Wow got a fan right away. Following me around, how silly of you.
I feel like because I do believe in what you don't, I'm automagically down range.
It's not a frenzy; it's just gullible and naive people watching the History Channel and giving them some ratings so they can occasionally put on worthwhile programming for the rest of us.
I really don't think the idea of ancient visitors all impossible. And truth to be told, TV is no vehicle to gather information. Actually TV is no vehicle to nothing worthwhile in the real sense of this word.
Do you think that your inability to comprehend how the universe could have come into being without a supernatural creation has anything to do with whether or not it actually did? Why do you think that the universe could not have been born out of an unknown, yet altogether natural process (such as 2 larger universes colliding, or out the other side of a black hole for instance)?
Do you have any proof that a second universe exists? How about what is in the other side of a blackhole? Well no one knows right?! I don't have inabilities to comprehend the science behind the current aceptable theory, in fact I do understand it very well, but to me, and this is my personal view, is more plausible the idea of a creationism. You can't prove me wrong! Period! As I can't prove you wrong. I guess we will have to wait and die to check that out.[/quote]
Very few people say that the god theory of universal creation is impossible. Without evidence to back it up, however, to act as if it is the ONLY possibility is intellectual suicide.
Agreed. But in your blindness you failed to read the following: TO ME
. How many times I said "to me" and how many I said "I think"? Everybody intelligent enough have their minds locked on something about this subject, is their views, but doesn't mean they discard other possibilities. It would be unwise. But all favor a side, and that's undisputed. I happen to favor the oposite side in which you are standing on. That's all.
Perhaps that's because you don't have all the facts available to you. All you are doing here is applying your logic to a question for which you haven't gathered enough facts. The people who study this stuff for a living tend to think that the universe was created after some big explosion (expansion really). Unless you have evidence to refute them, why do you think it is reasonable to question their theories? Have you actually listened to their reasoning? Until you have, don't you think that the conclusions they make are going to be more reliable than yours?
Nah! Believe it when I say, I have ALL the currently available facts. Nothing BEFORE the bing bang has any logic. People that study this, for a living or not, do believe that the universe developed from that insignificant moment called big bang. Beyond that, they know nothing, and is all speculation. Since your're so trendy, how can they tell that the background noise that is believed to be leftovers from the big bang it really is if they can't "see" that far? Could that be another universe slamming ours and creating some? Well, I don't know that. And me, you, the owner of this site, and the scientists that study this for a living can only speculate wether that was or was not created by some entity. You can't refute this! This question has no scientific answer. And probably will never have one.
It sounds like you are saying that natural processes could not possibly be responsible for the creation of anything. Is that really what you're saying here?
No! You are saying that. What I said is that if something exists, that something was at some point created. Either by a star, by a blackhole, by the explosion of a star, or by God. And since the big bang is as far back as super intelligent people that study for a living can do, I should say, it is not enough for me. I want to go further back, and in doing so, since the uber smart people have no idea what happened, I choose believe in some creator, just out of faith.
Beg to differ, but yes we do.
Beg to differ back, no they DO NOT. For someone that uses the word facts so heavily you sure don't walk the talk.
I watched this video a few months back and I'll not watch it again. As you said to me, we need FACTS! This is a theory, and in fact, is in it's very early stages of existence. You should read the description or watch the entire video before posting. It says:
"Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing. Krauss is the author of many bestselling books on Physics and Cosmology, including "The Physics of Star Trek.""
It COULD! Possibility... and possibly is not fact. And if someone prove this theory to be right it will simply hurt fundamental laws of physics, that men that do this for a living fiercely believe in. Mass is energy, and that, is just like real state, you can't simply invent some more.
Umm. All of that stuff is made when a star becomes a red giant and then explodes in a supernova. I don't know where you're getting your information. It's a very interesting process. Some elements do decay into others, but that's not the primary way we got those you mentioned.
Perhaps if you cite some of your sources for this information, we could look them over for you. Here are a few that go into the process in some detail..
No they are NOT!
Sunny, I wound't rely on wikipedia for nothing. I bet if I go there now (and I did and it is), the info on this will be correct, but on many many occasions I caught brutal errors on important documents on wikipedia. Specially when dates are involved. Not reliable man. But I'm digressing.
Stars... beautiful eh?! They are, in the early stages basically hydrogen, helium and dust. As the star burns it's fuel, hydrogen and helium start to fuse to form different elements. And this product fuses again to for more heavier elements, all the way down to iron! Which on my example is where I started to work, but downwards. Iron is the heavier element a star, accordingly to very smart people that do this for a living believe, can produce with it's own gravitational force. So everything heavier than iron is necessarily created on the event of a supernovae, but iron, and lighter elements CAN and DO form inside starts.
Actually, supernovae happens when the mass of the IRON inside the core of the star reaches a critical mass, and collapses. So... iron was there already. ;P
No. Hydrogen formed after the big bang in a process called fusion when the environment reached a temperature cooled enough to allow for the formation of nuclei and atoms from the ambient protons and neutrons that were speeding all around and crashing into each other.
I think you need to do more studying. Your grasp on this stuff is a bit lacking I think. I'm no expert myself, but I've done a little reading.
I know that man. You missed the point entirely. Ok, by the book atoms of hydrogen and helium formed in the very early stages of the universe, from protons and neutrons. Ok, ok. Where did the protons came up from? Don't tell me from quarks or I might slam you in the head with that rotten by now irc trout.
And to the second part of your reply, yes... YESSSS ALWAYS! I always need to do more studying. Too much to learn and so little time to live! I'm lacking A LOT. I know that. You too, need to read more, but that just a wild guess.
Humans have the bad habit of requiring proof for everything, and on the absence of it, truth is always "molded" to fit our knowledge.
Bad habit of requiring proof? You think it's bad to require proof? Can you explain the drawbacks of requiring proof in order to determine truth?
In the absence of proof, science doesn't claim to know. Only religion does that.
Yes it is a bad habit when the truth is impossible to grasp. Which is our main discussion here.
And at last, but not even remotely least, in the absence of proof science ALWAYS claim to know. That's what they call theory. They always have one... for EVERYTHING.
Well, be good. Think a lot.