OMG! MATTER CAN APPEAR FROM NOTHINGNESS?!
miller
<millball54@yahoo.com>feasible (sarcasm)...what, with the whole idea that this universe
somehow "exploded" from a molecular sized piece of rock...
firstly it defies all logic, the tool you athiests like to use alot,
which more or less throws the whole big bang theory out the window.
so tell me...if the universe in its entirety came from such a small
thing, where did the rock come from? exactly...
so check the hole before you stick you schlong in it...n00bs.
Simon Beck
<simon@alphabeck.co.uk>space simply didn't exist until the moment of the Big Bang, so your question
"where did it come from?" is irrelevant. All the matter and energy in the
current universe was compressed into an infinitessimally small space. It
expanded. And after the first few nanoseconds of that expansion, scientists
have a pretty good picture of how it proceeded, culminating in the Universe
we now inhabit. Observations have been made confirming this. Just because
you have difficulty understanding or imagining it doesn't make it bogus.
Parameters of the Big Bang can actually be scientifically measured, which is
more than can be said for God.
Simon
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.2/393 - Release Date: 19-Jul-06
>
>
Jeff
<joesiege@gmail.com>Thanks for displaying your cosmology ignorance. Big Bang theory models
the expanding universe from 10^-33 seconds to the present. It has
nothing to say about what occured or what existed prior to that. I'm
not even sure where you should direct your criticism. "What happened
before time?" is a nonsensical question.
Gebby69
<JamesGebhart@gmail.com>Jeff wrote:
> Thanks for displaying your cosmology ignorance. Big Bang theory models
> the expanding universe from 10^-33 seconds to the present. It has
> nothing to say about what occured or what existed prior to that. I'm
> not even sure where you should direct your criticism. "What happened
> before time?" is a nonsensical question.
If you want to call that which was before 10^33 seconds God I will not
dispute it. I am gonna tell you something that even the people in my
atheist clan don't like me to say.
Gebby<---looks arround to see if any atheists are paying attention.
Wispers "Even Science requires a little faith."
But make no mistake. We know that the universe is expanding and we
think we can pinpoint where from. In other words we know where the big
bang happened and when it did based on math(another science based on
logic) and physics.
And just so you know... You know the part in evolution when you have
amino acids and then you have life.... That is the second place in
science that requires faith.
So yes I would rather beleive we came from a big bang than. Created out
of thin air. BEFORE there was stars and suns (which are the same things
by the way.) and a moon.
miller
<millball54@yahoo.com>"in some point in time" and before it had to have come from something
else... so no, the question what before the big bang is not
nonsensical, Thanks for displaying your lack of interest in thirst for
knowledge.
Bob
<ju.ding@btopenworld.com>Can't understand your problem, miller. You say God made the Universe
out of nothing. Science says the Universe (including time and space
itself) appeared out of nothing.
What's the gripe, miller?
Simon Beck
<simon@alphabeck.co.uk>BEGINNING of time itself. Therefore there was no such thing as "before the
Big Bang". So the question IS nonsensical, but not obviously so.
Simon
doctorjohn
<johnfcary@comcast.net>So tell me, where did God come from?
Dr. J
Jeff
<joesiege@gmail.com>You can talk about whatever you want to talk about but don't conflate
Big Bang theory with "before time." The Big Bang theory models the
expanding universe from a very hot, dense state 13++ billion years ago.
Please address your criticisms toward the appropriate theory.
It's not that I have a lack of interest, but I'm not a physicist. There
is much contention among physicists about what occured prior to the
Planck Epoch. If they can't come to an agreement, there's very little I
can add to the conversation.
Gebby69
<JamesGebhart@gmail.com>Science has decided to stop at the beginning of the big bang. Because
the question does come up "what happened before the big bang?" And that
is the same question as "What was there before god?"
Both Atheists and Theists just stop. Why? because we do not know. We as
atheists have not heard of any scientific explination and therefore we
DO NOT KNOW.
And there is nothing wrong with saying that.
prakki surya
<dattapr2000@yahoo.com>
Groups are talking. We´re listening. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>miller wrote:
> oooh thats right, i totally forgot that the big bang actually is
> feasible (sarcasm)...what, with the whole idea that this universe
> somehow "exploded" from a molecular sized piece of rock...
>
> firstly it defies all logic, the tool you athiests like to use alot,
> which more or less throws the whole big bang theory out the window.
>
Actually, if it defied *all* logic then there is no "more or less".
> so tell me...if the universe in its entirety came from such a small
> thing, where did the rock come from? exactly...
>
Unknown at this point, exactly. The big bang theory does not address
the origin of the universe, just the expansion some 10 ^ -43 seconds
after the event.
> so check the hole before you stick you schlong in it...n00bs.
Thanks for the offer, I am sure it is a dandy, but I'll have to pass.
Bodger
<jbrown@jlbprof.com>First as a Christian believer, I believe that science is essentially
right about the time from now back to 10^-33 seconds. Science cannot
go back past that point for a good reason, all traces of what can be
traced do not exist before time 0. Scientists would have to either
extrapolate or more likely guess.
