Some s**t about the weather

[EarthwormJim 1]

grim, how do you know that the big bang began the universe? how can you possibly know wether or not there was anything before the big bang.

thinking that the big bang is the beginning of everything because you want to beleive there was a beginning is just human arrogance

[Joe Statler 0]

grim, how do you know that the big bang began the universe? how can you possibly know wether or not there was anything before the big bang.

Really the universe has always been and will always be. What happened is that the big bang released matter into our universe, beginning with pure energy then later created the Hydrogen atom, which then coalesced into more complex molecules as time went by. And it's been proven that there was a big bang, since the distance between matter in our universe is expanding from one localized point (excluding the affect gravity has on matter), hence the reason for redshift, which is caused by Doppler effect. If you notice, when astronomers view a distant object, like a galaxy (other than Andromeda which is blue-shifted) it has a redshift, which means it is moving away from the Milky Way galaxy. Now the largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation which shows the state of the Universe about 13-14 billion years ago, and around 400,000 years after the Big Bang. The best interpretation of the big bang that I've found was in Carl Sagan's book Cosmos. He explains it in a way that a normal person can understand, but without losing the integrity of the theory.

I love that I can recall all this information off the top of my head. See kids, reading is for winners.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Joe Statler

[♠Grim♂ Reaper 1666◙ 17]

the static on a channel with no reception is evidence and i mean this version of the universe

[daangelo29 5]

I've already said earlier that Big Bang has as much evidences as evolution. It was never human arrogance and what you call "belief that there's a beginning" that started and made the idea/theory. It's SCIENCE.

If the Belgian Catholic priest who proposed the theory was your main reason why you don't believe on the Big Bang, no offense but you're being as close-minded as most Christians to science. Georges Lemaître was one of the most recognized physicist and astronomer in history for proposing a theory which was and is supported by many scientists, believer, atheist, or neither, most especially Stephen Hawking, who all expanded the idea further by providing more evidences that support the theory.

Also, FYI, all of the evidence sh*t of the Steady State Theory (the theory you seem to believe in) all ended up supporting the Big Bang instead. The non-theoretical cosmic microwave background radiation single-handedly disproved most of the SS theory.

Just think of the Big Bang as in the same category as the continental drift / plate tectonics theory. Though we can't really tell and prove just yet that this happened millions of years ago, we are actually seeing and experiencing the effects or the "aftershocks" of this right now, and there are evidences which won't prove it completely but convince us and science that such a thing happened. Evolution used to be in this category, and not sure if it is still right now.

[Dragon King 15]

Sure people can explain the creating of the universe with the big bang theory but they can't make it fact. The reason science wants to eliminate religious believes of creationism is because it doesn't make sense that a being you can't see, feel, or hear exists. The same goes for the Big Bang theory. We weren't there when/if it happened. And believing in something that theoretically "isn't real" is called faith which God (for those of you that want to believe) wants us to do. Have faith in His existence. Yeah you can say the Big Bang caused the creation of the universe but can you say how the Big bang occurred? And can you prove that a higher power didn't do it? the creation of the universe can never be explained and become fact. NEVER!!!

And on another note questions scientists ask about the Big Bang are the same for those that believe in God or other Gods (I.E Buddha)

Here's an example:

God created the Universe : What created God?

The Big Bang created the universe : What created the Big Bang?

[♠Grim♂ Reaper 1666◙ 17]

we know that the background radiation still exists so there is evidence and you cant disprove the big bang just like "god" cant be disproven

[Joe Statler 0]

The problem with creationism isn't the theory itself, but the way people interpret the theory. Almost every person I've met that believe in creationism take the Bible's words literally. So they actually think that the universe and everything in it was created in 6 days, which isn't possible. The thing is when the bible was created, they had to write it a certain way that people of that time could understand. So the 6 days thing is a metaphor, the molding of the human form from the earth is a metaphor for evolution, and there are many others throughout the book of Genesis.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Joe Statler

[daangelo29 5]

I agree with Grim and Joe Statler. Like I and Grim said earlier, the cosmic microwave background radiation is a proven occurrence in the universe, and it's one of the most ultimate evidences of the Big Bang. It's one of those "aftershocks" I was talking about earlier. These evidences are also the reasons why the Big Bang is no longer a theory, nor a scientific law or fact just yet.

