|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang Found | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined:
|
tangle writes: It's another Higgs Boson moment - science predicts that a thing must exist for a theory to be correct, then the thing is found and everyone slaps themselves on the back. Now others go away and check that the original discoverers got it right and creationists have to make up a whole new pile of anti-science to make it fit their model(s). Not sure why you conclude "creationists" etc. I believe in creation and this finding supports the fact that the universe had a beginning, and thus there was some sort of creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Sometimes when people type "creationist", they just mean the small subset of creationists who lie about science because they cannot bring themselves to accept evolution. They should not use such a broad brush.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
thanks, that explains it for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
otto tellick writes:
I'm not a physicist, and I'm just trying to comprehend the recent findings (folks here have been very helpful in that regard - thank you all), but based on what I've been able to understand so far, it seems to me that the BICEPS2 results do not provide any support for the assertion that there was "something or someone outside" that caused the inflation. As far as I've been able to tell, the results have nothing at all to say about the cause of the inflation; they only describe its nature, speed and duration. I'm not a physicist either, but it seems to me the BICEPS2 results support the "Big Bang" theory and therefore support for the theory that the universe had a beginning, thus leading to support for a creator, rather than a spontaneous formation of the universe. It does not seem logical that there would be a spontaneous formation out of nothing w/o some moving force. Edited by shadow71, : excessive verbiage Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
vimesey writes:
You're forgetting that, inextricably linked with the creation of space, the singularity which we know as "the big bang" also created time. Actually created time itself. There is no "before" the big bang - the concept is as meaningless as asking someone at the north pole to walk further north. That is compatable with a Supernatural being creating everything out of nothing.The principle of "Occam"s razor basically states that when you have 2 competing theories making the same prediction the simplest one is the better theory. Here there is no real basis for a spontaneous cause of the universe, but a universe created out of nothing by a supernatural being is plausible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
The next step would be for you to tell us how something was created out of nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
vimesey writes:
If wands were real, they'd be compatible with anything. But for as long as we have no evidence that magic exists, we'll keep going where the evidence leads us. Saying that a scenario is compatible with a supernaturally omnipotent being is semantically circular and trivial - a meaningless statement which takes us nowhere. It's the same as me saying that if I had Superman's powers, I could leap tall buildings. True enough semantically, but nothing that gets us anywhere. Maybe it's time to consider the possibility that the evidence may never be found.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
There is no point in time, in the Big Bang Theory, where the Universe does not exist. That is, the Universe exists at every point in time. So there never is a "nothing" for the Universe to be created out of. Is there a theory of what existed pre Big Bang and how it came into existence?I'm serious, I would like to read some papers on that issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
The laws of nature don't have to "come from" anywhere. They just are. They're properties of nature, just like wind conditions and snow conditions. Anything that exists will have properties whether anybody/anything "puts" them there or not. Did the laws of nature always exist? Prior to the big bang, when time did not exist, were there laws of nature
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
If time doesn't exist, then you cannot have a "when".In order for something "to be", there has to be time for it to be in. Have you read the North Pole analogy for the Big Bang? Then gravity did not exist prior to the Big Bang?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
tangle message62 writes:
Shadow71 writes:The next step would be for you to tell us how something was created out of nothing. For that, you'll have to learn some physics. It's well above my pay grade. Hawking: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. So if the Big bang theory is correct, Hawking's theory is false?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Only the most pompous type of idiot lawyer would ever attempt to get someone to call him 'doc' based on having a JD. There are advanced law degrees (LLM) and (SD) that actually have some academic status. It appears you have a very low opinion on the requirements to obtain a J.D.What requirements are there to earn a PhD in the sciences?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Diomedes writes:
Well, that would be all them, would it not? Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thanks Taq
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024