This is where the believer comes in. Our friend discussing the Veda's
(forgive my ignorance in the specifics of your religion) mentioned what
he believes on the subject. My belief is simple, God spoke and BANG it
all began. Real simple. As to what existed or did not exist prior to
the Big Bang, well I cannot say. But God in the Jewish/Christian
Bibles calls Himself "I AM". As in He just exists, no beginning no
end.
Bodger spoke and well not much happened ;)
Bloodbeard
<gyorsca@gmail.com>miller wrote:
<Ignorant Bullshit>
Now that everyone has finished pummelling your pathetic arguments into
the ground, I'm going to add what they have neglected to mention:
you're a fucking idiot. Fortunately for you, there is a way to cure
your mental inadequacy. The first thing you have to do is find a
toaster. I'm assuming you have one at your residence, but judging by
your lack of an education, there is also a good chance that you're
living in a trailer home without any plumbing. If this is the case, you
can probably find a working one in someone's trash if you search for
awhile. At any rate, once you have the toaster you need to make sure
it works. Find an outlet and plug it in. Make yourself some toast to be
sure it is in working order, but try not to insert any body parts into
the toaster while it is on. That can be quite painful, or so I've
heard. Now that you've done that, you need to find yourself a bathtub.
Technically, any solid body of water suitable for bathing will suffice,
but you need to make sure there's an outlet nearbye. Plug the toaster
in. Now, immerse yourself in the body of water. Finally, take the
toaster into the water with you. After a few seconds of quite
reflection, you should be cured. You may have heard that water conducts
electricity, but that is simply the rambling of ignorant scientists, so
I wouldn't pay it any attention. Good luck.
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>Bodger wrote:
> Many good points have been made here.
>
> First as a Christian believer, I believe that science is essentially
> right about the time from now back to 10^-33 seconds. Science cannot
> go back past that point for a good reason, all traces of what can be
> traced do not exist before time 0.
I do not know how you can assert that. I agree that science hasn't
gone back, but it is possible and probable than in the time to come, it
may very well. Perhaps with a different theory, perhaps extending the
same one.
> Scientists would have to either
> extrapolate or more likely guess.
>
Guesswork doesn't cut it on its own, although it usually is a start.
Scientists make educated guesses, and then experiment with it to
invalidate, reshape, change, or enhance the guesswork.
> This is where the believer comes in. Our friend discussing the Veda's
> (forgive my ignorance in the specifics of your religion) mentioned what
> he believes on the subject. My belief is simple, God spoke and BANG it
> all began. Real simple.
Just as simple as God farted and BANG it all began. Probably equally
true as well.
I think you have a lot to share with a gentleman in here
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/cf0fee8e3bca604d?
> As to what existed or did not exist prior to
> the Big Bang, well I cannot say.
Well, that makes at least two of us.
>
> Bodger spoke and well not much happened ;)
WHaa? You said something? ;-)
miller
<millball54@yahoo.com>i am uncertain of your condition, whether its bipolar disorder or you
just havent had intercourse in some time, but i suggest you practise
what you preach you waste of oxygen. be useful...go play in traffic.
i am not american, so i am unaffected by your "sterotypical" views.
back to the topic at hand thought,
not knowing what preceeded the big bang shouldnt equate to you all not
believing in God then...
Bloodbeard
<gyorsca@gmail.com>miller wrote:
> in response to bloodbeard...
>
> i am uncertain of your condition, whether its bipolar disorder or you
> just havent had intercourse in some time, but i suggest you practise
> what you preach you waste of oxygen. be useful...go play in traffic.
> i am not american, so i am unaffected by your "sterotypical" views.
You're not American? I'm sorry, it was just the combination of horrible
grammar, ignorance of science, and use of the word "n00b" that led me
to assume. Certainly, good sir, you have my apologies.
> back to the topic at hand thought,
> not knowing what preceeded the big bang shouldnt equate to you all not
> believing in God then...
The major reason atheists do not believe in a deity is because there is
no proper evidence for one. There is also data that suggests that
belief in a deity is simply the result of 1) an inability to accept the
possibility that our consciousness ends with our death, 2) an inability
to accept the possibility that we are nothing special and that our
lives do not have any sacred meaning, and 3) ignorance of the actual
mechanisms of nature. Basically, our brains and thought process are not
perfect. They are not well suited to understanding the microcosmic or
macrocosmic.
As for the Big Bang Theory. One should first note that the Big Bang
Theory is not considered a definite in science. It is just the most
popular of several theories. In string theory, the big bang is
theorized to be the result of the clashing together of "membranes,"
basically the boundaries of universes. In this view, time and space
have no beginning nor end, and there are many universes. I believe this
is a branch of string theory called the "M Theory," which is supposed
to unify the various string theories. Theoretical physics tends to
advance very quickly, however, so I'm not sure how much of this has
changed. It is hard to find reliable information on this sort of
physics on the internet, at least such as is simple enough for a layman
like myself to understand.
miller
<millball54@yahoo.com>across Blood. As far as i'm concerned there is evidence of a man that
was born of a virgin, grew up and performed miracles, crucified, arose
and ascended to heaven...
if that doesnt nudge you to believe that there is something beyond life
here, well then your a tough cookie, but they all crack eventually.
just believe maaan. <spliff>
Bloodbeard
<gyorsca@gmail.com>Evidence in the form of a 2000 year old text with a plethora of
different authors down through the ages? Personally, I have trouble
buying that. I prefer to base my understanding of the world on what is
observable--i.e. the scientific method. Call me a materialist if you
want.
