Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Again you are trying to jump ahead to question 2 without admitting that "something," which is commonly called the Big Bang, happened to leave the microwave remnant that we can measure today.No, it's not "there MAY have been" there WAS something, and that "something" is called the Big Bang, for want of a better name. Since you will not accept the measured microwave evidence as proof of anything, then there is no point of trying to go further. You doggedly want to cling to your premise that science is faith based and no amount of evidence will ever change your mind. Why try to answer your second question if you won't accept the answer to your first question!!!!!Because it still doesn't explain how it actually came into existence.
that evidence shows that there may have been something but it doesnt show how it came to be.
Im not trying to prove or disprove either side here im just trying to get past the conception that the big bang theorists run on as much faith as the creationists.
thats simply not true ed. Not true at all.
there is no empirical proof of how the matter that caused what is theorized to be the big bang came to be into such a state to allow for the big bang.
You just dont have an answer and instead of admitting you must have some faith to believe in the big bang you want to try to insult me for asking about the proof in the first place.
Let me try out your technique:
Good thing scientists aren't like you or we would still believe the scientific "proof" that the earth was flat.
How did the universe come into being?
Opine and Educate me please.
It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know" and that in no way defaults to "God did it".
I am not an athiest, but I find the rhetoical game of hiding behind the fact that science can't explain every single facet of the natural as a de facto affirmation of a supernatural force to be asinine and intellectually dishonest.
On that note, explain the discrepancies between the biblical account of creationism and the well established scientific findings that the world is well over 6000 years old and a variety of other questions.
. And i also agree that not knowing doesnt mean "god did it"
I've heard all those different theres on the science channel and through reading and in my college classes on astronomy years ago.First off, I believe like another poster on this thread does. God said "let there be Light" and the Big Bang kicked off.
Scientists have figured out (using the Doppler effect) where the origins of the Big Bang are, and it holds some of the oldest stars in the Universe.
Now, to explain the Big Bang........
Scientists have several theories on this. One is called M theory (membrane) and they think that when 2 membranes collide (walls of other universes) a big bang is the result.
Then......there's bubble theory, which states our universe is only 1 of many in the multiverse. They've theorized and mathematically, it is possible.
Now. Where did the Big Bang come from? Well......in the process of things dropping down a black hole, they tend to get spaghettified and torn apart, making really long strings in the process.
Nobody knows where they end up.
Who knows? Maybe our Big Bang and subsequent universe came from a black hole in another universe eating a galaxy.
Or.........maybe our black hole is the center of another galaxy (like the center of the Milky Way is).
oAgain you are trying to jump ahead to question 2 without admitting that "something," which is commonly called the Big Bang, happened to leave the microwave remnant that we can measure today.No, it's not "there MAY have been" there WAS something, and that "something" is called the Big Bang, for want of a better name. Since you will not accept the measured microwave evidence as proof of anything, then there is no point of trying to go further. You doggedly want to cling to your premise that science is faith based and no amount of evidence will ever change your mind. Why try to answer your second question if you won't accept the answer to your first question!!!!!
thats simply not true ed. Not true at all.
there is no empirical proof of how the matter that caused what is theorized to be the big bang came to be into such a state to allow for the big bang.
You just dont have an answer and instead of admitting you must have some faith to believe in the big bang you want to try to insult me for asking about the proof in the first place.
Let me try out your technique:
Good thing scientists aren't like you or we would still believe the scientific "proof" that the earth was flat.
Your first question was how does science know that a Big Bang happened.
When you admit that it does not take faith to know that a Big Bang happened, I'll move on to question 2, but not before.
Here, for the 3rd time, are the two questions you asked that I was replying to and my answer to the first.oAgain you are trying to jump ahead to question 2 without admitting that "something," which is commonly called the Big Bang, happened to leave the microwave remnant that we can measure today.thats simply not true ed. Not true at all.
there is no empirical proof of how the matter that caused what is theorized to be the big bang came to be into such a state to allow for the big bang.
You just dont have an answer and instead of admitting you must have some faith to believe in the big bang you want to try to insult me for asking about the proof in the first place.
Let me try out your technique:
Good thing scientists aren't like you or we would still believe the scientific "proof" that the earth was flat.
Your first question was how does science know that a Big Bang happened.
