then an atom.

Can you back this claim up, or does it stem from your ignorance of quantum physics?

1. Were did this incredibly small ball (which would have had the weight of the entire universe according to the theory that matter is neither created or destroyed) come from?

Why would it have the weight of the entire universe?  Matter CAN be created and it can be converted into energy.  And according to quantum physics, the universe could have self arose without a cause.

2. Theoretically, what else was in the space around this ball? just a blank white screen like in those tv adds?

Unknown, but have you read anything about M-brane theory?  But it definitely wasn't a blank white screen...

3. How did this small (but extremely heavy) ball expand into everything we see and know, plus an eternity more?

As stated before, since we have evidence that matter and energy can just pop into existance uncaused, it is possible that the universe just popped into existance uncaused.  How do you think the universe originated and what evidence do you have to support this?

I find it difficult to believe that the fact that zinc and silicone can be converted in a way to make a computer run, how there are different species of organisms, etc. appeared here by accident.

Physics, chemistry and biology don't happen by accident.  So I guess you don't understand how physics, chemistry or biology function.

If the big bang theory and evolution is correct, all organisms, minerals, everything would look exactly the same if it all came from one tiny space.

Why?  And in the begining of the universe, everything was the same, why wouldn't it change?

Please answer me to the best of your abilities, and please don't counter with other questions, though I will answer them if you answer mine.

You are in need of a serious education in science.  From your questions, you don't know how science works or what the theories your questioning really say.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:24 PM on March 2, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. Were did this incredibly small ball (which would have had the weight of the entire universe according to the theory that matter is neither created or destroyed) come from?

Little is known about the earliest moments of the Big Bang.  Physicists believe that during the initial tiny fraction of a second there were both subatomic particles and anti-subatomic particles, which annihilated each other.  However, there was a small excess of matter (called baryonic matter), which is what the known universe is made up of.  So there was some sort of asymmetric process that was involved in the Big Bang that caused our current universe to form.  

Physicists refer to something called quantum fluctuations, a temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space.  During such a time, the conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for a very short time.  This allows the formation of particle/anti-particle pairs.  But this stuff is way over my head, and I’ll admit that I don’t understand it.    

2. Theoretically, what else was in the space around this ball? just a blank white screen like in those tv adds?

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points.  There was an inflationary time during the BB in the first tiny fraction of a second that caused space to change from smaller than an atom to around 100 million light years across.  Don’t ask me to explain this, I don’t understand it myself.  But physicists who study such things, that is where the evidence leads them.  

3. How did this small (but extremely heavy) ball expand into everything we see and know, plus an eternity more?

I don’t know.  But you have to realize that conditions during the BB were quite different from what we see in the universe today.  For instance, normal particles that make up atoms (protons and neutrons, etc) didn’t exist until the temperature cooled down enough for the quarks, and such other subatomic components, to be able to come together to make an atomic nucleus.  

Observational evidence supporting the Big Bang.

1.The universe is expanding uniformly in every direction.  This is something we do observe to be happening.  Furthermore, it is expanding according to Hubble’s Law – the more distance an object is from us (the observer) the faster it appears to be moving.  The velocity that an object (distant galaxy, quasar, etc) is receding or approaching us is measured by the red/blue shift in the light we observe from that object.  We observe a red shift for objects receding from us, a blue shift in wavelength for an object speeding toward us.
2.Cosmic Microwave Background radiation – discovered in 1964, this measurement provided compelling evidence supporting the BB.  It is the fingerprint of the BB, so to speak.
3.The concentration of hydrogen/helium ratio as measured in the universe today is in agreement with the theoretical calculations of the Big Bang theory.
4.The morphology of galaxies and quasars strongly support the Big Bang theory.  Very distant galaxies, which we are seeing as they were in the young universe, appear very different from nearby galaxies, for an example.

I find it difficult to believe that the fact that zinc and silicone can be converted in a way to make a computer run, how there are different species of organisms, etc. appeared here by accident. If the big bang theory and evolution is correct, all organisms, minerals, everything would look exactly the same if it all came from one tiny space. Please answer me to the best of your abilities, and please don't counter with other questions, though I will answer them if you answer mine.

