08 Sep 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerCoyote shat it out after a hard night's tequila drinking.
[b]I don't need to believe in these theories.
Are you saying that a theory which seeks to explain the origin of man and the universe is not religious in nature?
If you don't believe the big bang theory, then how do you believe the universe originated?[/b]
08 Sep 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerWe don't "need" a theory at all. But it would still be nice to be able to figure out what happened. We don't leave it to religion because religion does not adequately explain the problem. All religion does is cover the question up with the usual "god done it" platitudes.
Cool. If that is so then why do you need a theory to explain the origin of man and the universe? Why don't you leave that to religion?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
08 Sep 05
Originally posted by rwingettWe don't "need" a theory at all.
We don't "need" a theory at all. But it would still be nice to be able to figure out what happened. We don't leave it to religion because religion does not adequately explain the problem. All religion does is cover the question up with the usual "god done it" platitudes.
So you don't need the big bang theory?
But it would still be nice to be able to figure out what happened.
By inventing the big bang theory simply because you are not willing to accept the involvement of the supernatural?
We don't leave it to religion because religion does not adequately explain the problem.
So basically you are trying to "invent" stuff that you cannot possible prove simply because you cannot face the reality of the possiblity of God? So science "invents" the most ridiculous theories to try and explain the inexplicable?
All religion does is cover the question up with the usual "god done it"
And all science does is come up with unprovable scenarios and the lame excuse that they don't really know how it happened but it might have happened like this and like that, but one thing is for sure, "God never done it!".
08 Sep 05
The problem I have with some of the stuff your saying Dj2becker is that you seem to be totally anti science. There are laws of phyics that can be proven to be true. (I know some of these laws break down) Take gravity & light they behave in very certain ways which can be demostrated over & over again. The Big bang is a decent theory based on observable facts. While we really don't know for certain it seems to make sense. I don't understand why you have a problem with God (For those who believe that God started the universe)creating the universe with a big bang. Science & use of does not have to negate faith in God. Manny
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
08 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71There are laws of phyics that can be proven to be true.
The problem I have with some of the stuff your saying Dj2becker is that you seem to be totally anti science. There are laws of phyics that can be proven to be true. (I know some of these laws break down) Take gravity & light they behave in very certain ways which can be demostrated over & over again. The Big bang is a decent theory based on observable facts ...[text shortened]... big bang. Science & use of does not have to negate faith in God. Manny
The big bang has nothing to do with the laws of physics, and definately does not explain their origin. And if applying the laws of physics to the big bang theory you are left with major problems.
The Big bang is a decent theory based on observable facts.
Facts? Such as?
While we really don't know for certain it seems to make sense.
Are you saying facts cannot be known for certain?
(For those who believe that God started the universe)creating the universe with a big bang.
The big bang theory was especially invented to contradict the Genesis account and the Bible is not quite caompatible with a couple billion years.
Science & use of does not have to negate faith in God.
Totally agreed, as long as science is not used in a hidden agenda to try and destroy the Bible, especially when it comes to silly theories being taught as fact.
Btw:
09 Sep 05
3 edits
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardIf you discount the idea that god created the universe recently, and believe like you seem to in the steady-state universe, a friend of mine recomended a very good proof for those who can't be bothered to read up on physics.
A universe existing back infinitely seems more logical to me, because as far as I know there is no evidence proving that nature can create matter out of nothing. We do know that atoms last forever...
From Dr. Joseph Silk's On the Shores of the Unknown Cambridge University Press, 2005:
Olbers' paraadox is 'Why is the sky dark at night?' ... Consider any large shell of matter of specified thickness delta r with the Earth at its centre. The volume of the shell is the surface area of the shell multiplied by its thickness. The light emitted by the shell is equal to the volume of the shell multiplied by the number of stars per unit volume n and the luminosity of a star L. The amount of light reaching the Earth from the shell can be calculated, since it is just equal to the light emitted by the shell divided by its area 4pi*r^2, namely n*L*delta r. It is found that this amount does not depend on the distance of the shell from the Earth, but only on its thickness. As we add up the contributions of more and more distant concentric shells, the light measured at the centre seems to increase without limit. This in not quite right, since light from a distant star is intercepted by an intervening star. Still, any line of sight must sooner or later run into a star, and so we would expect the sky to be about as brilliant as a star's surface. This conclusion applies at any arbitrary point, and hence it applies everywhere.