To be honest, I used to be a creationist myself before, but not the kind of creationist you (Statler) know of. In fact, most Filipino Christians know the Book of Genesis as being symbolical or metaphorical, so they're not to be taken seriously. Along with the fact that most of us are also evolutionists and full-supporters of science, this what separate us from the rest of the Christians.

What I agree to some "semi-atheists" (people who are neither atheists nor a believers) is that they don't believe that God doesn't exist nor He does. This is the type of "more open-minded curious people" I was talking about that the world would have in the far future.

[RG 1]

[..]is that they don't believe that God doesn't exist nor He does. This is the type of "more open-minded curious people" I was talking about that the world would have in the far future.

Me, me, me!

I personally believe the Big Bang theory, although I can't say I don't believe in some kind of higher power, so..

[daangelo29 5]

It's good that we have at least one or more "semi-atheists" here lol.

In addition to what I said above about evolution, our need for belongingness, one of the main factors that allowed us to have the idea of the existence of a higher deity caring for us above and considering us his/her own children, is itself a result of evolution, something many creationists may not understand due to their close-mindedness.

"Belonging to a group" according to evolution "was essential to survival of our ancestors back then. People hunted and cooked in groups. Belonging to a group allowed tribe members to share the workload and protect each other. Not only were they trying to insure their own survival, but all members of their tribe were invested in each other's outcomes because each member played an important role in the group."

[Joe Statler 0]

What I agree to some "semi-atheists" (people who are neither atheists nor a believers) is that they don't believe that God doesn't exist nor He does.

That's called being "agnostic", which I consider myself to be.

[daangelo29 5]

I know. I just really want to use the term "semi-atheists" over "agnostics" lol. Aside from RG and yourself, Stephen Hawking is also himself considered agnostic. Though he disagrees of a higher power existing because of the lack of evidences to prove so, he's apparently the one who expanded the priest's Big Bang idea further than anyone else through science.

I myself is considered an "agnostic theist".

[Joe Statler 0]

The term higher power doesn't only have to correspond to an omnipotent being who sees everything and knows everything. It can also be a description for an alien race that's more evolved than us, or many other things that haven't been thought of yet.

[daangelo29 5]

But the "higher power" I'm referring to is the omnipotent one, not the alien one.

Saying semi-atheists/agnostics are more open-minded than atheists and believers doesn't also mean I'm saying the far future will be filled by them. Note that agnostics believe that the existence of stuff such as a higher deity and afterlife CANNOT be proven at all, therefore forever unknown, so they're still somewhat close-minded in some way. Is there anything else other than theism, atheism and agnosticism that's considered more open-minded than all 3?

[Joe Statler 0]

Darwinism?

XD

Edited August 15, 2009 by Joe Statler

[♠Grim♂ Reaper 1666◙ 17]

the human rae is evolving further (more and more people are getting taller)

[daangelo29 5]

Getting taller doesn't mean evolution is taking place. It's simply just our now mixed blood -- Filipinos, for instance, have Spanish/American/Canadian/British/Australian/Indian/Chinese/Korean/Japanese blood, thus the reason why some people nowadays are being racist against fellow Filipinos with dark-toned skins, when we are originally black way before the first foreigners (Ferdinand Magellan and his group of voyagers) got here.

Has anyone noticed that in Asian countries like the Philippines people are actually getting shorter (it actually "fluctuates"; we get taller then shorter again then taller) to the point that my fellow Filipinos now see what you may consider as average-height-ed as "walking towers"?

Here in the Philippines, the average height of men is 5' 4.3" and the average of women is 4' 11.8" (2003-now). I'm currently 5' 9", the average height of American men, so I'm apparently one of those "walking towers" in my country.

There is such a case when being VERY tall which is considered a genetic anomaly than being an evolved human (gigantism).

Darwinism?

That refers to the ideas concerning evolution. It's also used as a pejorative term by the idiot creationists (excluding those "evolutionist creationists").

[Joe Statler 0]

I know, I was just being facetious.

[daangelo29 5]

lol just looked back at the first pages, which I missed, and I noticed we went WAY off-topic, but there's really nothing else to discuss on-topic.

If you wanna argue more about theism/atheism/religion/creationism/Big Bang, do so in the argument topic in the SpillOver forums.

Closed.