Author Topic: The big bang theory is bs!  (Read 21845 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5071
  • Darwins +585/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #377 on: October 25, 2011, 10:07:59 AM »
There's a fairly simple way to answer the question of why morality persists without invoking an unknowable force from beyond time and space to cram it into our heads.  It's called enlightened self-interest.  It is nothing more nor less than understanding that I can pursue my own interests without screwing other people over in the process (thus interfering with their pursuit of their own interests).  That gives them the opportunity to pursue their interests without screwing yet more people over, and so on and so on.

People who consistently offer a square deal don't go out of business.  There's nothing mystical or spiritual about it; the people on the other end of the deal, if they're satisfied with what they got in return, will be back to make more deals because they can be reasonably sure that they'll continue to get what they want without risking getting screwed to get it.  I think if someone were able to look back in time, they would discover that this concept has existed since there were communities of humans.  It just didn't have the chance to get established as the way things were done in general because it was easier to take the "get rich quick" path, especially the higher you get.  But the better concept stuck with us all this time and eventually was given the chance to thrive without getting choked by greedy weeds.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12573
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #378 on: October 25, 2011, 10:40:49 AM »
Why aren't there morals in the animal kingdoms.

There are, you retard.  All social animals have rules that govern their interractions.  The less sophisticated animals rely solely on instinct and programing - ants, for example.  The more sophisticated ones have more sophisticated rules - chimps and gorillas[1], for example.

You are clearly too stupid to keep up, let alone offer anything worth while to this conversation.  I suggest you STFU and lurk until you learn something.  I also suggest you refrain from reproducing.  Your genes are best not passed on.


 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=all
http://discovermagazine.com/2000/feb/featmorals
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/world/darwin-evolution.html#cr
« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 10:45:21 AM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline plethora

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3457
  • Darwins +60/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Metalhead, Family Man, IT Admin & Anti-Theist \m/
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #379 on: October 25, 2011, 10:58:14 AM »
^^ word.
The truth doesn't give a shit about our feelings.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #380 on: October 25, 2011, 11:00:50 AM »
Why aren't there morals in the animal kingdoms.

There are, you retard.  All social animals have rules that govern their interractions.  The less sophisticated animals rely solely on instinct and programing - ants, for example.  The more sophisticated ones have more sophisticated rules - chimps and gorillas

Indeed.  Here are two experiments, the first showing that monkeys have a sense of cooperation, the second showing that they have a sense of fair play.



[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #381 on: October 25, 2011, 12:18:05 PM »
Your belief that the universe had a Beginning is not supported through scientific evidence and is speculation.  The Big Bang was a beginning, but not necessarily the Beginning, as you claim.

then you have infinite regression. But if there is time, and time is composed of a sequence of additional parts, then it must have had a beginning. You can count 1 year, 1000 years back, its always related to us in a finite manner. You will never reach today from infinity. Therefore, there was a beginning, even if that beginning was theoretically before the Big Bang. Therefor ,it had a caus

Quote
Your belief that there was no time, no space, and no matter outside the universe is nothing but speculation.

No, that is where scientific evidence leads us.

Quote
There is no scientific evidence one way or the other;

wrong. there is a LOT of evidence to back up this claim. Just check below webpage:

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=beginning1


Quote
if there was something outside the Big Bang singularity, it was either pushed outward via the expansion of space (and probably faster than the speed of light, meaning we could not possibly see it) that came with the Big Bang, or destroyed due to the phenomenal outflow of energy from the Big Bang.  But whether there was or wasn't, there is no evidence whatsoever to support it either way.  None.  You cannot make it true simply by restating it until people get tired of arguing with you because you don't actually listen to what they're trying to say.

We have a lot of scientific evidence to state, that the universe began with the Big Bang. That is the relevant point.

Quote
Therefore, your belief that there was a cause which was "timeless, beginningless, eternal, spaceless, transcendent, invisible, personal, and incredibly powerful" is, again, speculation.

Its a logical deduction based on scientific evidence .

 
Quote
You have no evidence to demonstrate that this is a fact.

stop asking for proofs. They are irrelevant, since there are none , either in regard to claim, God does exist, or he does not.


 
Quote
Speculation can be interesting, but you cannot prove speculation - any speculation - true without evidence.  And you certainly cannot by presenting it as a logical argument and trying to convince people to think of it as the most reasonable explanation, because when you're talking about speculation, how reasonable something seems is in the eye of the beholder.

We can ONLY speculate. You too. So its reasonable to ask, which scenario makes most sense , based on the evidence we have on hand. What is yours ?

Quote
The same goes for your argument about the fine-tuning of the universe.  The fact that we call it fine-tuning does not mean it was done by some intelligence.

Your alternatives are chance, or physical necessity. Pick your choice.....


 
Quote
Evolution can be thought of as a way for organisms to automatically fine-tune themselves

Evolution began with the first living beings. You cannot apply it universally.


Quote
We have evidence of a tendency for the universe to go from a less-ordered state (the expanding ball of exotic matter right after the Big Bang) to a more-ordered state (planets, stars, galaxies, etc), and we have no evidence that there was some guiding hand behind it.

Well, the finetuning IS evidence , otherwise, why are all these parameters finely set to permit life on our planet ? And , our universe even to exist ?


Quote
Therefore, it is reasonable to look for a self-organizing principle

So so... you think self organisation is a good explanation for below presented data ?

http://www.reasons.org/design/solar-system-design/probability-life-earth-apr-2004

Quote
Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body

less than 1 chance in 10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence.
WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist.
ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere.
OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life.
RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue.
THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all.
DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles.
RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity.
DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior.
THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer.
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place.
EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field.
SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate.
THE MOON: We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history.

 
Quote
to create that tendency instead of simply assuming it had to have been purposefully set into motion.  And the same applies to the nature of physical constants which creationists like to refer to as fine-tuning.

That terms is not used exclusively by creationists. but its a scientific term to describe the finely tuned constants to permit life on our planet.

Quote
It is inherently unreasonable to jump straight to the idea that some being set it all up deliberately without even seriously considering any other alternatives, which you have been doing all along.

Well, i have considered the alternatives, and mentioned them above. You can stick either to chance, or physical necessity. Think, which you think suits best to explain fine tuning, and explain why.

Quote
Regarding the origins of life on Earth, abiogenesis is a theory that's being developed.

No, its a theory that has failed and proven to be a nono answer to explain how life arose on earth.

Quote
It isn't a well-developed theory,

which result has deeply disappointed the ones that hoped to find a naturalistic answer to how life arose on earth. It rather showed, that it cannot happen without intelligent intervening.