OT, I'm curious now. What country *do* you come from?
miller
<millball54@yahoo.com>childhood, average education, workin a 8-5 job...so i am a average
person.
as for the overfullness of authors, i'm amazed at the
interconnectedness of the book over 2000 years. and blood, between you
and me, thats a pretty lame excuse, i'm beginning to think you just
dont want to believe.
Bloodbeard
<gyorsca@gmail.com>miller wrote:
> i'm from the UK. and before you try to sterotype me, i had a normal
> childhood, average education, workin a 8-5 job...so i am a average
> person.
> as for the overfullness of authors, i'm amazed at the
> interconnectedness of the book over 2000 years. and blood, between you
> and me, thats a pretty lame excuse, i'm beginning to think you just
> dont want to believe.
wanted to of the former authors' writings. And, to get down to it, why
Christianity? Is it just because you were raised in a Christian
household? Islam has nearly as many adherents as Christianity. Judaism
is far older. What are your reasons?
[It is interesting how I've gone from insulting you and telling you to
kill yourself a few posts ago to this...maybe I am a bit bipolar :)]
miller
<millball54@yahoo.com>sense, and its doors are open to every person regardless of race.
Islam is rubbish, apologies to any islams out there, but they are
fundamentally destrcutive and are intent on taking over the world if it
means by using force, ie.suicide bombings.
catholicism, its rubbish aswell. the pope is not god's messenger, jesus
is the link between man and god, the medium, not another man who can
somehow pass this "power" to another man.
judaism, well their messiah came and died, arose and left. so they
dont deserve to know, besides they preach to a derelict temple wall.
like wtf?
and as for ur "bipolar" thingy goin on, dont worry just next time u
feel a swing comin on dont stand infront of the keyboard. stand in
front of a fat person or perhaps the mirror?lol oj
this flippin post was actually for Rowan B, becuase he was rippin out
christianty, so i just ripped out him. <dusts forearms>
Sketch System
<sketch.system@gmail.com>Gebby69 wrote:
> Science has decided to stop at the beginning of the big bang. Because
> the question does come up "what happened before the big bang?" And that
> is the same question as "What was there before god?"
Um, science cannot decide anything - and many scientists are dedicating
their entire lives trying to figure out the part where you say "science
stops." The two questions may sound the same, but only one forbidden
an answer.
> Both Atheists and Theists just stop. Why? because we do not know. We as
> atheists have not heard of any scientific explination and therefore we
> DO NOT KNOW.
> And there is nothing wrong with saying that.
You're right - there is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know."
However, there is a lot wrong with saying "I can't know" or "I don't
want to know."
I am an atheist, but more importantly, I am curious.
Turner
<lordlacolith@gmail.com>miller wrote:
> In comparison to every other religion, Christianty makes the most
> sense,
That's not saying much.
> and its doors are open to every person regardless of race.
As with every other religion.
>
> Islam is rubbish, apologies to any islams out there, but they are
> fundamentally destrcutive and are intent on taking over the world if it
> means by using force, ie.suicide bombings.
Yeah, unlike the Christians, who never engaged in Crusades or the
Inquisition or shot up abortion clinics or persecuted gay people or
formed the Ku Klux Klan.
>
> catholicism, its rubbish aswell. the pope is not god's messenger, jesus
> is the link between man and god, the medium, not another man who can
> somehow pass this "power" to another man.
...Catholocism is a type of Christianity, genius.
>
> judaism, well their messiah came and died, arose and left. so they
> dont deserve to know, besides they preach to a derelict temple wall.
> like wtf?
Your analysis of Judaism is so poignant and knowledgable and
insightful. Are you a distinguished theologian?
>
> and as for ur "bipolar" thingy goin on, dont worry just next time u
> feel a swing comin on dont stand infront of the keyboard. stand in
> front of a fat person or perhaps the mirror?lol oj
lol oj indeed. So much for Christian love.
>
> this flippin post was actually for Rowan B, becuase he was rippin out
> christianty, so i just ripped out him. <dusts forearms>
Yeah, it must have hurt when you fell flat on your face.
Sketch System
<sketch.system@gmail.com>miller wrote:
> i'm from the UK. and before you try to sterotype me, i had a normal
> childhood, average education, workin a 8-5 job...so i am a average
> person.
That much is certain.
> as for the overfullness of authors, i'm amazed at the
> interconnectedness of the book over 2000 years. and blood, between you
> and me, thats a pretty lame excuse, i'm beginning to think you just
> dont want to believe.
So we should believe everything unless we can discover a good reason
not to? Or should we just believe in your God because you say so?
As an "average" person, you have no authority in the matter.
And I don't see anyone "stereotyping" you, but rather responding to
your juvenile gibberish. Besides, it is not the fault of any atheist
in this group that you fit a stereotype so well.
Bloodbeard
<gyorsca@gmail.com>miller wrote:
> In comparison to every other religion, Christianty makes the most
> sense, and its doors are open to every person regardless of race.
