How did it all begin?

im on the big bang as a christian seems like the way god started it to me. But i wonder were and as the galaxys are traveling away is there older galaxys than we , if so maybe life is older than we out there?.

Originally posted by twhitehead
One meaning of explosion according to google is:
[b]a sudden great increase; "the population explosion"; "the information explosion"
The "sudden great increase" refered to in the Big Bang Theory is and increase in the volume of space and not and movement of particles outwards into some larger space. This has always been part of the Theory wit ...[text shortened]... tial post describe the other kind of explosion and therefore invalidates most of your arguments.[/b]

Originally posted by dj2becker
The simplest known living organism has a thread of DNA containing information equivalent to hundreds of books full of complex information. The probability of producing that by chance is absolutely mind-boggling.

So you have a degree in Maths. Good. Tell me what is the probability of arranging the simple letters of the alphabet by means of random chance ...[text shortened]... o a volume of meaningful information? You need some form of inteligent sorting mechanism, right?

Originally posted by stocken
[b]Here's a link to get you started to the whole debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

Yes, but the cosmological argument assumes that there has to be a a first cause that is not itself caused by anything else, yet it accepts the fact that all events must have causes.

I find that confusing. If everything must have a cause, th ...[text shortened]... t we need to think much harder to come up with a viable theory about the origin of the universe.[/b]

Originally posted by stocken
[b]Does it not make sense that God is the inifinite source of intelligence?

No, it does not. Not to me. Perhaps I'm a dipwit, but to me an explanation must take into account everything related to the concept we're trying to explain.

Infinite things are impossible things. They really are. They can only exist as thoughts in our heads. Nothin ...[text shortened]... rehend (maybe because we're made through the same process).

\[Edit]: Or so I believe[/b]

Originally posted by stocken
[b]This is only one of the ad hoc theories used to try and save the big bang some embaresment.

Why is it embarrasing to admit you're wrong and to seek new answers when your theories are questioned on a solid foundation? Is it not more embarrasing to stick with old ideas when they're placed in the light of doubt?

We learn more and more all the tim ...[text shortened]... ometimes it directly contradicts older beliefs, but that's no reason to not consider new ideas.[/b]

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Infinite things are impossible things

Would you like to prove this statement? Did you do maths at school? Did you do the numberline? Do you remember the numberline streching from infinity? Do you not believe infinity is possible? why?[/b]

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Why is it embarrasing to admit you're wrong and to seek new answers when your theories are questioned on a solid foundation?

Ask the people that still believe in the Big Bang. They'll tell you.😉[/b]

Originally posted by Soothing
I agree with Stocken. Maybe because we're friends we've infected each others thoughts so much that we start to say the same things.

Infinity in mathematics is a concept. Is it not? The fact that a line in mathematics can't have ends, or that there's an infinite sequence of lower and higher numbers, doesn't mean that it's a physical reality. It's a way of grasping that which we cannot understand.

Originally posted by stocken
But I'm asking you... You're the one who claims it's embarassing... why is it?..

I think it's embarassing to cling to old ideas when new evidence speak against them, simply because it's insulting to my own intelligence. Why do you think it's embarassing to be wrong and correct yourself? Does it make you any less credible?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No you do not need intelligence. That is what the whole theory of evolution is about. The probablility of getting meaningfull information from random letters is a lot higher than you think but is not a requirement of evolution that large volumes be produced. The whole essence of the Theory of Evolution is that as random words and phrases are produced from ...[text shortened]... gh it will still occur. However the probability of [b]any word occuring is much much higher.[/b]

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you know which Big Bang theory I am talking about? If space just expanded, where did the matter come from? The Big Bang you are talking about cannot be the one that created the universe. I am refering to the 'overall' Big Bang theory, you are refering to the modified one that cannot explain the origin of the universe.

Please explain to me how the e ...[text shortened]... sure you can figure out that that is illogical.


See: http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm?ID=14

Originally posted by twhitehead
The reference you have given is by someone who disputes the theory. Can you give me one reference to any scientific document which states that the Big Bang theory has to do with matter exploding (as you imply) and not space exploding.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I actually claimed that the people that believe in the Big Bang continually adapt their theory with ad hoc theories which is not scientific and should thus actually be an embarassment to them because they are not willing to accept that their theory is wrong.

Originally posted by stocken
I see what you mean.

To use a pure scientific method to a problem of this magnitude is hard, you have to agree. You cannot test the Big Bang. Just like you cannot test for God's existence. Whether you like to admit it or not, there are many flaws in the concept of God if you're willing enough to consider them. But you christians continually revise your ...[text shortened]... s in a theory; to make it whole (in which case I would call them revisions, rather than ad hoc).