Quote
like gravity, evolution, and atoms.  And there are other theories as well[1]
 1. Such as panspermia, to name one.

which is another failed desperate attempt.

 
Quote
Furthermore, your "reasons to believe a natural origin is not possible" are seriously flawed.  For example, you refer to "dead rocks", except that this is seriously misleading.  How can something that was not originally alive be dead?  Abiogenesis refers to inorganic molecules combining and eventually forming organic molecules.

Which need to combine to form a complex, specified code,  information to build a living cell. Something, chance is not capable of doing.

Quote
  As another example, you refer to the complexity of living cells, except that you are referring to the complexity of modern living cells, without considering that the first living cells, however long ago they existed, were almost certainly very basic.

almost certainly ? how do you know ?

http://www.reasons.org/origin-life/first-life-earth/origin-life-predictions-face-evolution-vs-biblical-creation

Quote
Biophysicist Hubert Yockey has calculated the probability of forming a single gene product (one that is functionally equivalent to the ubiquitous protein cyctochrome C) as one chance in 1075. 56 Given this probability, Yockey calculated that if the hypothetical primordial soup contained about 1044 amino acids, a hundred billion trillion years would yield a 95% chance for random formation of a functional protein only 110 amino acids in length (a single gene product).57 The universe is about 15 billion years old. This means that less than one trillionth of the time has passed that would be needed to make even one of the 250-350 gene products necessary for minimal life, or one of the 1500 gene products necessary for independent life.

 
Quote
They developed their complexity over millions, possibly billions of years; they did not start out being complex simply because single-celled organisms today are complex in nature.  And you state information is spiritual, except this is utter nonsense.  Information is inherently nothing more than a description of something[2].  The fact that someone describes something that doesn't exist, or an abstract concept, does not make that description 'spiritual'.
 2. If there are six bottles sitting on a wall, stating that is information; that does not make it 'spiritual' in nature.

Information is inherently something different than matter. Matter cannot be destroid. It can only be transformed. Information howeve can be destroid permanently. For example, when you burn a book.



Quote
This is nothing more than the statement that life is meaningless without something to provide an absolute set of morals, and an attempt to present the conscience as being an expression of that absolute morality.  Except that it is not.  Humans did not start out with a well-developed conscience or feelings of guilt.

And you know that how exactly ?

 
Quote
In fact, evidence based on the oldest known human societies clearly demonstrates that the opposite is the case.  People did whatever they felt they could get away with, and didn't really care that much about what it cost other people.

And that does not happen anymore today ?


Quote
You again presume that an atheist's belief must be that nothing matters and that people should be able to do whatever they want.  And you are fundamentally and utterly wrong in so doing.  A person does not have to have some artificial "ultimate goal" imposed by religion to agree to live under rules and to act with morality and decency towards each other.

Correct. But there are no consequence if does not. Or if he invents completely new rules. If God does not exist, i can held it as perfectly acceptable and , actually,  a virtue, to cheat, to steal, to betray, to lie to other people. And my viewpoint cannot be defied, its as much worth as yours. There is no higher instance to tell us , what is ok, what is not. If God does not exist, everything is aloud. We cannot say, Hitler, Stalin, Gadhhafi, Idi Amin, were wrong. They were just different.

 
Quote
You say that an atheist should blithely accept someone who wants to murder them and their family because you think that atheism is about saying nothing is wrong;

I don't say, atheism says that. I am saying, that if God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.



Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #382 on: October 25, 2011, 12:37:22 PM »
Quote
Your belief that there was no time, no space, and no matter outside the universe is nothing but speculation.

No, that is where scientific evidence leads us.


So, while we can test that there is time...there is space....there is matter; to consider that these existant provable items exist outside the known universe. that is not possible

But some Unseen, intangible superbeing that is intensely interested in the sex habit of one group of homids on a medium sized world around an unremarkable star....it is safe to assume that one.

That is what you are saying.



 

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Whateverman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1353
  • Darwins +6/-5
  • Gender: Male
    • Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #383 on: October 25, 2011, 12:44:09 PM »
I am saying, that if God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
For the moment, let's assume that the Christian God exists.  What exactly are the objective morals he provides us with?

There is only one consistent objective ethic provided by the Bible.  There are no exceptions to it, unlike the prohibitions against killing or stealing or sleeping with your neighbor's wife.  It is as follows:

Do what God tells you to do

That's not an objective morality  While that may be an "objective morality", it is practically useless because we do not have God's advice on how we should make the every day decisions of our lives.  He does not tell us whether we should cut someone off in traffic, cheat on our taxes or flirt with someone who's smiled at us.

It's a fact that Christian morality is, in practice, moral nihilism.  Killing a person may be justice or it may be evil - but without the explicit counsel of an omniscient law giver, we can't tell.

edit: strikethrough replaced by italics.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 12:54:55 PM by Whateverman »
- SMRT Admin

Compared to this thread, retarded midget wrestling for food stamps is the pinnacle of human morality.
-- Ambassador Pony

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #384 on: October 25, 2011, 12:46:39 PM »
Let's for the sake of argument make it a given that time began from a singularity that somehow came together due to an outside influence. IS THERE ANY WAY TO HAVE EVEN A CLUE AS TO THE WHAT OR WHY as it pertains to that influence? Could it be a Godlike superintelligence that acted purposefully, maybe? Could it be a trillion other possibly somethings, emphatically maybe!

Bottom line is that we have no idea if something "outside" acted upon the singularity and if something did, we have no way of knowing anything about what that or those somethings were. So, pigeonholing that something into God as defined by religious texts is not only infinitely presumptive, it's also dishonest. That means that even if the concession were made that there is or was a creator God, there is no reason that we know of that we could reasonably use to match that creator with the God of the Bible or any other religious text.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #385 on: October 25, 2011, 01:01:01 PM »
Let's for the sake of argument make it a given that time began from a singularity that somehow came together due to an outside influence. IS THERE ANY WAY TO HAVE EVEN A CLUE AS TO THE WHAT OR WHY as it pertains to that influence? Could it be a Godlike superintelligence that acted purposefully, maybe? Could it be a trillion other possibly somethings, emphatically maybe!

Bottom line is that we have no idea if something "outside" acted upon the singularity and if something did, we have no way of knowing anything about what that or those somethings were. So, pigeonholing that something into God as defined by religious texts is not only infinitely presumptive, it's also dishonest. That means that even if the concession were made that there is or was a creator God, there is no reason that we know of that we could reasonably use to match that creator with the God of the Bible or any other religious text.