The heavier elements are formed inside of stars through nuclear fusion processes.  Some stars explode and scatter these heavier elements through space.  They eventually become a part of newer stars and solar systems that form.  We are all made up of star dust.  No real mystery where these elements come from.

We are now finding out through observation (not direct visible observation, but through data analysis of starlight and gravitational effects) that planetary formation is a common part of star formation.  Given the right conditions, there is no reason to believe that life cannot arise elsewhere on other planets as well.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:14 PM on March 3, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from FROGGER at 9:56 PM on February 29, 2008 :
If the big bang theory and evolution is correct, all organisms, minerals, everything would look exactly the same if it all came from one tiny space.


Why? Why would they all be the same? If I take a oxygen atom and a helium atom and put them in a singularity, does that mean they are both the same atom now? Your logic doesn't seem...well to have any logic.



 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 03:36 AM on April 8, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Obvious_child at 02:36 AM on April 8, 2008 :
Quote from FROGGER at 9:56 PM on February 29, 2008 :
If the big bang theory and evolution is correct, all organisms, minerals, everything would look exactly the same if it all came from one tiny space.


Why? Why would they all be the same? If I take a oxygen atom and a helium atom and put them in a singularity, does that mean they are both the same atom now? Your logic doesn't seem...well to have any logic.


Actually, the sameness of the universe in all direction is the basis for the modification of the original big bang theory to include inflation.



Inflationary Cosmology


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:12 PM on April 8, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If someone were to come up to you with some really cool remote-control car, or a fancy watch, or even some of those stupid sea monkeys, would you ask them, "Wow, when did those things create themselves?" No. We always assume that things are built or made by other people. We never, ever assume that they made themselves, or that the materials just randomly decided to come together to blow up and create some new kind of gadget.

So... why should the universe be any different? Especially since it is a million times easier to make a watch than to "make a universe."


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 9:58 PM on April 9, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from allisong at 8:58 PM on April 9, 2008 :
So... why should the universe be any different? Especially since it is a million times easier to make a watch than to "make a universe."


Where do you come up with "a million time easier"?

How do you measure that?

Are you just throwing around large number for emotional shock value?





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:11 AM on April 10, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just in case you missed the other thread:

A.First, let me show you some of the fallacies associated with evolution.
1.Supposedly, the world began with the Big Bang around 12 to 15 billion years ago. It was created from a lone cosmic egg which had been sitting around for eons in an empty universe. After it happened to blow up, the universe became increasingly complex. But wait. Does order ever come out of an explosion? If you throw a stick of dynamite at a pile of wood, is it going to look more like a house? Some materialists protest that given enough energy, order will come about. But how many lightning bolts does it take to bring a dead man to life? An astronomer commented about the puzzling precision of the universe in National Geographic: “To get a universe that has expanded as long as ours supposedly has without collapsing or having its matter coast away would have required extraordinary fine tuning. A Chicago physicist calculated that the odds of achieving that kind of precise expansion… would be the same as throwing an imaginary dart across the most distant quasar and hitting a bull’s eye one millimeter in diameter.”



Let's do a thought experiment.  Suppose you mix hydrogen gas and oxygen gas, and supply a spark.  You get an explosion right?  And a cloud of water vapor.  Now cool the water vapor and form a snowflake.

Is anything in this thought experiment impossible?

Does a snowflake have more order than a cloud of gas?




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:18 AM on April 10, 2008 | IP
TheCman66

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Cosmic background radiation - this was the famous discovery made by two Bell Lab researchers back in 1964.  They detected with sensitive instruments the cosmic microwave radiation that is the remaining 'fingerprint' of the Big Bang.

Yes. they found radiation in this part of the universe. to prove it they would have to find the identical readings in every part of the universe.


-------
"I can't Fail English! Thats Un-possible!"

Ralph, The Simpson's.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 11:24 AM on April 12, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes. they found radiation in this part of the universe. to prove it they would have to find the identical readings in every part of the universe.