*How* does it make the most sense? People here aren't going to let you
get away with blanket assertions :) Islam is open to every person
regardless of race--to Moslems, there are two sorts of people:
believers and nonbelievers. As another example, Buddhism makes no
qualms over race either. In fact, the only major religion that I can
think of that does care about race is Hinduism.
> Islam is rubbish, apologies to any islams out there, but they are
> fundamentally destrcutive and are intent on taking over the world if it
> means by using force, ie.suicide bombings.
The ones you speak of are extremists. The majority of Moslems are not
like that. It was the Turks who created that branch of Islam. Just as
there are many branches of Christianity, there are a number of branches
of Islam. At the time of the Crusades, the positions of Moslems and
Christians were polarized. Moslems were the more educated and
technologically advanced of the two, even showing tolerance for other
religions in their borders, while Christians tended to be zealous,
completely intolerant of other religions anywhere near Christiandome.
For a number of reasons (which I won't get into unless you really
care), their relevant positions seem to have gradually switched over
the years. Thank the Enlightenment and the Jesuits, I say.
> catholicism, its rubbish aswell. the pope is not god's messenger, jesus
> is the link between man and god, the medium, not another man who can
> somehow pass this "power" to another man.
Well, I'd agree, but I'm sure that a Catholic wouldn't. Plus, I tend to
feel the same way about religion in general. (No offense, it's just my
opinion.)
> judaism, well their messiah came and died, arose and left. so they
> dont deserve to know, besides they preach to a derelict temple wall.
> like wtf?
Christianity's messiah "came and died, arose and left." The only
difference is that some book says that he also came back from the dead.
Do you believe that the number of adherents a particular idea holds has
some basis on the validity of that idea?
> and as for ur "bipolar" thingy goin on, dont worry just next time u
> feel a swing comin on dont stand infront of the keyboard. stand in
> front of a fat person or perhaps the mirror?lol oj
Heh. I've been on these boards for too long. Sometimes, when I see a
theory being misrepresented so utterly (no offense), I lose my temper a
bit. I'm sure you feel the same way when someone makes a blanket
statement about your religion without taking the time to research it
first.
> this flippin post was actually for Rowan B, becuase he was rippin out
> christianty, so i just ripped out him. <dusts forearms>
I would recommend that you freshen up on your knowledge of current
science if you wish to attack it, though if you check out various forms
of debate and logic you might also be able to make an impact. Wikipedia
is very useful in this regard. This might be a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
If you're ever unsure of something pertaining to science, you can just
search it there, or use google. I believe Christians prefer the
website: www.answersingenesis.org/
All I ask is that you examine your reasons for being a Christian. Try
to look at things objectively. Perhaps you will find that you disagree
with some of your faith's doctrine. Perhaps your faith will be
strengthened by what you learn.
miller
<millball54@yahoo.com>i think you'll find that the whole "mirror" bit was a joke and you lack
the capacity to recognise a joke and being serious, so lay off with the
attempts to gratify yourselves, stuck-up morons.
so turner tell me, when was the last christian crusade and when was the
last islamic jihad? As for persecution of gay people, yes i apolgise
on behalf of the ignorant hypocrits who incite hatred when they should
love their neighbours, but according to scripture homosexuality is
wrong full stop. what does annoy me that it then tries to seep into
christinaty itself with gay priests and the like, thats pure nonsense.
And obviously klu klux klan is a right winged american facade of
hypocrits and murders who will be judged before God, but as far as the
record goes for christianty, i'd say we are the true faith.
as for your skat system...
i was being sterotyped at the beginning of this topic by bloodbeard,
but i've forgiven him. i hate the mentality that athiest have.
regarding yourselves higher or that your opinion is more just and right
just because you have a piece of paper saying you got an A*. sketch, i
am in every right entitled to have a say on the matter for i am not a
scientist thirsting for knowledge to prove there is no god, nor am i a
redneck sitting outstide my trailer breeding. I think there is more
average people that populate the world than over average or under
average so i am the most common denomator and most things i say will go
that way because i share the majorative view so :P
Turner
<lordlacolith@gmail.com>miller wrote:
> sketch, turner....
>
> i think you'll find that the whole "mirror" bit was a joke and you lack
> the capacity to recognise a joke and being serious, so lay off with the
> attempts to gratify yourselves, stuck-up morons.
>
> so turner tell me, when was the last christian crusade and when was the
> last islamic jihad?
I don't know. Why? Has the statute of limitations on religious
atrocities lapsed for the Crusades?
> As for persecution of gay people, yes i apolgise
> on behalf of the ignorant hypocrits who incite hatred when they should
> love their neighbours, but according to scripture homosexuality is
> wrong full stop.
According to scripture, wearing clothes made of two types of cloth is
wrong, full stop. According to scripture, crossbreeding your animals
and planting two types of plant in a field is wrong, full stop. So tell
me, Miller, what are your clothes made of?
> what does annoy me that it then tries to seep into
> christinaty itself with gay priests and the like, thats pure nonsense.
Right. Homosexuality "seeps in". It's not the priests' fault they
fucked little boys, they were just overtaken by the toxic Gay Ooze. I
knew I should have seen that horror movie while it was in the theatres.