But according to the material GodExists refers us to:

Science points to the existence of a transcendent (beyond space and time), personal Creator, demonstrably the same Creator revealed in the pages of Scripture.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

So appaently there is a reason, but apparently they can't actually...I dunno....support it.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #386 on: October 25, 2011, 01:26:07 PM »
then you have infinite regression. But if there is time, and time is composed of a sequence of additional parts, then it must have had a beginning. You can count 1 year, 1000 years back, its always related to us in a finite manner. You will never reach today from infinity. Therefore, there was a beginning, even if that beginning was theoretically before the Big Bang. Therefor ,it had a caus

   Except time does not have to be a progression. Despite our perception, time could simply be a line analogous to height, width, and depth. Instead of starting at one side and trawling all the way to today, you could simply be "existing" at T=X. While you may not be able to reach infinity from today, or today from infinity, there's no reason to believe you can't just skip around to any number on the line. Therefore, like a number line, time does not need a beginning.

Quote
Quote
Your belief that there was no time, no space, and no matter outside the universe is nothing but speculation.

No, that is where scientific evidence leads us.

Quote
There is no scientific evidence one way or the other;

wrong. there is a LOT of evidence to back up this claim. Just check below webpage:

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=beginning1

   Ok, first off, you need to stop just linking to things - stop it. Don't do it. Link it AND quote the relevent part, or tell us where in your link to find it. There's nothing even remotely relating to what you're saying until at least page 8. Before then it just goes over the basic facts with "designed language" (just taken at face value, these first couple pages aren't that bad - they get things mostly right while dumbing it down for non-sciencey people to understand, but they leave things more open-ended than they should). They they make a fatal error on page 7 - no one has said the universe comes from nothing. They have built a strawman. Worse, your so-called "evidence" that there is so much of doesn't exist in there. After they're done talking about the evidence for the Big Bang itself it's all philosophical hypothesizing, which does no one any good. No radiometrics, no measurements, just "we don't know what happened before this point, so GODTM". It doesn't even touch on anything "outside this universe" aside from "GODTM" and certainly provides nothing to support itself on this matter.

   You either do not know what evidence is, or your barely skimmed the article. Neither does anyone any good.

Quote
We have a lot of scientific evidence to state, that the universe began with the Big Bang. That is the relevant point.


   Correction; we have a lot of scientific evidence that the universe's current form originates at the Big Bang. This says nothing of its previous form, which the scientific evidence shows to be a singularity; similar to (although different from) a black hole.

Quote
Quote
Therefore, your belief that there was a cause which was "timeless, beginningless, eternal, spaceless, transcendent, invisible, personal, and incredibly powerful" is, again, speculation.

Its a logical deduction based on scientific evidence.

   Scientific evidence that has been at best hypothesized about - at worst outright made up. And then you go and ignore all the other possibilities that still aren't ruled out because you like your idea the best.

Quote
stop asking for proofs. They are irrelevant, since there are none , either in regard to claim, God does exist, or he does not.


   If you cannot provide "proofs", then what value are you giving? Proof is how we determine truth. Proof is the combination of evidence and logic. You keep claiming both, but what you claim to be evidence is nothing but poorly-substantiated logic. What you claim to be logic is more akin to wishful thinking.

Quote
We can ONLY speculate. You too. So its reasonable to ask, which scenario makes most sense , based on the evidence we have on hand. What is yours ?

   This is another mistake I am tired of seeing you make. If you can't get a better scenario you refuse to abandon your own poorly-substantiated one. That's not how it works. There is a question to which we do not have an answer, but you give an answer anyway.

   An example; lets say I have a box. You've never seen this box before; but I ask you "What is in the box?"
The rational response is to say "I don't know, why don't we open the box and find out?"
What you're actually doing is trying to say the box holds an elephant when the only possible evidence to show that is the fact that the box itself is grey (ie., a tenuous connection at absolute best, and a nonexistent one in all other cases), and unless I give an better alternate, you will continue to say the box holds an elephant.

Quote
Quote
The same goes for your argument about the fine-tuning of the universe.  The fact that we call it fine-tuning does not mean it was done by some intelligence.

Your alternatives are chance, or physical necessity. Pick your choice.....


   False dilemma fallacy, but ignoring that; even with the choices, chance doesn't seem particularly bad.

   The are a few hundred factors and hundreds of billions of planets (chances) to get it right? I'd take those odds any day.
If a man wins a lottery, was the lottery designed for that man to win? Or perhaps a more accurate comparison; was the man designed to win the lottery? Of course not; there existed a chance to win and someone got lucky. Same with the planets.

---
I think that's enough for right now.
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6879
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #387 on: October 25, 2011, 04:08:40 PM »
That fine-tuning crap just scorches my oatmeal. If the earth was not just the most perfect place, why we would not be able to be here. Yeah. And if my aunt had a willie she'd be my uncle. If the earth was different, we would be different!

Life on earth takes so many varied forms, from organisms that can survive even if frozen solid to others that can live at boiling temperatures. Some live at the ocean floor and never need to see the sun or light at all, others can survive without oxygen. Numerous life forms have to live in or on another life form as symbyotes or parasites. Other life forms depend on the life cycle of another life form to exist, like plants that need to have their fruit eaten by birds so the seeds can get excreted.

Given all of that, I think it is pretty ludicrous to posit that only earth is "fine-tuned" for life.[1] It's certainly not fine-tuned for humans, who can only live on a tiny part of the earth without freezing, burning, or drowning. We are rather delicate, given the finely-tuness of the earth. If everywhere on earth was 78 degrees year round, with rain only at night, maybe I'd be willing to lean towards fine-tuning....

Pretty silly to think that there is not any other planet out there that has some form of life, anerobic or dark and cold-loving or whatever. It's even sillier to think that the entire massive universe was created by some being just for little 'ol human beings.

When we do encounter other life that is not from or of earth, what will the Christians do with their fine-tuning argument then? Decide that the anaerobic bacterial life that exists on rocks from Alpha Centauri need Mr. Jehovah God to feel fulfilled?

Oh yeah, if it was not for reading the words of Mr. Jehovah God, humans would just not know how to behave at all. That is why there are no laws or rules or morality in India, Japan or Thailand. Any place that is not Christian is just a cannibalistic Mad Max-style hellhole. Nobody in any other culture knows how to live in a human community. Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, animists don't know how to form friendships, raise kids, get married or even share a meal.  They can't exchange greetings without killing each other with their bare hands. Nobody but Christians ever does anything generous or kind.

What a bunch of arrogant culturally-ignorant ethnocentric rot. Is this Godexists guy living permanently in some isolated Catholic Spanish village in the year 1500? Has he ever had an anthropology class? Does he ever leave the house?  :?
 1. Maybe fine tuned for roaches, rats, insects, viruses and bacteria, all of whom can live almost anywhere. Thanks, Mr. God!
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1370
  • Darwins +41/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #388 on: October 25, 2011, 04:53:32 PM »
^^^ I know, life forms where????