I think you misunderstand. They didn't find the correct radiation in this part of the universe, they found the correct radiation from all parts of the universe.
Look at the night sky, and you aren't looking in 'this part' of the universe. If you look in the right direction (and have a big enough 'eye'), you can see objects that are 3 billion light years away, and radiation from all parts of the universe (as at the big bang 'everywhere' was all in one place, so even after expansion there should be no part of the universe that we cannot see). Exactly what you are asking for.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 11:35 AM on April 12, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A full sky map of the cosmic background radiation from WMAP:


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:00 PM on April 12, 2008 | IP
lpdm

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no proof of the big bang. the big bang is used to refute God and say that everything happens by chance, not possible.






Dear God I need you to allow your hand to move over this debate.

(Edited by lpdm 4/18/2008 at 09:35 AM).


-------
I'm always right,...... except when I'm wrong.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 09:32 AM on April 18, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from lpdm at 09:32 AM on April 18, 2008 :
There is no proof of the big bang. the big bang is used to refute God and say that everything happens by chance, not possible.


So your argument is "I say so?"

Not going to address anything in the thread?

Furthermore, why couldn't God have created the Big Bang?

You do realize there are more then one God out there yes?
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 12:43 PM on April 18, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from lpdm at 08:32 AM on April 18, 2008 :
There is no proof of the big bang. the big bang is used to refute God and say that everything happens by chance, not possible.


Well, from a physics viewpoint, Big Bang theory is a result of the incredible order of the universe.


Dear God I need you to allow your hand to move over this debate.


He did:


(Edited by Apoapsis 4/18/2008 at 9:42 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:40 PM on April 18, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no proof of the big bang. the big bang is used to refute God and say that everything happens by chance,
not possible.


Already stated that no scientist says everything happens by chance. Certainly, evolution doesn't happen by chance or accident.  
But what about all the Christians that accept the Big Bang and evolution?  They're not using the Big Bang or evolution to refute God.  That kind of kills your point...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:54 AM on April 22, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is the universe or multiverse?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 02:42 AM on April 27, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from SilverStar at 01:42 AM on April 27, 2008 :
What is the universe or multiverse?



How would you tell the difference?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:08 PM on April 27, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, for simplicity, Universe, what do we consider the universe?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 4:23 PM on April 27, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is observable within our event horizon dated to 13.73 billion years ago.

The age of what lies beyond is unknown and possibly unknowable.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:46 PM on April 27, 2008 | IP
TheCman66

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From my understanding, the big bang was caused when the universe was compressed into a very tiny dot and then expanded rapidly creating our universe. If this is true, where did the universe that was compressed into the dot that expanded and made our universe come from?


-------
"I can't Fail English! Thats Un-possible!"

Ralph, The Simpson's.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 10:02 PM on June 4, 2008 | IP
TheCman66

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Physics, chemistry and biology don't happen by accident.

Then how did they come into being? If they where not created on purpose, by the will of a supernatural being beyond human comprehension (god), then they did come into being by accident. And that according to you is impossible.


-------
"I can't Fail English! Thats Un-possible!"

Ralph, The Simpson's.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 10:07 PM on June 4, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from TheCman66 at 10:07 PM on June 4, 2008 :
Physics, chemistry and biology don't happen by accident.

Then how did they come into being? If they where not created on purpose, by the will of a supernatural being beyond human comprehension (god), then they did come into being by accident. And that according to you is impossible.


Natural laws don't work by "accident". The Big Bang was a necessary outcome of a multitude of different forces acting on the universe. It was no more an "accident" than it's an accident when you drop an apple and it falls.


-------
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: 11:20 PM on June 4, 2008 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Was The big band intentional? was it planned? was it expected? No. it was not designed, planned, etc. Therefore, it was an accident.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 8:08 PM on June 5, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 8:08 PM on June 5, 2008 :
Was The big band intentional? was it planned? was it expected? No. it was not designed, planned, etc. Therefore, it was an accident.