> And obviously klu klux klan is a right winged american facade of
> hypocrits and murders who will be judged before God, but as far as the
> record goes for christianty, i'd say we are the true faith.
Well of course you would. And a Muslim would say Islam is the true
faith. And a Jew would say Judaism is the true faith.
LLPENS@aol.com
<LLPENS@aol.com>i'm beginning to think you just
dont want to believe.
LLPENS@aol.com
<LLPENS@aol.com>In comparison to every other religion, Christianty makes the most
sense, and its doors are open to every person regardless of race.
Islam is rubbish, apologies to any islams out there, but they are
fundamentally destrcutive and are intent on taking over the world if it
means by using force, ie.suicide bombings.
catholicism, its rubbish aswell. the pope is not god's messenger, jesus
is the link between man and god, the medium, not another man who can
somehow pass this "power" to another man.
judaism, well their messiah came and died, arose and left. so they
dont deserve to know, besides they preach to a derelict temple wall.
like wtf?
Bodger
<jbrown@jlbprof.com>Simpleton wrote:
> Bodger wrote:
> > First as a Christian believer, I believe that science is essentially
> > right about the time from now back to 10^-33 seconds. Science cannot
> > go back past that point for a good reason, all traces of what can be
> > traced do not exist before time 0.
>
> I do not know how you can assert that. I agree that science hasn't
> gone back, but it is possible and probable than in the time to come, it
> may very well. Perhaps with a different theory, perhaps extending the
> same one.
I am "guessing" or "extrapolating" by the nature of what is described
as the Big Bang itself. As I understand it, there was a singular point
with all matter in it and bang it all started to expand and after
billions of years it keeps expanding and we have our current state of
the universe. I am also taking other peoples word for the fact that
scientists know how it played out up to 10^-33 seconds. The reason
that I make the assertion that they will not be able to go back beyond
time 0 (maybe farther then 10^-33) is because everything was at a
singular point, what can you trace beyond that? Of course I am not a
physicist so I do not know what they are capable of, I am expressing a
belief, simple as that.
> Just as simple as God farted and BANG it all began. Probably equally
> true as well.
Speak, or an explosive methane burst either works ;)
Bodger
miller
<millball54@yahoo.com>turn full circle. I am getting a point across that 1, athiest have no
hope of finding what preceeded the big bang, which is the most
important of questions...2, christianty is the true religion, 3 end of
story.
Turner
<lordlacolith@gmail.com>miller wrote:
> <checks wrist watch> yep just on time. was waiting for this topic to
> turn full circle.
It's less of a circle than a hideously malformed polygon.
> I am getting a point across that 1, athiest have no
> hope of finding what preceeded the big bang, which is the most
> important of questions
No, it isn't. It's not even a valid question, because, as others have
said, there was nothing before the big bang. Apparently you didn't read
those. So I guess it's not so much a full circle as you never went
anywhere.
> ...2, christianty is the true religion,
No, it isn't.
> 3 end of
> story.
I can only hope, although I doubt it. I fear you will continue to
babble on.
Bloodbeard
<gyorsca@gmail.com>1) M Theory (i.e. string theory)
2) You haven't backed you're claim up. I also posted a rebuttal to this
statement, which you seem to have handily ignored.
3) This is not a point.
I don't mean to seem hostile, but you're not really putting forth good
points. I tried to give you advice and some links which I thought would
be helpful. If you'd rather ignore that because you feel that I'm being
elitist or something, then so be it. I tried to help.
LLPENS@aol.com
<LLPENS@aol.com>checks wrist watch> yep just on time. was waiting for this topic to
turn full circle. I am getting a point across that 1, athiest have no
hope of finding what preceeded the big bang, which is the most
important of questions...2, christianty is the true religion, 3 end of
story.
Jeff
<joesiege@gmail.com>We're all stupider having read this. Your quest for what preceded time
is nonsensical. The word "preceeded" is temporal. It only makes sense
the the context of time. Listen, cosmology really isn't your bag. The
discipline is characterized by a lot of math that's clearly over your
head. Stick to faith. You may believe whatever you want. There's no
right or wrong answer, beliefs don't require any math.
You: A big guy with a white beard who sits on a heavenly throne
preceded time
Me: That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
You: Well, THAT'S what I believe.
Me: Whatever. Carry on...
miller
<millball54@yahoo.com>putting across that matter cannot appear, explode whatever from
nothingness. i dont need a degree is cosmology to understand that. My
point in mentioning this is that it undermines the big bang theory,
WHICH in turn leaves athiest at no advantage over me.
As for the substance that the universe came from, space came from it
so what embodied the substance which everything came from? and what is
outside the ever expanding space?! doesnt like not loose energy and
bend, would that not mean that the universe is spherical? and
bloodbeard, did i not respond to your rebuttal? Give me the formula,
equasion whatever that tells me that an infitessimily tiny substance
can "unexplainably" explode and make the universe? Its idiotic not
becuase i cant fathom it, which i'm pretty sure nobody can, its because
it defies logic and the understanding of the laws of physics.
jeff, i'm sorry but if you dont want to partake, i'm not stopping you.
Blood, as for the "m" THEORY, bull. parallel universes?! haha!
sounds like your all reading science fiction comics.