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111024165037.htm

What is the purpose of life this far below sea level that is utterly uninhabital to humans and virtually every other species known to man...  It would seem obvious this points more towards evolution than anything else, especially supernatural answers (although this is amazing in and of itself).  Humans cannot live this far below sea level without modern technology so what is the purpose of this life one must ask....?
« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 05:04:54 PM by DVZ3 »
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5071
  • Darwins +585/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #389 on: October 25, 2011, 05:17:27 PM »
To avoid ending up with posts that are longer than 30,000 characters and consist of several pages, I will not be quoting each segment of Godexists's post and then responding to them.  While I will respond to the whole post, it is both quicker and easier for me to not focus on individual quoted statements unless it's necessary to, and it lets me write a more cohesive post.

Regarding the nature of time.  There is no reason whatsoever to assume that time has to have had a Beginning simply because we perceive time as a sequence of segments.  A plain old number line[1] is a sequence of segments, one that has neither a beginning nor an end.  So it simply makes no sense to state that time will never end, but that it had to have a beginning because you can count backwards in increments.  I can count forever and never get to the largest integer; I can count backwards forever in equal increments and never get to the smallest integer.  The simple fact is that there's no way to actually know how time actually worked before the Big Bang.

Your statement that scientific evidence leads us to the belief that there had to be a beginning to time and space is simply wrong.  There is no evidence for anything before the Big Bang.  Whatever might have come before is basically a big question mark...and that's why it's speculation to say it was definitely such-and-such or so-and-so.  And as for the site you linked to, I just got on jtp56 for linking to something without making it clear where to look for the actual information you were talking about.  Furthermore, their actual 'evidence' is nothing more than the same statement that the Big Bang theory implies that 'everything' came from nothing that you have been making all along.  It implies no such thing; it states that we can infer backwards to a point in time at which everything in the universe was contained in a super-dense, super-hot, and super-small point.  Claiming that it winked into existence out of nothing is not supported by the evidence, because there is no evidence before a certain point in time.  Making a claim about something that occurred before that point in time is nothing but pure speculation, and it doesn't matter what particular claim one expounds on.

Regarding your "prime cause", you are presenting a statement of logic.  Except you are basing that logic on speculative reasoning.  Logic is no more valid than its premise; if the premise is speculative, the logic is as well.  And that is all that needs to be said here.  Unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you have verifiable evidence about the time preceding the Planck epoch, anything you say about it is pure speculation.

stop asking for proofs. They are irrelevant, since there are none , either in regard to claim, God does exist, or he does not.
I'll stop asking for evidence when you stop trying to claim that you know the most reasonable scenario despite your admission that there is no evidence.  You said we all speculate...so what?  I never claimed otherwise.  But the fact is that it is impossible to come up with the most reasonable scenario when we have no evidence before a certain point in time.  As I said, reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder when we're talking about speculation.

Why should I have to pick an alternative when I don't have enough information to make a reasoned choice?  That's exactly what I've been criticizing!  Sometimes, there's nothing to do but say, "I don't know, when I get more information, then I might know."  I don't mind speculating about possibilities, but there's no real reason to try to say that one possibility is more reasonable than another when we're talking about an event like the Big Bang.  I forget who said it (Einstein maybe), but the universe is not only stranger than we think it is, it is stranger than we can imagine it being.

Regarding evolution, sure, biological evolution began with the first living beings.  It would be quite silly to apply biological evolution to a non-biological system.  But evolution simply describes a system of some kind changing based on physical laws.  We talk about the evolution of the sun, of the solar system, etc...but that doesn't mean that the sun or the solar system or anything else is necessarily alive.

As regards your link to that reasons.org site, you didn't pull all of your quote from the page you linked.  I guess it's from the same site, though.  Anyway, the page you linked simply took a whole lot of arbitrary values based on results from dozens of other sources and threw them together in an arbitrary probability calculation.  It's put together better than what most creationists use, but that doesn't make it accurate or factual in and of itself.  Was that calculation peer-reviewed by scientists who were not inclined to accept the validity of it?  Honestly, it really seems more like those values were just plugging numbers in based on stuff that sounded reasonable.  More importantly, how do we know what the 'probability' of those things occurring is?  That's the real question that needs to be asked here.

I didn't say the term "fine-tuning" was used exclusively by creationists.  But when scientists use the term, they tend to mean that the theoretical models have to be adjusted very carefully[2] to account for reality.  When creationists use it, they tend to mean that the constants themselves were adjusted very carefully.  There's nothing to show that the constants themselves can be arbitrarily changed, let alone fine-tuned.  In other words, there's no need to explain "fine-tuning" of the universe's physical constants by chance, physical necessity, God, or anything else.

You claim that abiogenesis is a failed theory, and also that panspermia is a failed theory.  But you give no evidence to show that this is the case at all, except to say that they don't adequately explain the origins of life on Earth; instead, you claim that abiogenesis requires intelligent intervention, again without evidence.  If you do not provide evidence to prove that these theories are 'failed' and cannot explain things at all, then you cannot expect other people to believe you.  The same thing applies for your statement that chance is incapable of generating DNA code.  Your quote is yet another attempt to 'prove' that something didn't happen by doing an arbitrary calculation of odds to show that it is extremely improbable, except that anything can be shown to be improbable if you manipulate the statistics enough.

Life on Earth has shown a definite and clear tendency to move from less complex to more complex.  Therefore, almost certainly, the original forms of life on Earth did not need to be as complex as those that exist now.  It makes no sense whatsoever to postulate that the first organisms on Earth were as complicated in terms of DNA as those that exist now.  It also makes no sense whatsoever to postulate that the only way something like a gene could form without "intelligent intervention" is for all the DNA of that gene to come together all at once.

Regarding information, I already said that it was not the same thing as matter.  Information is a description; it can be used to describe things that don't exist.  Therefore, it isn't matter.  But the fact that it isn't matter doesn't make it spiritual.  Otherwise, every description of everything would have to be spiritual, because descriptions are not material in and of themselves.

I know that humans didn't start out with a very well-developed sense of morality because earlier human civilizations were not especially moral in nature, since laws were invented to help govern the behavior of those civilizations.  If everyone believes murder is wrong, why would anyone need to make a law outlawing murder?  People only feel guilt about something if they believe that something happens to be wrong.  This tendency not to feel guilt unless one believes something is wrong is even shown in the Bible; the ancient Hebrews had no problems with slaughtering the Canaanites in job lots because they believed they were right to do so.  That not only undercuts the idea of absolute morality, it demolishes it.