A lack of intentional planning is not sufficient to make something an accident. You wouldn't call it an accident when gravity works on an apple, and yet there is no planning involved in gravity's work at all.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 6/5/2008 at 11:58 PM).


-------
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: 11:57 PM on June 5, 2008 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from TheCman66 at 10:02 PM on June 4, 2008 :
From my understanding, the big bang was caused when the universe was compressed into a very tiny dot and then expanded rapidly creating our universe. If this is true, where did the universe that was compressed into the dot that expanded and made our universe come from?


Well then, where did the universe come from? answer this question.





-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 10:34 PM on June 6, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I certainly don't know the answer to this.  But this is what is known - in my very hazy summary.  Others will just attribuite it to God.

In quantum physics there is such a thing called a quantum fluctuation.  That on the sub-atomic scale, energy and matter can spontaneously appear in a vacuum of space.  There is experimental proof of this.

According to cosmologist and physicists, it was such a quantum fluctuation that started the Big Bang, except on a tremendous scale.

But the Big Bang was not an explosion of matter and energy - like a bomb going off.  The Big Bang was more like the expansion of matter and energy and space itself - that is, space itself expands.  And in the early moments of the Big Bang, space expanded extremely rapidly.  And the Big Bang was the beginning of time for our universe.

It's mind boggling, to say the least.  I have a hard time picturing space expanding.  I thought of space as... empty space.  How can that expand?  But apparently there is more to space than we know about.  Afterall, according to Einstein's theory of Relativity, strong gravity fields can distort space itself.  And this has been observed.

We still don't know all there is to know - not by a long shot.  There is mysterious 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' that supposedly exists, that far exceeds the matter and energy that we see in our observable universe.

And here's another mind boggling fact - there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth.  

And some people think that we're the center of all this?  That God did it just for humans?  I find that to be an incredibly naive and arrogant notion.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:01 AM on June 7, 2008 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, the chances of accidentally being in the right place at the right time for life to form is trillions to one. Think about it, The oxygen content of out atmosphere is 23.1%(I may be off a little) If the oxygen content was 25%, the earth would literally burst into flames. If the earth was 1% closer to the sun, it would be a barren desert. 1% farther from the sun, and it would be a intergalactic ice cube. not enough atmosphere, and we would be dead. To much atmosphere and, well, look at Venus. I don't believe that the earth is the centre of the universe, but I do believe it was created by god for a place for humans to live.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 09:59 AM on June 7, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The oxygen content of out atmosphere is 23.1%(I may be off a little) If the oxygen content was 25%, the earth would literally burst into flames.
Why would it burst into flames? Also, bear in mind that the oxygen content of the Earth is _not_ vital for life, as when the Earth formed, the O2 content was much lower. It's higher now because of life's presence.

1% farther from the sun, and it would be a intergalactic ice cube. not enough atmosphere, and we would be dead. To much atmosphere and, well, look at Venus. I don't believe that the earth is the centre of the universe, but I do believe it was created by god for a place for humans to live.
Well, mild exaggeration, but moderately true. Again, bear in mind that some of the earth is very lifeless and uninhabitable.

Regardless, improbability is defeated by the vastness of the universe. If a very tiny chance is repeated over and over then it ets much more likely to happen somewhere, and it only takes it happening once for us to be having this conversation.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 12:02 PM on June 7, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Free oxygen is most certainly not required for life to begin.  In fact, there are forms of microbial life today that oxygen is poisonous to - the anaerobic bacteria.

Oxygen is a very reactive element.  It combines easily with other elements.  The fact that we have free oxygen in our atmosphere today is, in fact, due to a by-product of life!  Photosynthesis produces oxygen as a byproduct in plants.

Throughout most of the 4.7 billion years of earth's history, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere.  It only gradually built up in the atmosphere from the photosynthesis of bacteria known as Stromatolites over several billion years - after it reacted with iron and calciaum to form oxides of those compounds.  

After free oxygen started accumulating in the water, this allowed evolution of larger organism to take place, and eventually oxygen started accumulating in the atmosphere, allowing further evolution to occur.