Bloodbeard
<gyorsca@gmail.com>miller wrote:
<snip>
> Blood, as for the "m" THEORY, bull. parallel universes?! haha!
> sounds like your all reading science fiction comics.
Argument from incredulity, anyone? Anyway, I didn't say "parellel"
universes. If you don't believe me, then here are some links. I'm
hardly a physicist, so I'm not really up on explaining it. The M Theory
is not a definite, but it looks to have some promise. I suggested it
because some people were whining about what happened before the Big
Bang.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory_(simplified)
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html
http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic7.html
Bloodbeard
<gyorsca@gmail.com>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory_%28simplified%29
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>miller wrote:
> i did not open this topic to be helped into anything. i was merely
> putting across that matter cannot appear, explode whatever from
> nothingness. i dont need a degree is cosmology to understand that. My
> point in mentioning this is that it undermines the big bang theory,
You may not need a degree, but it may help if you understood why *that*
does not invalidate the theory (other things might).
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ is a reasonable site.
> WHICH in turn leaves athiest at no advantage over me.
Pity that you would have believed otherwise.
An atheist's advantage, or the lack thereof, over you, whatever that
means, is not predicated on the big bang theory being undermined or
not. Unless the atheist in question is more knowledgeable about the big
bang theory and is competing with you professionally.
Jeff
<joesiege@gmail.com>miller wrote:
> i did not open this topic to be helped into anything. i was merely
> putting across that matter cannot appear, explode whatever from
> nothingness. i dont need a degree is cosmology to understand that. My
> point in mentioning this is that it undermines the big bang theory,
> WHICH in turn leaves athiest at no advantage over me.
I still have no idea what's your beef with Big Bang theory. Lighter
elements were formed in the first couple minutes after the Universe had
sufficiently cooled. The heavier stuff comes later. This provides an
overview:
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/bbn.html
See also primordial nucelosynthesis
But isn't this all irrellevent to your beliefs? Physicists don't care
if you poo-poo their their theories so why concern yourself with them?
LLPENS@aol.com
<LLPENS@aol.com>Give me the formula,
equasion whatever that tells me that an infitessimily tiny substance
can "unexplainably" explode and make the universe? Its idiotic not
becuase i cant fathom it, which i'm pretty sure nobody can, its because
it defies logic and the understanding of the laws of physics.
Anthony
<sadiztik07@yahoo.com>miller wrote:
> oooh thats right, i totally forgot that the big bang actually is
> feasible (sarcasm)...what, with the whole idea that this universe
> somehow "exploded" from a molecular sized piece of rock...
>
> firstly it defies all logic, the tool you athiests like to use alot,
> which more or less throws the whole big bang theory out the window.
>
Your words have the power of truth! Immediately after reading your
post, I went and secluded myself in the toolshed behind our building. I
spent hours there thinking thoughts upon thoughts, cogitating on the
subtleties and profoundness of THE TRUTH! And like a meteor, GOD SPOKE
TO ME! Yes, ME!
Oh bewoe all atheists like me. BEWOE! BEWOE! Verily have the TRUE GOD
spoken! And that true GOD bade me speak HIS REAL NAME! It was
OOMPAH-LOOMPAH!
OOMPAH-LOOMPAH was the God of the universe before some new-fangled
semite tribe calling themselves Hebrews called their god yahweh! For
but Yahweh is but the son of EL and just one of many Gods! But
OOMPAH-LOOMPAH is above them all, it was OOMPAH-LOOMPAH who created the
waters upon which the earth was created. OOMPAH-LOOMPAH Is the GOD of
GENESIS! Truly, OOMPAH-LOOMPAH is all powerful!
PRAISE BE TO OOMPAH-LOOMPAH for creating the nothingness which
preceded the universe! Praise be OOMPAH-LOOMPAH who created the
universe! Praise be OOMPAH-LOOMPAH who begat, EL and AICH, who begat
the Gods spoken of in the BOOK OF JOB. EL and AICH begat Yahweh the
Ungrateful, who ordered his select tribe, the Hebrews to expunge from
memory, nay from the universe, the names of the other Gods. Verily it
was YahWeh --- the Ungrateful Son of EL and AICH --- who ordered the
Hebrews to kill, to rape, to pillage and to burn such that the TRUTH OF
OOMPAH-LOOMPAH and of EL and AICH be forgotten forever.
But OOMPAH-LOOMPAH shall have the last laugh! Yes shall the TRUE GOD
OOMPAH-LOOMPAH rise again! For OOMPAH-LOOMPAH shall destroy this
universe, He shall destroy Yahweh, He shall destroy heaven, He shall
destroy the abomination called Hell --- an invention of the cruel
Yahweh!, and create a new universe!
> so tell me...if the universe in its entirety came from such a small
> thing, where did the rock come from? exactly...
>
>From OOMPAH-LOOMPAH of course! You atheist noobs are so stupid!
When OOMPAH-LOOMPAH has created His new Universe, he shall do away with
atheists, scientists, critical thinkers, education, gays, tigers,
wolves, pain, sickness, etc. Yahweh is so cruel! He created wolves and
lions to hurt us and then bids us to seek his protection from the very
creatures he made! Remember, it was YahWeh who created INFLUENZA!!!