I never said that there weren't people today who were willing to do whatever they wanted and didn't care about what it cost anyone else.  It's only been a few thousand years since the beginnings of real human civilization, and it would be ludicrous to expect that all the flaws inherent in the human psyche could be expunged over that period of time without a deliberate, concerted effort to do so.  The difference is, older human civilizations tended to condone much worse behavior, even within the civilization itself, than most modern civilizations would be willing to put up with.

Finally, just what makes you think there are no consequences for people who break or manipulate the rules that society lives by?  There's lots of consequences, including death.  And if there's no afterlife, death is very final.  Part of the reason people tend to want to believe in an afterlife is because of how terrifying the cessation of existence can be.  Now, think it through; if someone believes that once they're dead, they're gone forever, then how can they use death to escape from punishment?  In that case, death is the worst punishment possible, because it's oblivion.  Who in their right mind would seek to 'escape' a non-lethal punishment by terminating all of their future existence?  That would be like 'escaping' a fine by burning all your money.

I suppose someone could argue that stealing, lying, cheating, murder, etc, against members of the community are all virtues, and try to make a society based on that.  But 'try' is the operative word.  Such a society could not sustain itself for any amount of time[3], because there would be no reason for anyone to work together to accomplish anything, and that's what societies do.  People who could not tolerate such a society would quickly leave to find other societies that actually worked, and there wouldn't be enough who could to make it a workable society.  Hitler, Stalin, etc, were wrong, because their societies ultimately didn't work; they collapsed under their own weight because they tried to subordinate other societies to them, which failed because those other societies didn't accept being subordinated.  That's all that needs to be said about that.

Quote
You say that an atheist should blithely accept someone who wants to murder them and their family because you think that atheism is about saying nothing is wrong;
I don't say, atheism says that. I am saying, that if God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
Okay, first off, you are making a statement about atheism.  That means you are saying it; the fact that you say you are not saying it is meaningless, because if you were not saying it, you would not have said it.  Second, you are not an atheist.  Your statement about what atheism 'says' is no different than a non-Christian accusing Christians of ritual cannibalism because of the sacrament of communion.  Third, you do not have the right to dictate what other people really believe, anymore than they have the right to dictate what you really believe.  Fourth, objective morality does not need to exist in order for morality to exist.
 1. Credit to Belial for the idea.
 2. fine-tuned
 3. unless it acted to restrict the exercise of those 'virtues', such as by restricting it to outside the community

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6879
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #390 on: October 25, 2011, 05:20:05 PM »
^^^ I know, life forms where????

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111024165037.htm

What is the purpose of life this far below sea level that is utterly uninhabital to humans and virtually every other species known to man...  It would seem obvious this points more towards evolution than anything else, especially supernatural answers (although this is amazing in and of itself).  Humans cannot live this far below sea level without modern technology so what is the purpose of this life one must ask....?

And an even more important point: how did Noah get them onto the Ark? :?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Babdah

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
  • Darwins +4/-3
  • “We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #391 on: October 25, 2011, 06:17:39 PM »
Think about it, how can something be created out of nothing? It can't. There has to be some form of life or matter for something to be made. For me, God making the universe is easier to believe and think about rather than everything to be created one day just at random. It's mainly most of the scientists and athiests who believe this. God made science and he can just as well take it away too. I know there are going to be non-believers and others who are going to try to take pieces of what I just typed and turn it into something that makes me sound foolish. So please dont do that because it will make you look foolish as well.

To the OP, The big Bang is just a theory, a provisional at that just like the origins of life. god was an excuse that the ancients came up with to explain away things that they were to incompetent to figure out for them selves.

hell the bible even talks about a ancient flying thing, is god just an alien.   ;)
« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 06:35:27 PM by Babdah »
“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

Online 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4658
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #392 on: October 25, 2011, 11:59:32 PM »
^^^ I know, life forms where????

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111024165037.htm

What is the purpose of life this far below sea level that is utterly uninhabital to humans and virtually every other species known to man...  It would seem obvious this points more towards evolution than anything else, especially supernatural answers (although this is amazing in and of itself).  Humans cannot live this far below sea level without modern technology so what is the purpose of this life one must ask....?

And an even more important point: how did Noah get them onto the Ark? :?
Silly,Noah did not have to because they could live in the water.......and the world was covered in it
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #393 on: October 26, 2011, 08:35:10 AM »
^^^ I know, life forms where????

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111024165037.htm

What is the purpose of life this far below sea level that is utterly uninhabital to humans and virtually every other species known to man...  It would seem obvious this points more towards evolution than anything else, especially supernatural answers (although this is amazing in and of itself).  Humans cannot live this far below sea level without modern technology so what is the purpose of this life one must ask....?

And an even more important point: how did Noah get them onto the Ark? :?
Silly,Noah did not have to because they could live in the water.......and the world was covered in it

Let's also look at another aspect that no one seems to address. Why no other boats, Weren't there anybody else on a boat? Nobody would know there was a flood coming, but at least some people would have boats and preserved food. Even a decent covered fishing boat, there'd be no shortage of fresh water, and they could fish to feed themselves.

« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 09:25:20 AM by Hatter23 »
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5071
  • Darwins +585/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #394 on: October 26, 2011, 08:49:18 AM »
Let's also look at another aspect that no one seems to address. Why no other boats, Weren't there anybody else on a boat? Nobody would no there was a flood coming, but at least some people would have boats and preserved food. Even a decent covered fishing boat, there'd be no shortage of fresh water, and they could fish to feed themselves.
Good point.  I wonder if this falls into an "emperor without clothes" category?

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #395 on: October 26, 2011, 08:54:31 AM »
Another question about the flood I always wondered about. Mountain tops. Does the story suggest that water covered every centimeter of earth? Where the highest mountain tops also submerged? If so, then where did all that water go?
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #396 on: October 26, 2011, 09:17:36 AM »
Another question about the flood I always wondered about. Mountain tops. Does the story suggest that water covered every centimeter of earth? Where the highest mountain tops also submerged? If so, then where did all that water go?

Quote
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.

or an alternate

Quote
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose more than fifteen cubits, and the mountains were covered.

so all of the mountains were totally covered, in either case.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #397 on: October 26, 2011, 10:00:38 AM »
Quote
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.

or an alternate

Quote
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose more than fifteen cubits, and the mountains were covered.

Attention to bold. In the first version it sounds like the water was 15 cubits higher than the highest mountain top. In the second example it sounds like the water rose more than 15 cubits (how much more?) to cover the mountains. As if to say that the highest mountain was less than 15 cubits? Considering the ark was 300 cubits, biblical scholars should be looking for whole mountain ranges instead of a fairly large boat. Savvy?

