The BIG bang

VermilionUK · Post by **VermilionUK** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:59 pm

I've often found myself asked the question "so how did something come from nothing?"
I would usually answer "ok, so how did god come from nothing?"

So, I don't consider myself educated on this matter of the big bang or the beginning of the universe, but I've read across some points regarding chaos and particles spontaneuosly coming in and out of existence - and as such would like some dialogue regarding the first stages of the big bang.

Or, in simple terms:
Explain the chaos theory

Explain evidence behind it (yes, I know its only a "theory" and as such, probably lacks solid evidence - but so does God, yet theists cling to that)

Explain other possible/probable causes to the universe (if indeed it had a "cause")

Now, before we get "ha! You can't explain it - therefore God exists", we must also face the fact that there is no evidence of a creator (as far as I know). And of course, if the simple answer is "we don't know what happened" then it gives us no reason to assume it was some divine being.

xcept · Post by **xcept** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:05 pm

T-mash wrote:
xcept wrote: Dubya tee eff.... are you effing SERIOUS???? Lol that's what you believe? Just hilarious. Your left hand is from stardust from one star and your right hand is from stardust from another star?
Yup. Do you even know what stardust is?

xcept wrote: And no, nothing is observed that they spoke about.
That's hilarious for an hour talk about everything that they have observed in physics and then posting nothing was observed...

xcept wrote: Its supposed billions of years. Nothing was observed.
If you see the light of a star you already observe billion of years ago (in some cases)

xcept wrote: Red shifts are not accurate at all.
Do you know what a redshift is?

xcept wrote: Those dorks on that video hate religion to their very core. They have a serious problem with religion, or more precisely christianity and Christ.
Of course they do. These people try to educate the masses, but unfortunately fairy tales and religion appeals to the dumb masses more than science. As this video has demonstrated here is that even if you put a funny guy that tries to explain everything as easy as he possibly could it still goes over the head of 'some people' that instead just discard all the evidence that we do have unless it's convenient to them.

xcept wrote: I watched enough it it to have a good laugh. I showed my wife the part about the stardust and she was like... they're insane. And I'm like yeah I know.
The same kind of insanity that brought you your PC.

xcept wrote:Look, I could go to ICR.ORG and find rebutals for every canned comment they made in that video. But then again so could you. So I will save you the effort and tell you that common sense dictates that your experts are not experts but merely promoters and attention whores.
And can you got to a scientific department and do the same? Noooooo
But let's see:
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/galaxy_worldbook.html
Uses redshift. Those dummies at NASA...

Hmm every site I find uses it.. I'll just google your claim instead: "Red shifts are not accurate".

It has one hit.... one. Want to know which? Your comment

what's your personal background? My background is theology. I use the Bible and everything in the world readily fits within the Bibles confines of what exists. Since the world and universe is around 6000 years old, God created light first and it was everywhere all at once illuminating everything, then Adam and eve saw the light and the stars from the point they were created. This shows it was all visible. Red shifts mean nothing when it comes to the age. The world is old since the beginning of time, but that time is roughly 6000 years.

Scotracer · Post by **Scotracer** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:20 pm

6000 year old Earth. Oh dear.

Evidence for it: A literal reading of a story book.

Evidence against it: Thermodynamics, Cosmology, Mathematics, Geology, Chemistry, archaeology, palaeontology, biology...

Actually just about everything we know about anything.

You have to either be in serious denial or wholly ignorant to accept the earth is that old.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:23 pm

Scotracer wrote:6000 year old Earth. Oh dear.

Evidence for it: A literal reading of a story book.

Evidence against it: Thermodynamics, Cosmology, Mathematics, Geology, Chemistry, archaeology, palaeontology, biology...

Actually just about everything we know about anything.

You have to either be in serious denial or wholly ignorant to accept the earth is that old.

How about both?
Nothing like a poor theology to guide his way. We should look at the roots of his supposed theology as it interprets the Bible for him.

T-mash · Post by **T-mash** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:41 pm

xcept wrote:what's your personal background? My background is theology

No, you're religious. That does not give you a background in theology. Even if you do have a background in theology, if you did a study for it at university that would mean you would respect the experts in the field that deal with physics and biology, which you do not. If you have a degree in physics, you can argue about the 'accuracy' of redshifting. If you have a degree in biology you can argue about evolution. If you have a degree in Geology you can argue about the age of the earth. If you have a degree in Theology (the study of nothing), you can argue about theology. Keep it that way. Trying to claim that every physicist is wrong, every biologist is wrong and that every chemist is wrong just so you can appear to be right is beyond silly.

xcept wrote:I use the Bible and everything in the world readily fits within the Bibles confines of what exists. Since the world and universe is around 6000 years old, God created light first and it was everywhere all at once illuminating everything, then Adam and eve saw the light and the stars from the point they were created. This shows it was all visible. Red shifts mean nothing when it comes to the age. The world is old since the beginning of time, but that time is roughly 6000 years.

I'm sorry for your poor time-placement in that case. You would have made a great scientist 400 years ago. Unfortunately currently your view is outdated, debunked and thrown in the trash can.

xcept wrote:Red shifts mean nothing when it comes to the age

Can you define Hubble's law for me, please? Can you also then tell us a bit about the shape of the universe and how we can determine it? Once you've done that we can argue about whether or not red shifting has anything to with the age of our universe.

xcept · Post by **xcept** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:43 pm

Yep. I must be delusional to accept the Bible. With all its inconsistencies and false history and just plain bad advice for living and how to spend money or how to treat people. Yup! That must be it. Well then call me delusional. If that means I believe the word of God over you and some secular authors.

T-mash · Post by **T-mash** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:52 pm

xcept wrote:Yep. I must be delusional to accept the Bible. With all its inconsistencies and false history and just plain bad advice for living and how to spend money or how to treat people. Yup! That must be it. Well then call me delusional. If that means I believe the word of God over you and some secular authors.

And there I was thinking we'd never come to a consensus about anything