The beginning

[KorrupT MerC]

Frunk, it was to put it into terms that everyone can understand.

Wow i could have swore i saw it but since i cant find it now, here's a question for the people who support the science view:

Where did the supposed speck come from? Can science explain that or do they just leave it at, meh its been there forever.

[Chuck]

Agreed. The Big Bang makes sense, but does contain several minor flaws. For instance, what exactly did cause such a massive expansion of matter and energy? Before that, what made that small little ball of everything (the thing that expanded)?

I agree. I don't have an opinion since there are equal arguments on both sides, along with the fact that there is no good way to prove it without opinions.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

The main problem that I have with the big bang theory is that the exact requirements for life to exist on Earth are so phenomenally perfect and sensitive that the thought of a large explosion creating it as it is now is, subsequently, very far-fetched.

Oddly enough, the fact that life exists is proof (for some) that evolution is possible.  After all, given an infinite universe, anything that can happen will happen.  Consider this: You tell me, "You'll never flip a coin and get heads ten times in a row.  It's just too unlikely."  I flip ten heads.  It may never happen again in my life, or anyone's life.  But the fact that I flipped ten heads proved that it's possible.  Likewise, the fact that there is life proves that evolution is POSSIBLE, no matter how unlikely it may seem.

Also, I'd like to point out something that many people seem to miss.  You hear a lot of, "Well, we KNOW that the earth is more than 6000 years old, since there are stars, rocks, etc. that are millions of years old!"  But here's the thing they never consider.  CREATED objects always look older than they are.  If I made a wax model of a person, took a picture of it, and asked you how old that person looked, you'd probally say, "Oh that person is twenty or thirty years old."  However, you'd be wrong, since it only took me a few days to make that model.

The concept also applies to the universe.  Stars may have a life of millions of years, sure, but that doesn't mean that they all had to start in nebulas.  If there was a God and he did create the universe, what's stopping him from making a star that starts in the middle of its life?

[Chuck]

Wow. That was a very wise, and well supported point. I have no real opinion, but some people could say that "God" wanted to keep things organized.

This is a very bad example, but it says what it should... Sort of

He wouldn't do such a thing, as some people say it could impact things much too much, due to the general shock that creating a star that was halfway through it's life would impact everything around it, since it would happen very "quickly", and the outer planets/masses would not have time to adapt, causing large changes in environment, and supporters of "God" (in this context) would disagree that he would do something like this, knowing the consequences that could partake.

My argument is weak, but is just a mere example of why people say "God" wouldn't do such a thing.

You're point, on the other hand, is made, and well proved. This is a kind of topic that, if well nourished, has potential to be around for a long time.

[Tallacaps]

I don't understand sciencists. I don't understand religious belivies.
I can't do it deeply.
But if they search the truth they will converge.

They are very complicated. I simply hope. The only thing I can do.

And for life and death. In the deep they are the same. No exact limit between death and life.
A virus is an example.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

And for life and death. In the deep they are the same. No exact limit between death and life.
A virus is an example.

Expand that thought.

[Twistkill]

Oddly enough, the fact that life exists is proof (for some) that evolution is possible.  After all, given an infinite universe, anything that can happen will happen.  Consider this: You tell me, "You'll never flip a coin and get heads ten times in a row.  It's just too unlikely."  I flip ten heads.  It may never happen again in my life, or anyone's life.  But the fact that I flipped ten heads proved that it's possible.  Likewise, the fact that there is life proves that evolution is POSSIBLE, no matter how unlikely it may seem.

Flipping coins being analogous to the creation of the universe through evolution seems a little unfair, but meh. I really don't have an argument against that... I just still find it awkward. We're both on the same side, ya know.

[Psycho]

I dont know much about the big bang theory, but Im sure that whatever made earth and planets and stuff, it was not some religious figure.
Do you even concider that if you were born and raised inside a different religion you would be dead sure that the god of THAT religion made the universe.

Religion can't really be relied on in matters such as theese. In my opinion ofcorse.

[7th_account]

Also, I'd like to point out something that many people seem to miss.  You hear a lot of, "Well, we KNOW that the earth is more than 6000 years old, since there are stars, rocks, etc. that are millions of years old!"  But here's the thing they never consider.  CREATED objects always look older than they are.  If I made a wax model of a person, took a picture of it, and asked you how old that person looked, you'd probally say, "Oh that person is twenty or thirty years old."  However, you'd be wrong, since it only took me a few days to make that model.