I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #398 on: October 26, 2011, 11:14:34 AM »
Quote
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.

or an alternate

Quote
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose more than fifteen cubits, and the mountains were covered.

Attention to bold. In the first version it sounds like the water was 15 cubits higher than the highest mountain top. In the second example it sounds like the water rose more than 15 cubits (how much more?) to cover the mountains. As if to say that the highest mountain was less than 15 cubits? Considering the ark was 300 cubits, biblical scholars should be looking for whole mountain ranges instead of a fairly large boat. Savvy?

It could be that the writer wated to indicate that the water actually only rose 15 cubits from the ground while at the same time wanted to emphasize that it rained so much and so hard that even the mountain peaks were covered with rain water.
My guess, a localized regional flood where water rose no higher thab 27 feet above sea level.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #399 on: October 26, 2011, 11:23:15 AM »
Regarding the nature of time.  There is no reason whatsoever to assume that time has to have had a Beginning simply because we perceive time as a sequence of segments.


Fact is however, that we could never reach now, starting to count from eternity.

http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Religious_Studies/Phil_of_Rel/God/kalam_cosmological_craig.php

Quote
'Suppose we meet a man who claims to have been counting from eternity and is now finishing: ..., -3, -2, -1, 0. We could ask, why did he not finish counting yesterday or the day before or the year before? By then an infinite time had already elapsed, so that he should have finished by then. Thus, at no point in the infinite past could we ever find the man finishing his countdown, for by that point he should have already be done! In fact, no matter how far back into the past we go, we can never find the man counting at all, for at any point we reach he will have already finished. But if at no point in the past do we find him counting this contradicts the hypothesis that he has been counting from eternity. This illustrates the fact that the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition is equally impossible whether one proceeds to or from infinity.'

Quote
The simple fact is that there's no way to actually know how time actually worked before the Big Bang.

The big bang theory states that there was no time before the big bang.

Quote
Your statement that scientific evidence leads us to the belief that there had to be a beginning to time and space is simply wrong.

you should tell that to the scientific community, not me. And see what they answer you.......

Quote
There is no evidence for anything before the Big Bang.  Whatever might have come before is basically a big question mark...

Nontheless, the Standard Big Bang theory states, that time, matter, and space, began with the Big Bang. You have no way to get away from that.

Quote
and that's why it's speculation to say it was definitely such-and-such or so-and-so.

Well, we do that on the premise, everything physical began with the Big Bang. That is a solid ground, to make philosophical statements.



 
Quote
And as for the site you linked to, I just got on jtp56 for linking to something without making it clear where to look for the actual information you were talking about.  Furthermore, their actual 'evidence' is nothing more than the same statement that the Big Bang theory implies that 'everything' came from nothing that you have been making all along.  It implies no such thing; it states that we can infer backwards to a point in time at which everything in the universe was contained in a super-dense, super-hot, and super-small point.  Claiming that it winked into existence out of nothing is not supported by the evidence, because there is no evidence before a certain point in time.

There is evidence everything physical began with the Big Bang. What about that do you not understand ? Do you want me to point out the scientific reasons to come to that conclusion ?
I think that should actually be YOUR homework, to begin with.

 
Quote
Making a claim about something that occurred before that point in time is nothing but pure speculation, and it doesn't matter what particular claim one expounds on.

Its pure logical reasoning. You can only negate the presented facts out of your wish not to deduce God, but it has no rational ground.

Quote
Regarding your "prime cause", you are presenting a statement of logic.  Except you are basing that logic on speculative reasoning.

NO, i do it based on hard, scientific evidence, which is supported by the big majority os scientists worldwide.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html

Quote
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time
"Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago." Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University
"As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other." CalTech
"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University
"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan
"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan
"The present location and velocities of galaxies are a result of a primordial blast known as the BIG BANG. It marked: THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE! THE BEGINNING OF TIME!" Terry Herter, Cornell University
"That radiation is residual heat from the Big Bang, the event that sparked the beginning of the universe some 13 billion years ago." Craig Hogan, University of Washington
"Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950." University of Illinois
"The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old (it evolves in time)." Nilakshi Veerabathina, Georgia State University ()
"The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something." Janna Levin, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University
"Today scientists generally believe the universe was created in a violent explosion called the Big Bang." Susan Terebey, Department of Physics and Astronomy, California State University Los Angeles
"Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity." Stephen T. Abedon, Ohio State University
"A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 15 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles. There is, in fact, no evidence that any of the particles of matter with which we are now familiar existed before this great event." Louis J. Clavelli, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Alabama
"Now, after decades of observing and thinking, we have come to answer confidently the question of the origin of our universe... with what is known as the "big bang"." Yuki D. Takahashi, Caltech
"The theory is the conceptual and the calculational tool used by particle physicists to describe the structure of the hadrons and the beginning of the universe." Keh-Fei Liu, University of Kentucky.
"The three-part lecture series includes: "How the Universe Began," "The Dark Side of the Universe: Dark Matter and Dark Energy" and "Cosmic Inflation: The Dynamite Behind the Big Bang?" (Lectures by Michael S. Turner, Bruce V. and Diana M. Rauner at Penn State University)
"Travel back in time to the beginning of the Universe: The Big Bang" Douglas Miller, University of Arizona
"Beginning of the Universe 20.0 billion yr ago" Charly Mallery, University of Miami
"At the beginning the universe was extremely hot and dense (more about this later) and as it expanded it cooled." Syracuse University
"THE UNIVERSE AND ALL OF SPACE ARE EXPANDING FROM A BIG BANG BEGINNING" Center for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago
"Gamow realized that at a point a few minutes after its beginning, the universe would behave as a giant nuclear reactor." Valparaiso University, Department of Physics and Astronomy
"I'll also include what the time is since the creation of the Universe, and an estimate of the temperature of the Universe at each point." Siobahn M. Morgan, University of Northern Iowa.
"The Universe is thought to have formed between 6-20 billion years ago (Ga) as a result of the "Big Bang" Kevin P. Hefferan, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
"The dominant idea of Cosmology is that the Universe had a beginning." Adam Frank, University of Rochester Department of Physics & Astronomy
"The hot dense phase is generally regarded as the beginning of the universe, and the time since the beginning is, by definition, the age of the universe." Harrison B. Prosper, Florida State University
"One of the major hypotheses on which modern cosmology is based is that the Universe originated in an explosion called the Big Bang, in which all energy (and matter) that exists today was created." Eric S. Rowland, UC Santa Cruz
"Together with Roger Penrose, I developed a new set of mathematical techniques, for dealing with this and similar problems. We showed that if General Relativity was correct, any reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God." Stephen W. Hawking "Origin of the Universe" lecture

Quote
Regarding evolution, sure, biological evolution began with the first living beings.  It would be quite silly to apply biological evolution to a non-biological system.  But evolution simply describes a system of some kind changing based on physical laws.

