Originally posted by no1marauder
Why bother? In your first paragraph alone, you state the Big Bang was an explosion (wrong), that hydrogen and helium existed almost at the beginning of the expansion of the universe (wrong), that some "experts" say "the cosmic egg" was "millions of kilometers" (wrong), that things "shot out" of the "explosion" (wrong), don't seem to know what ...[text shortened]... es.

Again, LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think noone can comprehend theories as complex as the Big Bang without years of mathematical study and a talent for logic to begin with. We don't have to throw insults in the face of those who do not understand.

Suffice it to say. The explanations from modern science is bound to have flaws in it from the perspective of those of us who are not astro-physics. The very concept of science is to observe, form theories and hypothesis and to attempt to disprove them. If we cannot disprove them, we have to accept that they may be right.

It's easy to disprove the concept of God (as the intelligence behind everything) simply because if it takes intelligence to create intelligence, than who created the first intelligence? It's somewhat embarrasing, that we humans have thought for so long that there is an origin intelligence somewhere.

It's not so easy to disprove the concept of intelligence being the result of complex interactions between lesser particles. That, in fact, makes sense, if you sit down and truly think about it.

I think modern science is on the right path, simply because it's not afraid to shatter it's previous conclusions based on new evidence. We can rest assure that whatever the truth is, it will eventually be found if we can accept that we ourselves, those before us and those after us may be wrong and willing to take into account new evidence and observations.

Originally posted by stocken
I think noone can comprehend theories as complex as the Big Bang without years of mathematical study and a talent for logic to begin with. We don't have to throw insults in the face of those who do not understand.

Suffice it to say. The explanations from modern science is bound to have flaws in it from the perspective of those of us who are not astro-ph ...[text shortened]... and those after us may be wrong and willing to take into account new evidence and observations.

Originally posted by Halitose
Good point, I only disagree with your assertion that all intelligence needs a first cause. Only created intelligence needs a first cause. And anyway, your hypothesis doesn't disprove God, it only asserts that He also needed a cause.

Did the mathematical (and intelligent) concept of 1+1=2 need a cause? Why would God?

There was a cause for this. Our need to understand one another.

- without question, I might add. Words are so dubious in nature. Which of course makes them much more attractive to the human psychie.

Originally posted by Halitose
I think dj might be right here:

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

Check under the "creation"(no, not that one) section of the article.

I quote:

"The wavelength distribution of these photons thus are related to their absolute temperature (usually in Kelvin). The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution provides the probability of a photon being a cer ...[text shortened]... er increased, some photons will reach even higher frequencies, such as ultraviolet and X-rays."

Originally posted by LemonJello
But to say that a photon has a certain temperature is complete nonsensical gibberish.

No, dj2 is most definitely NOT right about this one. dj2 is trying to imply that a photon has an associated temperature (i.e., that one may speak of 'the temperature of a photon'😉. In doing so, dj2 demonstrates a complete lack of understanding.

This is utter nonsense. Reach my first post which no 1 was refering to.

I quote: "Expansion makes the temperature of the photons to fall..."

I quote: "As the universe expands and cools, the average energy of a photon falls until eventually hydrogen atoms are able to form."

Temperature: "the measure of average kinetic energy"

http://universe-review.ca/R05-04-powerspectrum.htm

Originally posted by LemonJello
No, dj2 is most definitely NOT right about this one. dj2 is trying to imply that a photon has an associated temperature (i.e., that one may speak of 'the temperature of a photon'😉. In doing so, dj2 demonstrates a complete lack of understanding.

Please re-read your own copy and paste job. All it says is that the temperature [b]of the photon emitt ...[text shortened]... ths, etc. But to say that a photon has a certain temperature is complete nonsensical gibberish.

Originally posted by Halitose
All these observations of yours have a sorting intelligence of some form. Where/what is the intelligence behind the big bang?

Originally posted by stocken
I think noone can comprehend theories as complex as the Big Bang without years of mathematical study and a talent for logic to begin with. We don't have to throw insults in the face of those who do not understand.

Suffice it to say. The explanations from modern science is bound to have flaws in it from the perspective of those of us who are not astro-ph ...[text shortened]... and those after us may be wrong and willing to take into account new evidence and observations.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In fact in any totally random system it is a mathematical probability almost a certainty that patterns will emerge.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I quote: "About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang."

Originally posted by stocken
[b]Only created intelligence needs a first cause.

Why would God's intelligence not be created? And if Gods intelligence hasn't been created, why do you automatically assume that ours is?

your hypothesis doesn't disprove God, it only asserts that He also needed a cause

You have proven that I'm not a real scientist. I don't know exactl ...[text shortened]... is. Our need to understand one another.

I do appreciate your obvious intelligence, though. 🙂[/b]

Originally posted by twhitehead
You did not read it correctly. I specifically stated that there was no intelligence involved. For example place some realy muddy water in a glass. Leave it for a few hours. Have a look. You will find that it has already started to sort it self out into a more ordered system with froth on top, cleaner water in the middle, and heavier particles such as sand ...[text shortened]... I do have a BSc degree in mathematics).
Pattern and order [b]is not equal to intelligence.[/b]