In fact, about 300 million years ago, the oxygen concentration in the atmosphere was about 35 %.  There's proof of that from the fossil record.

From 'Science Daily':
The Paleozoic period, about 300 million years ago, was a time of huge and abundant plant life and rather large insects -- dragonflies had two-and-a-half-foot wing spans, for example. The air's oxygen content was 35% during this period, compared to the 21% we breathe now, Kaiser said. Researchers have speculated that the higher oxygen concentration allowed insects to grow much bigger.

So you see, the oxygen content in the atmosphere has no bearing on whether there is life on earth.  But it certainly has a bearing on what path evolution takes.

Placement of the earth from the sun.
Yes, the earth is in the 'Goldilocks' zone - just right for life to form.  But we're finding out that planet formation is a common process in star formation.  Take billions and billions of stars and there must be countless number planets that lie in the habitable zone - where liquid water is available.

But perhaps we're being a little to bias towards where life can form.  I think we're in for a few surprises as we continue to explore where else life may have evolved in the universe.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:53 PM on June 7, 2008 | IP
Jvel

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know most of you Christians don't want to hear this but the Big Bang is not a big debate in Islam. Muslims have known about it for decades.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 03:33 AM on August 8, 2008 | IP
Jvel

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I meant centuries.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 03:35 AM on August 8, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting that this topic is in this section, since the Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution is the theory (scientific "theory", not everyday-language "theory") only concerns how species evolved from common ancestors, the Big Bang is about how the universe came to being.


-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 8:02 PM on August 13, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Big Bang and God are not the only two possibilities for the beginning of our universe/planet.  Christians like to think that if they disprove the big bang, god must be real.  there are 2 major problems with that.  First hardcore Christians would have to come up with evidence other than the famous GODDIDIT. second they are not mutually exclusive.  They could both be completely wrong, or even both right,  The Big Bang is just an explanation for the universe's origin that currently fits all the data available, maybe in a few years it will have been dis-proven and another theory will take it's place.


-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 4:53 PM on October 13, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very true, Fibonacci.

Since they have no evidence that points towards their delusions, they resort to a false dilema.

And since their superstitions collide with so many branches of the Science, they tend to treat them all like one, and think that the Big Bang has something to do with evolution.

originally posted by OrionIn quantum physics there is such a thing called a quantum fluctuation.  That on the sub-atomic scale, energy and matter can spontaneously appear in a vacuum of space.  There is experimental proof of this.
Not only this. It's even possible for us to see gravity as a negative energy. And the total energy of the Universe could be zero.

According to cosmologist and physicists, it was such a quantum fluctuation that started the Big Bang, except on a tremendous scale.
Yeah. That's pretty much the best we got. And being a quantum fluctuation not much can be known about it.

But the Big Bang was not an explosion of matter and energy - like a bomb going off.  The Big Bang was more like the expansion of matter and energy and space itself - that is, space itself expands.  And in the early moments of the Big Bang, space expanded extremely rapidly.  And the Big Bang was the beginning of time for our universe.
Indeed. For "time" is a measure of change. And not a measure of any change, but a change in a specific direction: growing entropy.

It's mind boggling, to say the least.  I have a hard time picturing space expanding.  I thought of space as... empty space. How can that expand?
In the fourth space dimension (fifth dimension, if we count time).

Imagine a flat lander that lives on the surface of a sphere. The flat-lander knows 2 dimensions, and cannot understand the sphere.

Imagine the sphere is a balloon. If you inflate the balloon the flat-landers will get further and further away from each other in such a way that each flat lander will think he's in the center of his universe. Because all the other flatlanders seem to be going away from HIM.

But the real "center" of the universe (the escape point) can not be seen, or even conceived by them.

Well, that can be applied to the present expansion of the Universe. Not much can be said about the "moment" of the Big Bang.

We can't even guess the number of dimensions operating in such a "moment".

Let's say the Big Bang started from a geometric point (nobody actually says that, but bear with me). If time is the measure of change, and every bit of matter/energy was focused in that spot, the ammount of change would be infinite. Ergo, the Big Bang happened an infinite amount of years ago.