And these physical laws must exist , in first place. How did they came to be ? why do they exist, after all ?

Quote
As regards your link to that reasons.org site, you didn't pull all of your quote from the page you linked.  I guess it's from the same site, though.  Anyway, the page you linked simply took a whole lot of arbitrary values based on results from dozens of other sources and threw them together in an arbitrary probability calculation.  It's put together better than what most creationists use, but that doesn't make it accurate or factual in and of itself.

These numbers where not calculated by Hugh Ross alone, but by many secular scientists as  well. There is no doubt in the scientific community that our universe is finely tuned to the extreme. Thats why many atheists, like Dawkins, see the need of escape, to propose the multiverse scenario. On of the many other desperate attempts to deny God.

Quote
Was that calculation peer-reviewed by scientists who were not inclined to accept the validity of it?

Again, you should really make your homework first, before questioning something that is granted widely,  without dispute at all.

http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/fine-tuning-the-multiverse-theory.htm

Quote
Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p.125.

The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life… It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at their beauty.


George Ellis
(British astrophysicist)
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”


Paul Davies
(British astrophysicist)
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”


Alan Sandage
(winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

John O'Keefe
(NASA astronomer)
“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”


George Greenstein
(astronomer)
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”


Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”


Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”


Roger Penrose
(mathematician and author)
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”


Tony Rothman
(physicist)
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”


Vera Kistiakowsky
(MIT physicist)
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”


Stephen Hawking
(British astrophysicist)
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? …

Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?”


Alexander Polyakov
(Soviet mathematician)
“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”


Ed Harrison
(cosmologist)
“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”


Edward Milne
(British cosmologist)
“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”


Barry Parker
(cosmologist)
“Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”


Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel
(cosmologists)
“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”


Arthur L. Schawlow
(Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics)
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”


Henry "Fritz" Schaefer
(computational quantum chemist)
“The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”


Wernher von Braun
(Pioneer rocket engineer)
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”


Quote
I didn't say the term "fine-tuning" was used exclusively by creationists.  But when scientists use the term, they tend to mean that the theoretical models have to be adjusted very carefully[1] to account for reality.
 1. fine-tuned

completely wrong. what they do mean, is that the actual numbers are in a tiny , very limited physical range to permit the universe to exist, and even more, life. If these values where a fraction different, we would not exist.

 
Quote
When creationists use it, they tend to mean that the constants themselves were adjusted very carefully.


Thats what science says, not creationists inventing.....


Quote
There's nothing to show that the constants themselves can be arbitrarily changed, let alone fine-tuned.

So the sun could not be more distant from the earth, and so the moon from the earth, and so the distance of the sun from the center of our galaxy ???? The crust of the earth could not have a different size, and the mix of gases in our atmosphere could not be different ? How then are there billions of stars and planets with other values, and not life permitting ? your argument is truly flawed.

 
Quote
In other words, there's no need to explain "fine-tuning" of the universe's physical constants by chance, physical necessity, God, or anything else.

you really need to educate yourself better.

Quote
  But you give no evidence to show that this is the case at all

are you not reading what i quoted ? I'll not repeat it again.


Quote
except to say that they don't adequately explain the origins of life on Earth; instead, you claim that abiogenesis requires intelligent intervention, again without evidence.


the evidence has been given to you. Starting to ignore what i write will do only one thing : show your bias, and in the end show that its not your wish to find the truth, but only to find a confirmation about your beliefs, irrelevant, how irrational they are. I guess i am wasting my time , answering you......

 

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #400 on: October 26, 2011, 11:27:25 AM »
It could be that the writer wated to indicate that the water actually only rose 15 cubits from the ground while at the same time wanted to emphasize that it rained so much and so hard that even the mountain peaks were covered with rain water.
My guess, a localized regional flood where water rose no higher thab 27 feet above sea level.

I saw an episode of the History channel that explored that theory. As far as reality goes, that one makes the most sense. But you get the extreme literalistic sort of Christians who do not allow for any common sense explanations whatsoever and those are the ones who are held up by other intolerant types as the example or mold that all Christians MUST have been cast in. It's the teetotalers that get me all flummoxed, doesn't make a difference what point of view they are championing...people who deal in absolutes bug me. 
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5071
  • Darwins +585/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #401 on: October 26, 2011, 04:20:17 PM »
Godexists:

Regarding the nature of time.  There is no reason whatsoever to assume that time has to have had a Beginning simply because we perceive time as a sequence of segments.

Fact is however, that we could never reach now, starting to count from eternity.
You've said this and said this, and it's no more convincing now than it was the very first time you said it.  Are you not understanding that if a person does not accept your reasoning, you will not be able to convince them to accept it by simply repeating it ad nauseum?  Your argument is fundamentally the same as one of the Zeno paradoxes, which argues that it's impossible to get to any place because you first have to cover half the distance, then half the remaining distance, and so on[1].  What is impossible using pure numbers is eminently possible in reality.  You have to come up with a better argument than parroting a mathematical paradox and claiming that it establishes your belief as a fact.

The big bang theory states that there was no time before the big bang.
Again, you've said this repeatedly.  It is no more true now than it was the first time you said it, whether you're talking about time, space, energy, matter, or whatever.  You're just saying it and saying it, without providing the proof that would show you are correct (that there was no such thing as time before the Big Bang).  And when I demand such proof, you tell me that I should stop asking for proof (because there isn't any), or that I should ask the scientific community instead of you even though you're the one telling me that it does this.

If you say something like this, you have to show the evidence that led you to this conclusion.  And I don't mean some ID model which purports to be the truth.  I mean actual evidence that can be observed and verified by scientists.  If you can't show me the evidence, you give me no reason to accept your conclusion.  Saying that it's the "most reasonable" doesn't matter; the fact that something seems reasonable does not make it true.  There is no solid ground to make any philosophical statements.  At all.

So don't try to tell me that I should go do 'homework' because I don't agree with your conclusion that everything that exists in the universe didn't exist before the Big Bang.  I don't buy into your "ex nihilo"[2] philosophical statement for the same reason that I don't buy into any of your other philosophical statements, because they presume that you know what happened because that model is necessary to validate your religious beliefs.  Except you don't know, and you've admitted you don't have scientific proof for it.  So why should anyone be obligated to accept it if they don't share those same beliefs?  The only thing you've done is guarantee that you won't convince anyone unless they accept your emotional argument first.

