evolution or bigbang?
Offline Why Do You Exist?
Was the universe created or is it merely an act of chance?
#1(the atheiests creation ...)The mainstream theory on the origin of the universe is called the big bang theory. Basically it states that in the beginning there was nothing; no time, no, space, no matter, no dimensions. Some how, there blinked into existence a singularity. (A point in space that had 0 height, 0 length, 0 width) that contained all the matter and energy in the universe. This point exploded and the results is the present day universe.
#2(the theists creation...)
Notice Genesis 2:7: “
…God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
are we the result of the “Big Bang”?or chance?
The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.
#3(The Atheist Test)
I don't believe in atheists. This isn't because I haven't met people who claim the title, but because such a person cannot be. Let's imagine that you are a professing atheist. I will ask you two questions: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? I think I can safely assume that you don't. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on your head? Probably not. I think, therefore, that it is reasonable for me to conclude that there are some things you don't know. It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
Not this Ray Comfort ignorance again...
Welcome to the forums, Ray!
Looks like Ray still hasn't recovered from the debate with the RRS.
I'm not American. I am from Finland
I'm the dark_light the real dealand I'm not a troll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Fission Mailed. Please allow 5-8 weeks for delivery.
Same Time Post!
.....Sorry old habit.
Big Bang Theory was invented by pope Joseph Ratzinger
That was the largest non sequitur I have seen in some time...
How does that old saying go? If you have to say that you are or are not something then you just might or might not be that something.
Let's stick to facts.
For instance, the first five sources on a Google search say that Georges Lemaatre originated the Big Bang theory. Even from a muslim site, same result. Is that definitive proof? No. However, it at least has some weight to it while simply declaring something as true without citing a possible method of verification is obtrusively ignorant.
The panzer pope Ratzinger might have had a 'big bang' but that could have involved prepubescent altar boys and would be difficult to verify.
Unfortunately, your forum topic illustrates that we may have quite a bit to discuss.
For future reference, evolution is NOT concerned with the formation of the cosmos. That is cosmology. The 'big bang' is in the realm of cosmology.
Evolution deals with biological interactions. It is the description of the process by which life forms change. Genetics and biochemistry fall into this category as aids to describe the process of evolution.
At no point, will you hear a scientist with any credibility say that 'evolution caused the universe' or anything like that.
Here's to a June sunny day in Finland. All 21 hours of it.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of deities. You claim that because humans are not omniscient there can be no atheists; i.e. that everyone believes in one or more deity. This is absurd.
Do you think that everyone believes in fairies, leprechauns and dragons because he or she is not omniscient? If not, you should see why your argument about atheists fails.
No.
Zero. I'm bald.
So fucking what?
Who created god?
So because we don't know everyting, Atheism isn't possible? If that is the case, every idea in the universe must be considered possible.
Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods given the evidence for them (none). Atheism is a rational position to take given the undeniable fact that there isn't any evidence. Think about this differently for a second - Do you believe in the dancing Unikorn at the center of the Galaxy or fairies or giant beavers that create planets by carving them out with their teeth? Do you believe it's impossible to disbelieve in them? There is no evidence for them, so by your logic you must beelieve in them or at least be driven to research the ideas.
Sorry, but your logic is very flawed and quite comical. I'm sure you just haven't thought this through very well and with some time and logic you will see the problem with your idea. One way to test hypothetical ideas is to replace the subject with something that could be considred just as valid given the proofs and then restate your claim. This is why the Flying Spaghetti Monster concept is important. If you can replace "God" with "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and still have the same point, then your point is invalid and irrational and will prove nothing but that you are thinking irrationally.
Good luck to you.
"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax
Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode? This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter). Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from? Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?
The Universe didn’t all start from one point.
The Big Bang was not an explosion.
We know little or nothing about the moment of “Bang” itself.
Sad, huh? cheers... dark_light
The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems.
Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?
Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.
Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some natural satellites have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have satellites orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?
Simple. The planets didn't come straight out of the big bang. The Big Bang formed Hydrogen which collapsed into stars. The stars formedn Helium, carbon, up to iron then supernova'd forming the heavier elements. The elements came under their gravity and formed planets and moons etc... Look at Kepler's laws for planetary motion to see why Venus spins in the other direction.
Also, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and "clumps". If the Big Bang was true, all matter would be (roughly) evenly distributed.
In the universe, there are too many “large scale structures” to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years, as suggested by the Big Bang Theory. Also, when observing globular clusters (groups of tens of thousands, to one million stars), they appear older than the universe, which falsifies the Big Bang Theory. Finally, there are contradictions between the Big Bang Theory, and thoughts of various religious nuts.
I'm not a religious person nor athiests.
cheers... dark_light
OMG same time postz0rz!
You're not from LUE are you?
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
No, I joined too late. I mostly go to CE.
O RLY?
I'm The Forum, Mostly Harmless and Religion myslef. I have LUE access but 'tis a silly place.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
I might create a topic on the religion board. (I use the same username). What should it be about? I saw a topic on pantheism so I might post in that or create my own.
And from there I can tell it's crap.