When you admit that it does not take faith to know that a Big Bang happened, I'll move on to question 2, but not before.
No my first question was "how did the universe come into being". Then I heard "the big bang" then i asked "how did the big bang come to pass" and thats where you went off the rails on me.
Once again your projecting things onto me that I don't think and behaviors onto me that I'm not doing.
If you dont want to talk about it just go away.
Let's start with your first question since there is no point in answering the second if you don't believe there was a Big Bang in the first place.How does science prove that the big bang happened?
How does science prove how the situation that caused the big bang to happen came to be?
WMAP Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.
Scientists discover possible cosmic defect, remnant from Big Bang
Scientists from the Institute of Physics of Cantabria (IFCA) and the University of Cambridge may have discovered an example of a cosmic defect, a remnant from the Big Bang called a texture. If confirmed, their discovery, reported today in Science, will provide dramatic new insight into how the universe evolved following the Big Bang.
Textures are defects in the structure of the vacuum left over from the hot early universe. Professor Neil Turok of Cambridge's Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics first showed how textures form in the 1990s, highlighting that some would survive from the Big Bang and should be visible in today's universe. Textures can be observed by the hot and cold spots they create in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) which fills the universe and was released in the Big Bang 14 billion years ago.
The Big Bang theory proposes that the cosmos began in a very high density, high temperature state, cooling as it expands. In the early hot universe, physicists believe that the different types of elementary particle (particles such as a quark from which larger particles are created) behaved identically. As the universe cooled, the vacuum changed and the symmetry between the particles was broken, in a phase transition analogous to the freezing of water. During this kind of phase transition, quarks become distinct from electrons and neutrinos, for example.
Just as misalignments in the crystalline structure of ice lead to defects, misalignments in the symmetry-breaking pattern form cosmic defects. Textures, such as the one which may have been discovered, are one type of defect.
Why do creationists insist on claiming cus science cant prove the big bang theory.
So there was a big bang? How did that happen?
God created the big bang.
How did the universe come into being?
Opine and Educate me please.
It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know" and that in no way defaults to "God did it".
I am not an athiest, but I find the rhetoical game of hiding behind the fact that science can't explain every single facet of the natural as a de facto affirmation of a supernatural force to be asinine and intellectually dishonest.
On that note, explain the discrepancies between the biblical account of creationism and the well established scientific findings that the world is well over 6000 years old and a variety of other questions.
I agree as I actually dont know myself
Im not a creationist either. Your making false assumptions about me in the response which is fine, you don't know me and i didn't state what my views are.
All I am doing in this thread is pointing to the similarity between those who believe god created everything, without empiracle proof to those who believe it was all created by "the big bang" without any proof as to how the big bang came to happen.
It's a false similarity, however. Scientific theories are built upon past theories and knowledge, including those theories proven to be incorrect. You could call believing in the big bang theory faith, but that would be unfair to call it the same kind of faith a Christian, Muslim or other religious person has. The kind of faith a religious person has, is that they will continue believing in what they believe in despite what happens to them, or what others say about their religion.
You can't call scientist positing the big bang theory correct faith, because once evidence to the contrary arises, and the theory is disproved via the scientific method not all will keep believing in the big bang theory when presented with evidence to the contrary. That's how science works. Scientists could find evidence suggesting the universe was created by a giant sea turtle ejaculating or something, and if that theory held up against scientific experiments and evidence, then scientists would discard the big bang theory. If that's the same faith that religious folk have, its a shit kind of faith.
The thing is, that's why they are called scientific theories.
It's a false similarity, however. Scientific theories are built upon past theories and knowledge, including those theories proven to be incorrect. You could call believing in the big bang theory faith, but that would be unfair to call it the same kind of faith a Christian, Muslim or other religious person has. The kind of faith a religious person has, is that they will continue believing in what they believe in despite what happens to them, or what others say about their religion.
You can't call scientist positing the big bang theory correct faith, because once evidence to the contrary arises, and the theory is disproved via the scientific method not all will keep believing in the big bang theory when presented with evidence to the contrary. That's how science works. Scientists could find evidence suggesting the universe was created by a giant sea turtle ejaculating or something, and if that theory held up against scientific experiments and evidence, then scientists would discard the big bang theory. If that's the same faith that religious folk have, its a shit kind of faith.
