The Big Bang....

[rocky_923]

I'm not new to these boards i just don't post very often. I have recently started my own search for truth and was hoping this board could assist. This may have been addressed in another thread, but I was unable to find a match in my search...

While the big bang is just a theory, it is a widely accepted theory. It is a theory with convincing evidence to support it. The big bang implies a beginning of the universe and time-space it's self. If we go past this beginning we have nothingness.

So, in order to create the big bang does this not require some sort of intelligent mind outside of time-space to create something out of nothing?

[Sender]

Geez, I dunno, maybe because energy has never created itself. Truely not rocket science guys.

Oh I see - not a source, an opinion. (Unsupported assertions are opinion)

From whence then, IYO, did this 'energy' arise?

You need a source to tell you energy never created itself? I don't know of anyone but you that would even dispute that. This is a given...but I will give you one anyway.

Sir Fred Hoyle, said about the subject of a cell comming into existance by itself..."if you filled all the planets in the gallaxy with blind men, gave them all rubic cubes, and have them all try to solve the cube all at the same time, there is a far greater chance of that happening, than a cell creating itself".

[bernee51]

You need a source to tell you energy never created itself? I don't know of anyone but you that would even dispute that. This is a given...but I will give you one anyway.

Are you making an assumption that no energy existed at the time of the alledged BB (or creation) event...if so, on what do you base that?

Sir Fred Hoyle, said about the subject of a cell comming into existance by itself..."if you filled all the planets in the gallaxy with blind men, gave them all rubic cubes, and have them all try to solve the cube all at the same time, there is a far greater chance of that happening, than a cell creating itself".

And this is apropos of...?

[Sender]

You need a source to tell you energy never created itself? I don't know of anyone but you that would even dispute that. This is a given...but I will give you one anyway.

Are you making an assumption that no energy existed at the time of the alledged BB (or creation) event...if so, on what do you base that?

Sir Fred Hoyle, said about the subject of a cell comming into existance by itself..."if you filled all the planets in the gallaxy with blind men, gave them all rubic cubes, and have them all try to solve the cube all at the same time, there is a far greater chance of that happening, than a cell creating itself".

And this is apropos of...?

I believe God created the the heavens and the earth. I believe there was a great flood, and Noah took all the animals on a boat until about a year later, then they got off the boat and reproduced, ect. Sound crazy? Look at what you believe. There was a Big Bang, one that has never been proven. You believe also that life came from a broth of molecules from a chemical soup, meaning you came from a rock in it's earliest origin. Yes, I would rather believe in God, and the evidence the earth has backs these claims up, than believe in your theory which can not be.

Sorry, you are correct, I grabbed the wrong quote.

[micatala]

I believe God created the the heavens and the earth.

I believe this too, but I do not believe in the literal, 6-day creation account from Genesis, nor in the global flood. I don't believe the latter are consistent with the physical evidence we have.

There was a Big Bang, one that has never been proven.

I think it is correct to say that the Big Bang has not been "proven." However, the Big Bang model was developed to explain the data that we have and is consistent with that data. I don't think it is fair to say that it is a model that is believed in simply 'on faith.'

We see the galaxies currently moving away from us, with the further galaxies moving faster. If we extrapolate back in time, we may infer that at one point about 15 billion years ago, all matter and energy existed in an "infinitely dense" singularity.

We also have the microwave background radiation which was a prediction of the Big Bang model and was eventually found to exist. This is pretty powerful evidence that the basic aspects of the model are correct.

You believe also that life came from a broth of molecules from a chemical soup, meaning you came from a rock in it's earliest origin.

I know you find this idea ridiculous. I find it not ridiculous at all. We do have lots of evidence that the earliest life that existed on earth was single-celled, its diversity was less than the diversity we see today, it was in some sense less complex (although this is a subjective determination, to some extent). Why is it outrageous to suggest that life arose by chemical means from "inanimate" material? We do know enough about chemistry etc. to know that it is at least plausible.