Its pure logical reasoning. You can only negate the presented facts out of your wish not to deduce God, but it has no rational ground.
The fact that you can take an irrational premise and apply logic to it does not make the conclusion rational.  And there is no point to accusing me of wishing not to deduce God, which amounts to an accusation of bias.  I'm not trying to deduce God, or not deduce God, when it comes to science.  I'm just following where the evidence leads.  And the evidence explicitly does not lead where you think it should, because it doesn't lead anywhere, because there is no evidence before a certain point in time.

As for your long list of quotes from various scientists, that's quote mining.  You aren't presenting their arguments, you're presenting various statements they made.  The fact that they made these statements doesn't prove a thing in and of itself.  Even the ones that have good arguments to back up their statements will admit if asked that they don't know for sure[3].  So what you're in effect saying is, "all of these people think the universe began with the Big Bang, so my statement that there was nothing before the Big Bang is validated".  And that is not true.  If they are speculating, and you're basing your own speculation on their speculation, it's still speculation.  The same goes for your quote-mining of statements that either imply or explicitly state that some scientist believes God is responsible for the universe.  An opinion cannot be anything but an opinion without verifiable evidence to support it.  And nobody - not you, not anyone - has that verifiable evidence.

Regarding fine-tuning, I already stated quite clearly that the fine-tuning refers to the theoretical models that scientists come up with, not that someone was tinkering with scientific laws to make them fit exactly the values we happen to need.  You claimed my statement is wrong because the values of the physical constants fall within the parameters we need in order to exist.  Except that is not a valid argument in favor of the universe having been fine-tuned.  It is nothing more than a statement that the values of the physical constants are what they are.  We don't know what the relationship between those physical constants might be.  Your argument[4] depends on those physical constants being unrelated and separate from each other, so that if one changes, the others all stay the same, thus it's either a gargantuan coincidence or something intentionally set it up that way.

But nobody can say whether those physical constants are in fact as unrelated as you think they are.  They might very well be derived from and dependent on each other in ways we aren't aware of.  And if they are all dependent on each other, then it never was a matter of an extremely improbable coincidence for them to be the way they are.  It could easily have just been that way, and that the physical laws of the universe all derived directly from a unified force/law during the Planck epoch right after the Big Bang for the same reason.

There's nothing to show that the constants themselves can be arbitrarily changed, let alone fine-tuned.
So the sun could not be more distant from the earth, and so the moon from the earth, and so the distance of the sun from the center of our galaxy ???? The crust of the earth could not have a different size, and the mix of gases in our atmosphere could not be different ? How then are there billions of stars and planets with other values, and not life permitting ? your argument is truly flawed.
I was talking about the physical constants of the universe; I even said 'constants' in the sentence that you quoted.  How is the distance at which an object orbits another object a physical constant?  How is the consistency and thickness of a planetary crust a physical constant?  Constants are like the four forces (gravity, electromagnetism, and the two nuclear forces).  So you either misunderstood or misrepresented me here.  Either way, your rebuttal has nothing to do with what I actually said.

you really need to educate yourself better.
No, you need to stop claiming that I don't understand what I am talking about just because I disagree with you.

the evidence has been given to you. Starting to ignore what i write will do only one thing : show your bias, and in the end show that its not your wish to find the truth, but only to find a confirmation about your beliefs, irrelevant, how irrational they are. I guess i am wasting my time , answering you......
You also need to stop trying to suggest that bias is the only reason I could be disagreeing with you.  Understand this, if you understand nothing else; people can and do disagree about things without 'bias' being the reason for it.

You've given me what you call evidence, but what it actually is, is a whole lot of speculative reasoning, speculative calculations, and speculative logic.  Now, I don't have a problem with you, or anyone, speculating about stuff like this.  What I have a problem with is you claiming that your speculative answer is the most reasonable and thus has to be correct, and anyone who disagrees must be biased and only trying to confirm their own beliefs.  Because that is one of the most pointless ways to argue your case.
 1. In essence, it's impossible to reach the number 0 by dividing a number by 2 repeatedly.
 2. except for God
 3. and if they aren't willing to admit it, then it begs the question of why they haven't shown the evidence so far
 4. and the calculations you cited
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 04:47:16 PM by jaimehlers »

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6879
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #402 on: October 26, 2011, 04:55:00 PM »
^^^ I know, life forms where????

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111024165037.htm

What is the purpose of life this far below sea level that is utterly uninhabital to humans and virtually every other species known to man...  It would seem obvious this points more towards evolution than anything else, especially supernatural answers (although this is amazing in and of itself).  Humans cannot live this far below sea level without modern technology so what is the purpose of this life one must ask....?

And an even more important point: how did Noah get them onto the Ark? :?
Silly,Noah did not have to because they could live in the water.......and the world was covered in it
Not fair! How did sea creatures get the free pass from god's holy wrath? I know there just had to be some evil anemones and coral and diatoms down in that water. I mean if all the cute baby koala bears and baby pandas were so horribly full of sin that they had to go, why save anything? :P
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #403 on: October 26, 2011, 05:44:51 PM »
Godexists,

The Big Bang Theory does NOT have any opinion of what happened 'before' the BB or even if the concept 'before' is meaningfull.
Scientists using observations and mathematics can extrapolate the existence of the universe (and its nature) backwards in time right until the Planck epochWiki

The BBT uses the idea that 'time itself started' as a mathematical construct in order to make the model work.

The BBT does not concern itself with the philosophical implications of if there was a 'before' it just says for the purposes of the model time started just before the Planck epoch.

Just as Einstein's theories do not explain the microscopic world very well  Quantum Theory does not allow for gravity.

Also Theory of Evolution does NOT include abiogenisis despite the strawman created by many theists.

Science goes where observations and mathematics leads it and at the moment it cannot go backwards in time past the Planck era singularity.

SCIENCE DOES NOT SAY 'The universe/mutiverse had a beginning' it just says we cannot as yet describe anything that may have existed before the known universe. Any speculation would not be based on any evidence at all.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 07:11:54 PM by jetson »
God(s) exist and are imaginary

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5071
  • Darwins +585/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #404 on: October 26, 2011, 07:18:18 PM »
An even simpler way of looking at it is to note that the BBT uses time to refer to the progression of the overall entropy of the universe.  It isn't so much saying that time began at the moment of the Big Bang, as it's saying there's no way to predict what time would have meant before then, since we have no idea what a negative entropy value might mean, or if something else happened instead.

Online 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4658
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #405 on: October 26, 2011, 07:21:47 PM »
GODEXITS....there are people smarter than you in here and out there just give up.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)