Imagine you are looking at a clock. The time you are looking at is not the true time; it is rather the time that you saw a very short while ago. The light reflecting off the clock takes time to reach your eyes. Now imagine traveling away from the clock at a certain velocity. The light would take longer to reach your eyes, as both you and the light are moving in the same direction. Because of this, the time you see on this clock is what it was some time ago. However, if you are moving at the speed of light away from the clock, the light from the clock will never reach you. From this phenomenon, you never “see” the time. At this point, time for you, relative to the time where the clock is, has stood still.
This proved Einstein's definition of time, which is your movement in relation to the movement of light.
Scientists use Einstein’s theory of relativity in order to explain the creation of a black hole as well as the time functions in and outside of a black hole. The theory of relativity combines the theory of Special Relativity and the Equivalence Principle.
Beyond Big Bang Cosmology
The Big Bang model is not complete. For example, it does not explain why the universe is so uniform on the very largest scales or, indeed, why it is so non-uniform on smaller scales, i.e., how stars and galaxies came to be.
The Big Bang model is based on the Cosmological Principle which assumes that matter in the universe is uniformly distributed on all scales - large and small. This is a very useful approximation that allows one to develop the basic Big Bang scenario, but a more complete understanding of our universe requires going beyond the Cosmological Principle. Many cosmologists suspect that inflation theory, an extension of the Big Bang theory, may provide the framework for explaining the large-scale uniformity of our universe and the origin of structure within it.
IS A SINGULARITY ACCEPTABLE?
The oldest and perhaps best known problem of BBT is that of the singularity. At the first instant of the BB universe, in which its density and temperature were infinitely high, is what is known to mathematicians as a singularity. That situation is considered to be a breakdown of theory. That is, it cannot be assumed that the laws of physics as we know them can apply to that event, thus presenting serious questions about it.
In addition, the postulated creation of the entire mass and energy of the universe out of nothing in the first instant of time, seems to represent an extreme violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy.
According to prevailing theory, before that instant, space and time did not exist. Although to some, who confuse their religious ideas with science, this is seen as a reasonable interpretation of their religious beliefs, to others the beginning of space and time might represent a significant problem.
If there were a BB, it would seem that events during the first instant of time would involve the instantaneous acceleration of the enormous number of particles (the entire mass) of the universe to relativistic velocity; and some variations of BBT postulate velocities well above the speed of light.(1) Because the acceleration of even a minute particle to the speed of light requires an infinite amount of energy, the BB might have required on the order of an infinity times and infinity of ergs; not to mention the additional energy that would be required to overcome the gravitational attraction of the entire mass of the universe.
It has been suggested that this singularity problem can be solved by postulating a universe of zero net energy;(2) a universe wherein the positive kinetic energy, the potential energy, and the Einsteinian equivalent energy of the mass of the universe is equal and opposite to the negative energy of gravity. Somehow, if the universe is to collapse in the future as some believe, all the energy that was expended in the birth and expansion of the BB universe was only borrowed; someday to be paid back. However, that doesn't provide an adequate explanation for the source of the energy requirement described above.
It should be noted that this zero net energy explanation couldn't reasonably be postulated for other than a recollapsing universe. However, as will be discussed further on, observational evidence has all but ruled out the possibility of the collapsing BB universe case, thus adding to the incredibility of zero net energy; and certainly it would seem that the positive energy of the potential, kinetic and the enormous mass equivalent energy of the of the universe must be far greater than the negative energy of its gravity. For any BB universe case the postulated zero net energy idea appears to be unrealistic.
Inflation theory,(3,4) which will be discussed further on, has claimed to solve the singularity problem (and other BB problems as well) but it requires an enormous quantum theory vacuum fluctuation(2) and, according to some, an enormous cosmic repulsive force to provide for a BB. These are purely speculative ideas that have no known means of experimental verification.
The Big Bang Never Happened
can you prove otherwise?
Yes.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest1.html
WMAP sattelite findings:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html
[MOD EDIT - fixed link]
A message from the Mod Team:
dark_light, your posts have been plagarized from Ray Comfort and William Lane Craig. If you plaigarize again, you will be banned.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
The similarity of Big Bang on to the creation of Genesis, both are finite in space and time, both are from the void. And both, , are at odds with observation.
new
A message from the stupid team of Mods
dark_light, your posts have been plagarized from Ray Comfort and William Lane Craig. If you plaigarize again, you will be banned.
The Big Bang Never Happened
can you prove otherwise?
Mods, sorry if I'm feeding the troll...
There's a good deal of evidence based on the expansion of the universe and observations of background radiation. Also, the big bang theory only explains things to a certain point. It does not attempt to describe before then. The whole point being that physics gets very strange and trying to talk about "before" could be meaningless.
Additionally, disproving one theory (in this case a falsifiable one) does not lend weight to another one (an unfalsifiable one, aka "Magic man done it!" ). This would be an argument from ignorance.
-Triften
I believe the big bang isn't concerned with the source of energy, therefore it is not a problem.
Can nothing explode?
The big bang was not an explosion, but an expansion.
Does it? How do you know that the net energy in the universe is not zero?
See first answer.
Again, it was no explosion. Second, because grew up in it, we would find this 'disorder' orderly.
The laws of nature? Also note that the universe had less entropy than the singularity.
Correct, the big bang was everywhere in the universe.
Correct.
Well, the big bang is an explanation of what happened after t=0...
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought