Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory?

I agree but it is also debatable because there could have been more then one big bang i think there were a few bangs and that is how our galaxies were formed. And the big bang theory is just the primary starting point of the existence of life and does not really help all that much cause it was billions of years ago vs our earth which is only a couple. That is a large gap in time. I wont debate with people on this subject that is just my view on it. huxion

Huh?

The big bang has... absolutely nothing to do with the formation of galaxies or with the existence of life.

The Big Bang is the expansion of the universe.. not its creation.CptJSparrow

Eventually, all the protons will evaporate and everything will fizzle out until it all reaches 0 degrees Kelvin.

It's harder to believe a big explosion made multiple beings perfectly compatible with one another, able to reproduce, and an enviroment by which they could survive in the best possible way, than it is to believe that a big man in the sky that we can't see made everything with his infinite knowledge. I don't agree with everything in the Christian religion, like going to church and baptism and confirmation into a church, but I certainly believe that God made everything.clash76-grunger

HOW did God make everything?

I want ONE single person to answer this question for me. So far, EVERYONE has failed. And that means, as far as explaining our origins, "creation science" or whatever the hell you want to call it fails in comparison to REAL science.

REAL science has a lot of unexplained properties attached to it, but it is pretty damn thorough. It explains the actual mechanism by which a hell of a lot of stuff actually HAPPENS, such as nuclear fusion, and natural selection due to mutations.

God doesn't explain ****. That doesn't mean that God isn't REAL, but god just plain doesn't explain ****.

If God created atoms such as gold and plutonium, there is absolutely NO theory describing the MECHANISM by which God did a single ****ing thing. Science gives us explanations for HOW stuff happened, appealing to God merely says "God did it...now don't ask how".

Again, let me reiterate...I am absolutely NOT stating that God does not exist. But God today is a "God of the Gaps". As in, when people choose supernatural explanations over natural explanations, they are choosing a convenient plot device that enables us to stop asking questions.

"Yeah, but HOW did God create the elements?"

"How DARE you question how God works? He works in mysterious ways, and all I need to tell you is that God had to have done it because science hasn't explained every single thing that can possibly be known in the entire universe."

Which is a load of crap. Because even when science is WRONG, scientists still try to explain HOW stuff happens. Science actually EXPLAINS things. God DOESN'T. Even if you believe that the big bang theories are all a lot of nonsense becaue they don't sufficiently explain how our universe is as it is, HOW is appealing to God any better? Can ANYONE describe to me the actual MEANS by which God has done ANYTHING, without that particular thing being something that could be explained as well or better by atheistic scientific explanations?

Don't tell me that science hasn't explained something. That just brings us back to something being completely unexplained. If you want to bring GOD into this, tell me HOW god did ANYTHING. Did God create the universe? Okay, HOW? Did God perform a miracle and remove your terminal cancer? Okay, HOW?

I agree but it is also debatable because there could have been more then one big bang i think there were a few bangs and that is how our galaxies were formed. And the big bang theory is just the primary starting point of the existence of life and does not really help all that much cause it was billions of years ago vs our earth which is only a couple. That is a large gap in time. I wont debate with people on this subject that is just my view on it. huxion

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]The Big Bang is the expansion of the universe.. not its creation.limpbizkit818

[QUOTE="Trmpt"]

That is what I thought you meant at first glance. What I explained in my immediate responce to #3 would require 32 different 4-dimensional universes which would be crazy even if they do exist. I used the idea of what the majority of people think when they define what a dimension actually is which i think would be that each dimension is its own universe. That is just one of the different definitions people think about when they hear the term "dimension". I just wrote a thought as to how that idea would probably work.

Also, for my idea to actually work, one universe on one "brane" containing 4 dimensions would have to be changed to one universe on each brane would have to contain 7-dimensions each, therefore making 4 different timelines for one universe. Taking into acount that every dimension after '4' just adds another timeline.

After thinking about it, if every dimension after the 3rd only adds time and nothing else that would mean that the 5th dimension would have to have its own 3rd, 2, and 1 dimension. ................Unless those extra dimensions of time somehow share the 3rd, 2, and 1 dimensions with eachother, which woulod make sense if they are "one" universe only with different timelines.

BumFluff122

Yeah I understood what you were saying.

And the bolded part kind of goes along with what I said towards the end of my last post with the exception that I didnt say that they are condensed to the point of not being visible. But what i said was that one brane which would have 4 extra dimensions of time would all share the same 1st, 2nd, and 3rd spacial dimensions. You kind of said what i said but in a reverse kind of way by saying that instead of having multiple dimensions of time you have multiple 1st, 2nd, and 3rd spacial dimensions all sharing just one dimension of time.

And where did the guy who wrote that book get the idea that there are 7 spacial dimensions that we cant see? I want to read that book. To have more dimensions that are of time only would be more logical as you cannot see time, only "experience" it, not sure if that was the right term to use but yeah. Im probably missing other information that is covered in the book but Im still kind of skeptical about that theory and some others.

We cant even see the 2nd 4th dimension that is located on the second brane ( and according to what I bolded above it is not condensed enough to NOT be visible) let alone think that there are multiple other 3rd, 2nd, and 1st dimensions, and all of this is sitting on 1 dimension of time btw.

What was the title of that book?

Yeah I understood what you were saying.

And the bolded part kind of goes along with what I said towards the end of my last post with the exception that I didnt say that they are condensed to the point of not being visible. But what i said was that one brane which would have 4 extra dimensions of time would all share the same 1st, 2nd, and 3rd spacial dimensions. You kind of said what i said but in a reverse kind of way by saying that instead of having multiple dimensions of time you have multiple 1st, 2nd, and 3rd spacial dimensions all sharing just one dimension of time.

And where did the guy who wrote that book get the idea that there are 7 spacial dimensions that we cant see? I want to read that book. To have more dimensions that are of time only would make more sense as you cannot see time, only "experience" it, not sure if that was the right term to use but yeah. Im probably missing other information that is covered in the book but Im still kind of skeptical about that theory and some others.

We cant even see the 2nd 4th dimension that is located on the second brane ( and according to what I bolded above it is not condensed enough to NOT be visible) let alone think that there are multiple other 3rd, 2nd, and 1st dimensions, and all of this is sitting on 1 dimension of time btw.

What was the title of that book?

Trmpt

[QUOTE="mayforcebeyou"]

So do you? A Christian priest made up the theory just to let you know.

MrGeezer

A christian once washed my car, but that didn't stop me from believing in soap.

Are you implying that people somehow believe in the big bang just because they want to stick it to the Christians?

And thats where I :lol:

Yes, there are atleast some evidence for its claims.

Look up M-Theory. Here is a link. It is an attempt to bring the numerous version of String Theory together to form one single theory. Ooops it's not by Bill Bryson. It's by Briane Green and it's called The Elegant Universe.

BumFluff122

Thanks I'll look into that book.

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]The Big Bang is the expansion of the universe.. not its creation.BumFluff122

It most certainly does state something about creation. That dense ball of matter does not have to be part of the theory; Big Bang explains how our universe formed from it. Hence, it explains the creation of our universe. I believe that the title of this book states its case well.

I would love to have a debate about Dark Energy and the such since I am very much entertained but the subject, but it's past 2 in the morning on the East Coast. I actually fell asleep for a little bit, hence the long reply time. I'll try to give you something to reply to:

Both of them most certainly do leave doubts about the BB. I thought the explosion is what caused the expansion? Now we learn that it may be a type of matter that is doing it? A matter that we do not know the particles it consists of? And if time and space can be stretched for galaxies to travel through, who is to say that our universe did not form is such a way? Or in a way still unexplainable with our current technology? Maybe a cyclic model would be more accurate? Things like the recently launched Planck satellite will help us answer more questions.

Red Shifts can also be called into question by the Compton Effect. Now don't get me wrong, the current theory may in fact be correct. That being said, I have a hard time standing behind it with our lack of knowledge on the subject. Plus I like to be a rebel :P

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Look up M-Theory. Here is a link. It is an attempt to bring the numerous version of String Theory together to form one single theory. Ooops it's not by Bill Bryson. It's by Briane Green and it's called The Elegant Universe.

Trmpt

Thanks I'll look into that book.

And once you finish The Elegant Universe, how about looking into this one?

It most certainly does state something about creation. That dense ball of matter does not have to be part of the theory; Big Bang explains how our universe formed from it. Hence, it explains the creation of our universe. I believe that the title of this book states its case well.

I would love to have a debate about Dark Energy and the such since I am very much entertained but the subject, but it's past 2 in the morning on the East Coast. I actually fell asleep for a little bit, hence the long reply time. I'll try to give you something to reply to:

Both of them most certainly do leave doubts about the BB. I thought the explosion is what caused the expansion? Now we learn that it may be a type of matter that is doing it? A matter that we do not know the particles it consists of? And if time and space can be stretched for galaxies to travel through, who is to say that our universe did not form is such a way? Or in a way still unexplainable with our current technology? Maybe a cyclic model would be more accurate? Things like the recently launched Planck satellite will help us answer more questions.

Red Shifts can also be called into question by the Compton Effect. Now don't get me wrong, the current theory may in fact be correct. That being said, I have a hard time standing behind it with our lack of knowledge on the subject. Plus I like to be a rebel :P

limpbizkit818

yup it makes tons of sense.

[QUOTE="Trmpt"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Look up M-Theory. Here is a link. It is an attempt to bring the numerous version of String Theory together to form one single theory. Ooops it's not by Bill Bryson. It's by Briane Green and it's called The Elegant Universe.

limpbizkit818

Thanks I'll look into that book.

And once you finish The Elegant Universe, how about looking into this one?

It's kinder than the similarly-titled book I read on the subject.xaos

From the title, that sounds more like a scientific paper than a book.

[QUOTE="Trmpt"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Look up M-Theory. Here is a link. It is an attempt to bring the numerous version of String Theory together to form one single theory. Ooops it's not by Bill Bryson. It's by Briane Green and it's called The Elegant Universe.

limpbizkit818

Thanks I'll look into that book.

And once you finish The Elegant Universe, how about looking into this one?

I'll look into that one too. With so many books written by writers stating a lot different theories as to why they think one particular theory is correct it is hard to really narrow them down by weeding out the ones that are clearly dismissible to the ones that actually have a chance at holding some truth. Trmpt

It most certainly does state something about creation.

limpbizkit818

Not really. All the big bang tries to state is that the known universe expanded from dense matter. It doesnt state what created the matter.

Exactly Both sides can use the idea 1. Religion = God said let there be life...and then big bang 2. Science says big bang created universe No way to know for sure...at least till death

yes, until a better theory is formulated & proven

I don't see why the whold God thing is so debated. I mean, a little over 2000 years ago there lived a man named Jesus Christ, the son of God. Isn't he enough proof for all of you.The Big Bang is just the scientific explanation behind God creating the universe.

Oh and to TheSoundSystem 2 posts above me. When we die all will be revealed. Heaven or Hell. That's it.

sure.

I don't see why the whold God thing is so debated. I mean, a little over 2000 years ago there lived a man named Jesus Christ, the son of God. Isn'the enough proof for all of you.The Big Bang is just the scientific explanation behing God creating the universe.

maverick_41

No. I believe we're all actually part of a huge computer simulation that is comprised of 3 dimensional beings, and our creators exist outside of our comprehension as 4 dimensional beings.

If anybody gets this reference, they get cookies.

Yep it's the best theory we have at the moment :)tofu-lion91

The big bang theory says that basically there was a tiny spec that exploded and all the planets and other space stuff was formed, right? Or was I told wrong?

If that's right...then where did the tiny spec come from? I'm not saying the big bang theory is wrong (even though I don't believe it), but that spec couldn't have just came out of no where.

of course

I don't see why the whold God thing is so debated. I mean, a little over 2000 years ago there lived a man named Jesus Christ, the son of God. Isn't he enough proof for all of you.The Big Bang is just the scientific explanation behind God creating the universe.

Oh and to TheSoundSystem 2 posts above me. When we die all will be revealed. Heaven or Hell. That's it.

maverick_41

The big bang theory says that basically there was a tiny spec that exploded and all the planets and other space stuff was formed, right? Or was I told wrong?

If that's right...then where did the tiny spec come from? I'm not saying the big bang theory is wrong (even though I don't believe it), but that spec couldn't have just came out of no where.

killab2oo5

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]

The big bang theory says that basically there was a tiny spec that exploded and all the planets and other space stuff was formed, right? Or was I told wrong?

If that's right...then where did the tiny spec come from? I'm not saying the big bang theory is wrong (even though I don't believe it), but that spec couldn't have just came out of no where.

BumFluff122

:? Big bang theory just doesn't seem plausible to me.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]

The big bang theory says that basically there was a tiny spec that exploded and all the planets and other space stuff was formed, right? Or was I told wrong?

If that's right...then where did the tiny spec come from? I'm not saying the big bang theory is wrong (even though I don't believe it), but that spec couldn't have just came out of no where.

killab2oo5

:? Big bang theory just doesn't seem plausible to me.

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"] I don't really get how the origin point of the big bang isn't a part of the big bang theory...Also, where was this "spec"? Was it in space? How did "space" get there? What caused the vaccum fluctuations and cyclic universes? About whatever caused those...where did they come from?

:? Big bang theory just doesn't seem plausible to me.

xaos

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="killab2oo5"] I don't really get how the origin point of the big bang isn't a part of the big bang theory...Also, where was this "spec"? Was it in space? How did "space" get there? What caused the vaccum fluctuations and cyclic universes? About whatever caused those...where did they come from?

:? Big bang theory just doesn't seem plausible to me.

killab2oo5

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]

The big bang theory says that basically there was a tiny spec that exploded and all the planets and other space stuff was formed, right? Or was I told wrong?

If that's right...then where did the tiny spec come from? I'm not saying the big bang theory is wrong (even though I don't believe it), but that spec couldn't have just came out of no where.

killab2oo5

:? Big bang theory just doesn't seem plausible to me.

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]So the "Where did all this stuff come from?" question can't be answered?

xaos

Yes, I believe that the Universe was created in one area and that it spread out very quickly in it's early days, that's pretty much the Big Bang Theory... the current Big Bang Theory is still flawed, incomplete and in need of "modification" though. The problem with "believing" in science is that you have to convert to another belief almost every day, scientific theories changes constantly while religious beliefs stay the same for a very long time.Hungry_bunny

The 'spec' was space. Or at least the space we know. It is also time, or at least the time we know. There are real world examples of vacuum fluctuations. There are also real world examples of things popping into and otu of existence. See Quantum Mechanics. A particle travels from oen quntum to another quantum without traversing the space in between. You could also look up Quantum Engtaglement. That is when information from one entangled particle exactly matches the information of the other quantumly entangled particle no matter how many light years they are away from eachother. Meaning that as soon as you switch the particle from a down state to an up state the same exact thing happens in the other particle at the exact same moment. The information between the two particles is shared withouot tranversing the space in between. Does that seem plausible to you? Because it is known to happen. Cycli universes do not need to be caused by anything since they are, by their very nature, enternal.

BumFluff122

Also, what created that spec...or where did it come from? That seems to be the biggest flaw in the big bang theory...you can't just say there was a spec that contained it all when there's no kind of explanation for it.

To answer your question, no...it still doesn't seem plausible. :3 Unless the questions above can be answered.