Luckily, the serpent (which OOMPAH-LOOMPAH secreted into the Garden),
gave man the wisdom and knowledge to battle INFLUENZA! Unluckily, the
serpent lost his legs. It was a great sacrifice that the serpent made
for Man!
> so check the hole before you stick you schlong in it...n00bs.
My schlong is great, also because of OOMPAH-LOOMPAH! The angel of
OOMPAH-LOOMPAH, Paris Holiday, had challenged me to a wrestle and she
broke my leg and made sore my schlong! But OOMPAH-LOOMPAH praised me
and lo and behold, my schlong lengthenth, widenth and made firm! And
Paris, declared unto me,
"From this forward, thou shalt be called Anthony the Long for thou art
braveth and possessth of strength to battle Paris Holiday!"
-- Anthony the Long of Schlong! Prophet of OOMPAH-LOOMPAH, Praise be my
name!
Bloodbeard
<gyorsca@gmail.com>miller wrote:
> As for the substance that the universe came from, space came from it
> so what embodied the substance which everything came from? and what is
> outside the ever expanding space?! doesnt like not loose energy and
> bend, would that not mean that the universe is spherical?
If I understand your first question correctly, you're asking what the
universe was comprised of before it began to expand. The universe,
according to the Big Bang, started off as a gravitational
singularity--a "tremendously dense and hot state" into which all of the
energy and matter of the universe was packed. The fabric of the
universe began to expand--for an unknown reason--and matter and energy
thus expanded along with it. See the raisin bread model below. What is
outside the ever expanding space? According to the Big Bang Theory,
nothing. According to Superstring theory, which I tend to favor simply
because it is more complete, pulsating membranes and other universes.
The Big Bang Theory currently has more experimental evidence backing it
up, however, so it is rightly the theory more often favored by
scientists. I'm a bit confused as to what you're asking with your final
question. It seems that you're implying that the universe is spherical.
"Doesn't [light] not [lose] energy and bend...?" This is where I am
confused. I'd appreciate it if you restated your assertion/question
here. At any rate, the universe may be spherical. There is some
controversy as to what the shape of the universe is. Thank wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe
> and
> bloodbeard, did i not respond to your rebuttal?
The one at the top of the page? No. But it's not relevant anymore, so
don't worry about it.
> Give me the formula,
> equasion whatever that tells me that an infitessimily tiny substance
> can "unexplainably" explode and make the universe? Its idiotic not
> becuase i cant fathom it, which i'm pretty sure nobody can, its because
> it defies logic and the understanding of the laws of physics.
You presume to know more of the laws of physics than people who have
spent their entire lives studying the science? Moreover, you don't seem
to understand the Big Bang at all. That "an [infinitessimally] tiny
substance can ... explode and make the universe" represents a
fundamental misunderstanding of the theory, albeit a very common one.
Sounds like you've been listening to too much Hovind. Here is an
excerpt from http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ : (Under "Common
Misconceptions")
"There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For
example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that
there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion.
Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents,
imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding
to the size of our current universe."
You've been attacking a straw man. If it helps, imagine dough with
raisins in it. As the dough is baked, it expands. The raisins do not
expand, but they do grow farther apart. This is very much an imperfect
model, but it can still be useful.
As for the "unexplainably" part:
"Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a
little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many
experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the
late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three
British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger
Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its
implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they
published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General
Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to
their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that
corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 *The singularity
didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity.
Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or
energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if
not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's
here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of
it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.*"
(Emphasis added by me.) Superstring theory attempts to explain what the
Big Bang Theory cannot, though the Big Bang, while more incomplete, has
more evidence backing it up. The website that I quoted from also lists
some basic proofs for the theory (there are better sites out there, but
this one is a little more concise). You asked for a single formula that
proves the Big Bang. Well, the theory draws from several formulas. For
more evidence, here are some more links:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
The Big Bang does not answer the "why." It answers the "how." That is
what science is. The natural follow up that you should have in your
questioning is how a clump of energy and matter somehow formed
galaxies, stars, planets, and life. The study of this phenomenon, at
least in the early universe, is called "Big Bang Nucleosynthesis." I'm
not going to try explaining it. Here are a few links:
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/bbn.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_nucleosynthesis
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html
Gravity and other basic laws tend to take care of the rest.
Employee of the Month
<employeeotm@googlemail.com>prakki surya wrote:
> today in Science, Heisenberg proves the existence of uncertainty or unimaginability,
> owing to the limits of human capability.
You have no idea what Heisenberg said, nor do you have any
comprehension of what's meant in this context by "uncertainty". Don't
pretend you do, because statements like this make it transparently
obvious that you don't. Read a book, or something.
Employee of the Month
<employeeotm@googlemail.com>Bloodbeard wrote:
> Technically, any solid body of water suitable for bathing will suffice,
A solid body of water is what we in the trade call, "ice".
It's not suitable for bathing.
Thought you should know.
Sketch System
<sketch.system@gmail.com>miller wrote:
> i did not open this topic to be helped into anything. i was merely
> putting across that matter cannot appear, explode whatever from
> nothingness. i dont need a degree is cosmology to understand that. My
> point in mentioning this is that it undermines the big bang theory,
> WHICH in turn leaves athiest at no advantage over me.