Actually measuring time in such weird conditions has no sense.

The very expresion "before the Big Bang" has no possible meaning. The number of conditions that could have lead to the Big Bang is, for all we know, infinite as well. To pinpoint any of those as the "right" one, as what "really really" happened, is pointless. But the quantum fluctiation is my favorite.

It's also pointless to say it was "by accident".

None of those concepts mean anything.

The best way to explain our universe is to say that it self-started, it's self-contained, and self-explained. And that's not much of an explanation to us, little humans.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:17 PM on October 13, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

bonus points for figuring out my name :P

i like the flat-lander description, I've never heard it before.

Dealing with time in relation to the Big Bang does bring up some interesting points, as time is affected by massive gravitational fields and such.


-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 9:29 PM on October 13, 2008 | IP
knightofchrist

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

here is the thing about the big bang if it is proven true that could actually aid creationism. So far the attempts to create life in a matter similar to that of the big bang required scientists to not only create the apparatus to control the process. In one case when cells were created the scientists had to open a trap door to release the gases created which were killing the cells. Basically what I'm saying is that the big bang could very well have created life but it would require a designer to spark and guide it's process.


-------
If evolution is correct then our minds are the result of random chemical reactions then how can we trust them?
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 4:53 PM on October 15, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So far the attempts to create life in a matter similar to that of the big bang
What does this mean? Could you clarify, please?

Basically what I'm saying is that the big bang could very well have created life
The Big Bang? Created life?? I don't understand.

You mean that it created a Universe within which life begun many billion years later?

Otherwise, are you sure you understand what the Big Bang is supposed to be?

Because it's not really closely related to any theory about the beginning of life.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:51 PM on October 15, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

here is the thing about the big bang if it is proven true that could actually aid
creationism.


Nonsense.  Any objective evidence that supports a scientific theory reduces the possibility of a supernatural explaination.

So far the attempts to create life in a matter similar to that of the big bang

More evidence of a creationist trying to explain things he doesn't undertstand at all,  the big bang didn't create life, it was the begining of our universe.

In one case when cells were created the scientists had to open a trap door to release the gases created which were killing the
cells.


Can you give us names?  Because this is just gibberish.  Who created cells, how were they created?  What gases?  It's plain to see you don't know what you're talking about.

Basically what I'm saying is that the big bang could very well have created life

NO it couldn't.

but it would require a designer to spark and guide it's process.

Since you don't understand the big bang, abiogenesis or science in general, your point is worthless.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:25 PM on October 15, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


In one case when cells were created the scientists had to open a trap door to release the gases created which were killing the
cells.



I assume you are talking about the experiments done involve the creation of Amino Acids using non-living matter.  How many times must we repeat ourselves?  Abiogenesis =/= The Big Bang =/= Evolution.  Stop trying to use the three interchangeably, They are not directly related at all.



-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 11:48 PM on October 15, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from knightofchrist at 4:53 PM on October 15, 2008 :
In one case when cells were created the scientists had to open a trap door to release the gases created which were killing the cells.


This sounds like a badly distorted telling of the Miller experiment.

No cells were produced: no trap door was opened: gases weren't killing the cells.

Electric discharges in a gaseous 'atmosphere' created reactive molecules, and when they fell into the water at the bottom of the flask (the 'ocean'), they reacted to produce amino acids, which were collected in a 'trap' (best I can tell, that was just a lower region in the glass tubing where denser substances would accumulate while the water continued to circulate).

(Edited by ImaAtheistNow 10/16/2008 at 05:06 AM).
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 05:05 AM on October 16, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Could he be referring to Miller's experiment??

Edit: Oh, it was already mentioned. That's what happens when you don't refresh. :P

Well, the fact that others thought about it makes it more likely.

Many will say "If you don't know enough, shut up!". But i don't know... Many people know much more than i in any given subject. And yet i've proved them wrong many times.

But, knightofchrist, at least you could learn the definitions of the terms you use.


(Edited by wisp 10/16/2008 at 08:15 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:09 AM on October 16, 2008 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.