Yes, I would rather believe in God, and the evidence the earth has backs these claims up, than believe in your theory which can not be.

Why does it have to be either or? Why can't a person both believe in God, and also accept the scientific explanations for the history of the universe and life on earth as the most likely and logical explanations?

I won't go into all the evidence I have seen which supports these explanations, but I have never seen any credible scientific evidence which shows that these explanations 'can not be.'

Sir Fred Hoyle, said about the subject of a cell comming into existance by itself..."if you filled all the planets in the gallaxy with blind men, gave them all rubic cubes, and have them all try to solve the cube all at the same time, there is a far greater chance of that happening, than a cell creating itself".

Sir Fred Hoyle is an interesting and intelligent character, IMHO. However, I don't see that his authority in this area carries much weight, especially when the assumptions that go into these type of probability calculations are highly speculative and fraught with uncertainty. What set of molecules are we assuming existed to create the cell? How do we know more complicated intermediate structures could not have been part of the process? What are the assumptions on the likelihood of particular interactions between molecules? I have not seen the particulars of Hoyle's arguements, but I have seen similar "proofs of the impossibility of . . . " and they are usually full of errors. [url =http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books] James Coppedge's book [/url] is one example of what I consider a faulty probabilistic approach to the issues surrounding the origins of life and its subsequent evolution.

[bernee51]

I believe God created the the heavens and the earth.

Your belief does not make it a fact.

No-thing can be created or destroyed, it can only change in form.

Who created your god?

I believe there was a great flood, and Noah took all the animals on a boat until about a year later, then they got off the boat and reproduced, ect.

Why should your flood myth be any more beleivable than the others?

Sound crazy?

Look at what you believe.

Clairvoyant as well...you are telling me what I believe now.

There was a Big Bang, one that has never been proven. You believe also that life came from a broth of molecules from a chemical soup, meaning you came from a rock in it's earliest origin.

It is not a matter of belief...it is, given the evidence to date, what is the most likely scenario.

Yes, I would rather believe in God, and the evidence the earth has backs these claims up, than believe in your theory which can not be.

Of what evidence do you speak that backs up YOUR claims of a god of creation?

On what basis do you claim that the theory you PRESUME I believe in "can not be"?

[The Happy Humanist]

I believe there was a great flood, and Noah took all the animals on a boat until about a year later, then they got off the boat and reproduced, ect.

Just out of curiosity, how did the Koala bears get to Australia?

[Sender]

I believe God created the the heavens and the earth.

Your belief does not make it a fact.

No-thing can be created or destroyed, it can only change in form.

Who created your god?

I believe there was a great flood, and Noah took all the animals on a boat until about a year later, then they got off the boat and reproduced, ect.

Why should your flood myth be any more beleivable than the others?

Sound crazy?

Look at what you believe.

Clairvoyant as well...you are telling me what I believe now.

There was a Big Bang, one that has never been proven. You believe also that life came from a broth of molecules from a chemical soup, meaning you came from a rock in it's earliest origin.

It is not a matter of belief...it is, given the evidence to date, what is the most likely scenario.

Yes, I would rather believe in God, and the evidence the earth has backs these claims up, than believe in your theory which can not be.

Of what evidence do you speak that backs up YOUR claims of a god of creation?

On what basis do you claim that the theory you PRESUME I believe in "can not be"?

Others who believe as such have said so. You are correct, I shouldn't think it is a blanket belief and you are with the status quo. My apologies. As far as my beliefs, yes I stand by mine. It is based on the Bible, on scientic evidence, and Faith. Thanks for asking.

[bernee51]

As far as my beliefs, yes I stand by mine. It is based on the Bible, on scientic evidence, and Faith. Thanks for asking.

The bible and faith I can understand (but disagree with because of the logical impossibility of the christian god).

Scientific evidence however of your god I know not of. Care to share?

Why is the Noachian story of the flood any more believable than the hundreds of others?

Who created your god? If your answer is he/she/it has always been there why could that not apply to the universe (in some form)?

On what basis is it that the BB Theory 'can not be'?