The concept also applies to the universe.  Stars may have a life of millions of years, sure, but that doesn't mean that they all had to start in nebulas.  If there was a God and he did create the universe, what's stopping him from making a star that starts in the middle of its life?

By tracing back in time as best possible using data based on cosmic background radiation, universe expansion and other things, the scientific consensus is that all matter in the universe originated from a point where something big and banggy occured. This is the best theory (in scientific usage, an explanation based on experiments or empirical observation) that science offers for now.

What you said about the universe being created "in-time" is a hypothesis at best, and will never pass that stage.

Science can verify things that religion can only speculate about.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

What you said about the universe being created "in-time" is a hypothesis at best, and will never pass that stage.

Oh, I'm not saying that it is or isn't fact.  I'm just saying that a young, created universe would look exactly the same as an old, evolved one.

[Mangled*]

What really annoys me about religion is that it really narrows peoples perception of the world around them... They fail to recognize the perfection, complexity and beauty that arises from nature and the way the universe has evolved.

Whatever you believe I highly recommend you watch this video in its entirety. And keep an open mind.

Once you've watched it, I want you to sit and ponder and think about how long ago all these religions started... How greatly our understanding of the universe has changed. The bible was written when everybody still believed the world was flat... Does that mean it's an outdated and inaccurate philosophy? - I'll let you answer that for yourselves.

[7th_account]

What you said about the universe being created "in-time" is a hypothesis at best, and will never pass that stage.

Oh, I'm not saying that it is or isn't fact.  I'm just saying that a young, created universe would look exactly the same as an old, evolved one.

And I'm saying that something that's been researched and theorized about has more meat on its bones than a mix of revelation and hypothesis.

[Svirin Kerath]

Eh, I'm seeing a lot of errors here, I'll do what I can to clear them up.

The Big Bang can be traced back, through mathematical inference, to like .00001 of a second after it happened, but not the moment of. We don't know what caused it, and we probably will never know, but we do know that the universe is expanding, everything is moving away from everything else at an equal rate, which means at earlier times they were closer together. If there wasn't a big bang, there was a major event that caused all bodies in space to project outward (which insinuates an explosion, but read into that what you will).

Quantum physics may explain a cause of the big bang, if the big bang is in fact what caused the universe. One of the properties of empty space, or space as we know it, it instability without the presence of matter. I walk carefully over this, as I'm not too good at explaining it, but basically, space itself does have quantum properties, and if it were infinite and devoid of matter as we know it, it could result in a chance creation of matter, which would result in its either exploding or being condensed to a point where it could do nothing but explode.

As for life on Earth, these are some things to consider:
Distance from the sun and geology are not "perfect for supporting life." In reality, life can exist pretty much anywhere, except perhaps a star, but only as microbes. It's likely that a comet or meteor laced with these microbes (called extremophiles, which have been around for as long as we can record them) crashed into the earth, seeding it with life. Earth is one of trillions of planets, and the chances of other planets being of similar distance from the sun and capable of supporting similar geology are low, but when the ratio is applied to the number of planets in existance, the potential number of earth-like planets is high. We only know details about our solar system and some of the surrounding ones (and even then, we're mighty sketchy about many aspects of our own solar system) so we cannot say with any certainty what is "rare" for a planet.

Finally, we are not the only intelligent beings on this planet. Monkeys teach each other to use medicinal herbs. Orangutans can use computers and develop their own languages, gorillas can learn sign language and use it to effectively communicate information and even feelings (in one famous case, a gorilla had a kitten that died; it afterwards said that it was sad and painted a picture to describe her feelings). Even creatures with tiny brains, like parrots, can learn to use language to a limited extent, and to articulate desires, as well as exhibit creativity. (In one case, a parrot, after doing repeated item-identification tests, began to refuse to do them again, continually saying "No!," until they presented it with a new test; also, having never seen an apple before, but having identified bananas and cherries, it demanded an apple when it saw one saying, 'I want banerry!').

Dolphins also have exhibited very strong signs of intelligence. They are also the only other species besides us that is known to have cases of gang rape.

Anything else I missed? I'm trying to stay out of religious debate and just present facts and theories as we know them.

[Twistkill]

The issue of science being solid and definitive is that it can easily provide answers to things based on observations it makes using empiricism... and that's it. The issue of God is on a spiritual level, and Science is not setting out to, and doesn't, nor can it, disprove God in any way. Needless to say, the proof of God's existence is also hard to come by, but this is due to subjectivity... either you believe in him or you don't. Science is not the same issue, because it is observed in the same form by everyone and carries the same results across the board.