Despite the compelling logic of this argument, it is obvious that apart from the Milky Way, part of our own galaxy, the night sky is remarkably dark. ... It was apparent to the English astronomer John Herschel, in 1848, that Olbers' paradox is not resolved by allowing for starlight to be blocked by interstellar dust, since such dust absorbs and radiates energy.
Possible resolutions are that the universe is young, so stars have only been shining for about 10 billion years, or that the univers is old but expanding so as to avoid a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. If stars have only been shining for a finite time, then there has not been time enough for their light to accumulate from an infinite distance, or more precisely from farther than 10 billion light years. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, then expansion 'cools off' the universe, due to the Doppler shift, so that the energy of photons that are received from a receding source is reduced. Of course, if the universe is expanding, it has a finite age. So the two arguments are equivalent: the universe must have a finite age.
Sorry for not knowing how to make pi and delta signs. Hope that clears everything up, this issue is pretty much beaten to death, now back to creationists versus the big bang.
09 Sep 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe big bang has everything to do with physics. It is physics. I wish you would elaborate more on how you can apply the laws of physics to create major problems with the big bang. Modern physisists don't seem to disbelieve it, you'd think they would notice something like that, having come up with big bang theory themselves.
[b]There are laws of phyics that can be proven to be true.
The big bang has nothing to do with the laws of physics, and definately does not explain their origin. And if applying the laws of physics to the big bang theory you are left with major problems.
The Big bang is a decent theory based on observable facts.
Facts? Such as?
Wh ...[text shortened]... ry and destroy the Bible, especially when it comes to silly theories being taught as fact.
Btw:
Of course we don't know for certain, but given what we have observed, it is the explanation which makes the most sense by a long shot.
No one invented the Big Bang specifically to contradict genesis. Most scientists don't care about contradicting the bible. They were just trying to find a sensible explanation for the evidence that the universe had a begining. And a key part of the big bang is that the universe is a little over 13 billion years old (I'm almost sure of that number).
Science isn't, never was, and never will be a "hidden agenda to try to destroy the Bible". We don't care about the bible, we just don't happen to believe it.
And don't talk to me about silly ideas being taught as fact Mr. Creationist.
09 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerThis is the type of raving paranoia that differentiates fundamentalists from the rest of humanity. YOU ARE BARKING MAD IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE THIS.
The big bang theory was especially invented to contradict the Genesis account and the Bible is not quite caompatible with a couple billion years.
Btw:[/b]
09 Sep 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe big bang has nothing to do with the laws of physics, and definately does not explain their origin. And if applying the laws of physics to the big bang theory you are left with major problems.
[b]There are laws of phyics that can be proven to be true.
[b
While we really don't know for certain it seems to make sense.
Are you saying facts cannot be known for certain?
(For those who believe that God started the universe)creating the universe with a big bang.
The big bang theory was especially invented to contradict ...[text shortened]... ry and destroy the Bible, especially when it comes to silly theories being taught as fact.
Btw:[/b]
How light behaves & gravity & matter all have to do with physics. I can't believe you are that dense!!! All of those things concern the big bang.I know there are people here who can better explain but man. Do you think the earth has four corners?? The bible says it does?? What I'm saying is you don't know for sure how the universe got started except that God did it. Well how did God do it?? They know that the universe is expanding by observing stars & distant galaxies. Doppler effect or red shift. one observable fact. Manny
09 Sep 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe big bang theory was especially invented to contradict the Genesis account
"paranoia strikes deep; into your life it will creep. it starts when you're always afraid; step out of line, the men come, and take you away."
--Buffalo Springfield
09 Sep 05
My frustration is with people who deny facts or truth. I'm not saying that science can prove everything. If I understand though theories are worked off of observable facts. Like how a rock will behave if I drop it from a tower or how the universe began. or something like that LOL 🙂 Dead horse!!!
Manny
09 Sep 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerI can almost see GOD laughing at most of these comments.How can a man that does not belive in GOD. Ever understand how GOD acts or thinks? How can an unbeliever ever understand that GOD is not foolish. HE does not have to explain to man how or why, HE does what HE does. If you can not accept the simple fact that...... In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. GENESIS 1:1 Then you will never understand how or why HE did it.
Anybody believe that the big bang occured? I don't believe it. I believe that the big bang is still coming...
2 Peter 3:10 - But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a [b]great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.[/b]