You would be right, if the Big Bang theory made such an assertion. As
people keep explaining to you, the theory only covers events after
whatever happened, happened.
> As for the substance that the universe came from, space came from it
> so what embodied the substance which everything came from? and what is
> outside the ever expanding space?! doesnt like not loose energy and
> bend, would that not mean that the universe is spherical? and
> bloodbeard, did i not respond to your rebuttal? Give me the formula,
> equasion whatever that tells me that an infitessimily tiny substance
> can "unexplainably" explode and make the universe? Its idiotic not
> becuase i cant fathom it, which i'm pretty sure nobody can, its because
> it defies logic and the understanding of the laws of physics.
Of course, creationism is completely in line with physics. Apparently,
matter can only come from nothing if God wills it.
> jeff, i'm sorry but if you dont want to partake, i'm not stopping you.
> Blood, as for the "m" THEORY, bull. parallel universes?! haha!
> sounds like your all reading science fiction comics.
Nope, these books are rather more difficult to read.
Father Haskell
<fatherhaskell@yahoo.com>miller wrote:
> oooh thats right, i totally forgot that the big bang actually is
> feasible (sarcasm)...what, with the whole idea that this universe
> somehow "exploded" from a molecular sized piece of rock...
>
> firstly it defies all logic, the tool you athiests like to use alot,
> which more or less throws the whole big bang theory out the window.
>
> thing, where did the rock come from? exactly...
>
Good. Now apply those very same arguments to god.
prakki surya
<dattapr2000@yahoo.com>
Groups are talking. We´re listening. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.
Bloodbeard
<gyorsca@gmail.com>Employee of the Month wrote:
> A solid body of water is what we in the trade call, "ice".
> It's not suitable for bathing.
> Thought you should know.
When I said solid I meant something more along the lines of continuous
and unbroken, but you are correct, that might have seemed a confusing
statement. Thank you for the correction.
miller
<millball54@yahoo.com>of some major events in the bible. there are artefacts, litrature,
scripture, eye witness accounts. i think its stubborn of one to ask
for formula's and what nots when there is sufficient evidence there
right in front of you.
belief and faith play a major role in christianty. Its far more than
just evidence, it requires you as an individual to seek, its a personal
voyage. religion is like a cute puppy that is pleasing to the eye and
is real, where science is the robo dog that is a novelty and ends up in
the scrap yard.
i am a bible guy and always will be... p & s.
Sketch System
<sketch.system@gmail.com>miller wrote:
> sketch, turner....
>
> i think you'll find that the whole "mirror" bit was a joke and you lack
> the capacity to recognise a joke and being serious, so lay off with the
> attempts to gratify yourselves, stuck-up morons.
Don't worry, miller. I consider most of what you post a joke.
> so turner tell me, when was the last christian crusade and when was the
> last islamic jihad? As for persecution of gay people, yes i apolgise
> on behalf of the ignorant hypocrits who incite hatred when they should
> love their neighbours, but according to scripture homosexuality is
> wrong full stop. what does annoy me that it then tries to seep into
> christinaty itself with gay priests and the like, thats pure nonsense.
> And obviously klu klux klan is a right winged american facade of
> hypocrits and murders who will be judged before God, but as far as the
> record goes for christianty, i'd say we are the true faith.
Meaningless. Obviously every member of every faith considers their
faith to be the "true" faith. It is more likely that you are all wrong
than you are all right.
> as for your skat system...
skat system. I like that.
> i was being sterotyped at the beginning of this topic by bloodbeard,
> but i've forgiven him.
I'm sure he's grateful.
> i hate the mentality that athiest have.
So, it's okay for you to stereotype?
> regarding yourselves higher or that your opinion is more just and right
> just because you have a piece of paper saying you got an A*.
I have never used such a piece of paper to pad my arguement in this
group.
> sketch, i
> am in every right entitled to have a say on the matter for i am not a
> scientist thirsting for knowledge to prove there is no god,
I know of no area of science that exists to "prove there is no god."
> nor am i a
> redneck sitting outstide my trailer breeding.
I think there are laws against that.
> I think there is more
> average people that populate the world than over average or under
> average
Did you figure that out by yourself? (And it's "there ARE more")
> so i am the most common denomator and most things i say will go
> that way because i share the majorative view so :P
Hey, if being "average" is your goal, I won't get in the way. But you
shouldn't be too hard on people who actually want to be, or just happen
to be, above average.
Hate FundiChrstns
<star_craft_4_ever@yahoo.com>n00bs? LOL Since when was the Christian theory of how the world began
proven? Since got made the Universe, who made god? exactly....
So go ahead and take your foot out of your mouth now.
miller
<millball54@yahoo.com>end. He is eternal. So ha
Zobicus
<zob95@yahoo.com>miller wrote:
> god always has been. as He is in eternity, there is no beginning and
> end. He is eternal. So ha
If he's not eternal, we can't use him to solve our problem of "what
came first". So he must be eternal. Circular reasoning at its best.
Father Haskell
<fatherhaskell@yahoo.com>> god always has been. as He is in eternity, there is no beginning and
> end. He is eternal. So ha
What a boring existance.