[urraka]

For those who say that it takes as much faith to believe that a large explosion created something as it does to have faith in some kind of god, well you are wrong. There's a whole logic and scientific studies that takes you to the conclusion of the "Big Bang". It's not like someone had that idea from nowhere. Whereas there is not such logic in believing in god.
Same with evolution. Darwin's theory makes perfectly sense because there's logic in it. And also we can see how living beings have evoluted from fosils studies or whatever.

I've heard somewhere about a hypothesis that says that the "big bang" is like a cyclic event, meaning that after everything finishes expanding, it's going to start compressing reaching to the same point of the big bang. So it would be like an infinite event. I don't know who invented that though, maybe it was just my brother telling me bullshit.

Well, I'm all for scientific conclusions and I kinda hate religions. Maybe that's because my parents kinda forced me to go to church since I was a kid, and heck, I always hated going to church, even when I used to believe in god. Now when I see people going to church it makes me feel like vomiting.

[KorrupT MerC]

Expand then retract? Since you want to be scientific and all, what have you ever seen in this world or even universe that expanded then retracted back into what it was originally... and dont say stars because you'd be wrong.

[urraka]

When you kick a ball upwards it goes up and then it comes back down. It's the same principle, gravity. It starts expanding due to a force, then it retracts due to gravity force. In the big bang everything starts expanding due to the force caused by the explosion, and gravity would make it retract eventually.
Anyway, I didn't say that was a fact or anything, I don't even know where I got that from. But it makes some sense.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

When you kick a ball upwards it goes up and then it comes back down. It's the same principle, gravity. It starts expanding due to a force, then it retracts due to gravity force. In the big bang everything starts expanding due to the force caused by the explosion, and gravity would make it retract eventually.
Anyway, I didn't say that was a fact or anything, I don't even know where I got that from. But it makes some sense.

But if you kick the ball too high, eventually it will reach a point where the effect of earth's gravity is decreasing faster than its own velocity.  A "point of no return," so to speak.  Of course, scientists know more than I do about the relationship of the planets' and stars' velocity to their proximity.

Date Posted: November 28, 2007, 10:12:44 pm

The Bible was written when everybody still believed the world was flat... Does that mean it's an outdated and inaccurate philosophy? - I'll let you answer that for yourselves.

Ooh, didn't catch that until now.  The Bible actually makes several references to a circular world, such as Isaiah 40:22.  Although a flat world was a common belief during those times, that doesn't mean that the Bible supports such a belief.

[KorrupT MerC]

When you kick a ball upwards it goes up and then it comes back down. It's the same principle, gravity. It starts expanding due to a force, then it retracts due to gravity force. In the big bang everything starts expanding due to the force caused by the explosion, and gravity would make it retract eventually.
Anyway, I didn't say that was a fact or anything, I don't even know where I got that from. But it makes some sense.

Well that would mean that there is a center to the universe, a center of gravity for everything to retract too, which probably doenst exist, as we would revolve around it. There are galaxies that have their own gravity, which pull against each other and there are thousands among millions and more galaxies at that, so for what you say to happen would mean that each galaxy would eventually pull one another into each other until there was one galaxy remaining until that final galaxy collapses back into the "speck" it originally was.

I'm just trying to question the theory you have, maybe put some doubt in your mind or vice versa. Im not necessarily saying this is the only theory you have, but you posted it so its going to be the center of my questionaire.

Really, this topic was to get feedback on people's personal beliefs, could be backed up by facts but really, those facts can only prove so much before they come to a dead-end, and thats when it becomes your own belief as to what happened, which i want to know. I just want to know where people stand and hopefully have my mind opened up a bit to the world around me. With that said, lets continue

[Svirin Kerath]

Ooh, didn't catch that until now.  The Bible actually makes several references to a circular world, such as Isaiah 40:22.  Although a flat world was a common belief during those times, that doesn't mean that the Bible supports such a belief.

The Bible did support the belief that stars were just points of light in a sphere that surrounded the earth, rather than actual objects very far away.

It's not exactly a treatise on scientific theory either way. People did the most they could- they guessed the reasons behind things based on what they could see, and filled "god" in as a reason for the rest. Sometimes this leads to unique and surprisingly accurate views of how stuff works, and most times it leads to complete bollocks.