The thing is, that's why they are called scientific theories.
Well, that's all fine and dandy, and in this instance you're talking about the Big Bang Theory, but here's the real truth with regard to contemporary theory in general, especially since Darwin. Most of those doing science today presuppose by faith. . . .
While science's historical presupposition is not a metaphysical naturalism (or an ontological naturalism), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the composition of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be readily quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science. —Michael David Rawlings, Abiogenesis: The Holy Grail of Atheism
How did the universe come into being?
Opine and Educate me please.
Glad to educate you. In the first place the question of how the universe started is totally seperate from the creation question. I believe at least one line of Genesis is true, "let there be light"(The Big Bang). Creation of life on earth, however, is a different story. That was accomplished by evolution utilizing the Laws of Chemistry and Physics laid down at the beginning. God created the universe, but used evolution to create life, IMO.
It's a false similarity, however. Scientific theories are built upon past theories and knowledge, including those theories proven to be incorrect. You could call believing in the big bang theory faith, but that would be unfair to call it the same kind of faith a Christian, Muslim or other religious person has. The kind of faith a religious person has, is that they will continue believing in what they believe in despite what happens to them, or what others say about their religion.
You can't call scientist positing the big bang theory correct faith, because once evidence to the contrary arises, and the theory is disproved via the scientific method not all will keep believing in the big bang theory when presented with evidence to the contrary. That's how science works. Scientists could find evidence suggesting the universe was created by a giant sea turtle ejaculating or something, and if that theory held up against scientific experiments and evidence, then scientists would discard the big bang theory. If that's the same faith that religious folk have, its a shit kind of faith.
The thing is, that's why they are called scientific theories.
Well, that's all fine and dandy, and in this instance you're talking about the Big Bang Theory, but here's the real truth with regard to contemporary theory in general, especially since Darwin. Most of those doing science today presuppose by faith. . . .
While science's historical presupposition is not a metaphysical naturalism (or an ontological naturalism), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the composition of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be readily quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science. —Michael David Rawlings, Abiogenesis: The Holy Grail of Atheism
Sorry what? I'm not sure what the point of your quote is, science rejects something that can't be tested via the scientific method and classifies it as being non-existent (I'm assuming the quote is implying the existence of God here) and this is a problem... how?
And what does it have to do with my response to Pilgrim?
How did the universe come into being?
Opine and Educate me please.
Glad to educate you. In the first place the question of how the universe started is totally seperate from the creation question. I believe at least one line of Genesis is true, "let there be light"(The Big Bang). Creation of life on earth, however, is a different story. That was accomplished by evolution utilizing the Laws of Chemistry and Physics laid down at the beginning. God created the universe, but used evolution to create life, IMO.
Good post. I suppose the only change I would make would be
God created the universe and life then he allowed evolution to take over from there.
Immie
How did the universe come into being?
Opine and Educate me please.
You're right.I said "theocrats", not "Christians". There is a difference.
The Catholic Church accepts evolution. They don't try and fit God into a 1200 page box.
Glad to educate you. In the first place the question of how the universe started is totally seperate from the creation question. I believe at least one line of Genesis is true, "let there be light"(The Big Bang). Creation of life on earth, however, is a different story. That was accomplished by evolution utilizing the Laws of Chemistry and Physics laid down at the beginning. God created the universe, but used evolution to create life, IMO.
Good post. I suppose the only change I would make would be
God created the universe and life then he allowed evolution to take over from there.
Immie
I have no problem with that, although having created a universe where the laws seem to be designed to create life from inorganic matter, I see no need of said Diety bothering to create life seperate from the creation of the universe.
Good post. I suppose the only change I would make would be
God created the universe and life then he allowed evolution to take over from there.
Immie
I have no problem with that, although having created a universe where the laws seem to be designed to create life from inorganic matter, I see no need of said Diety bothering to create life seperate from the creation of the universe.
But then you have jumped from the theory of evolution to the primordial soup (abiogenetics) and I have been told by oh so many evolutionists that those two topics are not the same.
Which would be correct in my opinion, but either God (or some other intelligent being) created life or life was created by more luck than that of one hundred million lottery winners.
Immie
