Big Bang - Big Dud

...the central point could be fixed in higher dimensional space, remnants of pre big bang singularity or nothing at all just a reference point of expansion in spacetime it even could be the centre of an inconcievably large black hole at the centre of the universein short why ask me I know little if anything I'm still at the thinking about it stage...If there were a prediction it would be black holes lead to the edge or middle of the inflating universe and when separated from the edges become wormholes allowing for travel across the universe but not to other universes...Is it possible to calculate all the mass in the universe and distribute it around a spherical model based on what we can see so far then possibly predict where the sphere might be out of balance and know which star is going to turn black ???and I was just wondering do you accelerate faster into a black hole towards the edge or the middle of it as in do you spiral into it like water draining thru a plughole picking up speed as you approach the centre of the vortex or do you just go straight in constant acceleration until you reach a fixed velocity ???

under most circumstances.there are exceptions
1.nucular
2.tempurture (maybe)I never did like term "law" it makes it sound so darn set... what does this have to do with the Big bang? Our solar system wasn't created from the Big Bang but much later... Most likely from a Super Nova blast. Do you? an object as big or bigger then the planet/moon can do this. But I would bet your head alone can do it. a dent? how is a constant spinning object going to keep a dent for long? of course pieces broke of(depending on the planet) but it rounds itself out... Why is the piece of wood I just sanded no longer rough? 1.What does evolution have to do with the Big Bang?
2. at least we have evidence... where’s yours? I don't Believe in Evolution or the Big Bang. I just accept them as the most reasonable explanations. Also I do not care why it happened. Not that I wouldn't like to know(if there is a reason at all). Reminds me of a classic bumper sticker "Sh!t Happens" and that’s all there is to it

---

My site The Atheist BibleMy New Debate Fourms!

Saw that one just the other day. On the other side was one the same color and Font that said "Or maybe not".Bout sums it up.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

just adding to the response...

quote:

---

what does this have to do with the Big bang? Our solar system wasn't created from the Big Bang but much later... Most likely from a Super Nova blast.
...
Do you? an object as big or bigger then the planet/moon can do this. But I would bet your head alone can do it.

---

If a moon formed at the same time/location as the planet, then you would expect it to orbit & spin in the same direction, unless it was later smacked the other way by a huge collision (which seems to be common). But captured asteroids (again, common) can go whichever way.

quote:

---

a dent?

---

Take a look at photos of those moons. Craters abound.

always? You would expect that I guess if you didn't know any better or don't care to know any better.. and besides who said all the moons formed at the same time as the planet they orbit? Who said they are in the same locations? this isn't the only way it can happen another force can act upon the object and reverse/change an orbit.. Sigh I guess your right they are "dents" I guess but I don't think he was talking about the pin holes on the moonThis message has been edited by DC85, 05-18-2004 09:38 PM

---

My site The Atheist BibleMy New Debate Fourms!

quote:

---

methodological naturalism is the blanket, and as long as it is adhered to the science is solid. Getting back to the topic, where in the laws that govern the celestial bodies should we insert supernatural mechanisms? What evidence can only be explained by the supernatural or the direct interference of a diety into the natural world as observed in the field of astronomy? How can we reliably test for the presence of the diety's influence in a repeatable fashion? No one has ever been able to do this, and this is why methodological naturalism, the "blanket of pureness' within science, works, has worked, and will continue to work. Methodological supernaturalism has yet to make a reliable theory, why is that?

---

Although naturalism is not and technically can not be put under the category of 'religion,' I think that in this case it comes extremely close.It is written many times on this board that the "creos," as they are called, adhere to their religion and try to mingle it with science because they fear the loss of their fundemental beliefs in the Bible and Jesus.On the other hand evolutionists adhere to naturalism because they fear that their own way of life, which depends on the godlessness and moral lawlessness of evolution, will be shattered and the creos might be right. (and when i refer to moral law, i am not refering to relative moral law as determined by humans, but the moral law established by the God professed by creationists...massive difference)

quote:

---

Science is the study of natural phenomena through natural mechanisms. If you stray away from this you are no longer a scientist.

---

Throughout my education it was never until "creation science" was popularized that the "through natural mechanisms" part was added to this definition. I find that interesting. Oh and i can already hear the responses in poor taste taking shots at my education, please refrain...there are people i have respect for on this board, but there are many more who resort too often to juvenile cut-downs so i have come to expect them.

quote:

---

Traditional Christianity regards God as creator of all the natural world

---

however true this may be, I think the common mistake made by creationists & by evolutionists concerning creationist hypotheses is the assumption that the created stuff (that's a technical term) at the time of creation equates to the stuff in existence today. That all species in existence now existed right after creation, etc.

I was sent here because I am a beginner and I casually posted an irrelevant reply in another thread.but my question is, Explosions are destructive, not constructive. The Big Bang in the essence of its words is an explosion. Bang in the dictionary is "a sudden loud noise, as of an explosion." or "a sudden burst of action." in the informal sense. (which I would take to be the non-true meaning of the word)Why is this fact so easily cast aside?

What fact? Why do you think all explosions are destructive?If your income increased explosively, would that be destructive?If knowledge increased explosively would that be destructive?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The bomb exploded, killing thousands.
The lung exploded, killing a person.
The person with an explosive personality, angry outbursts.The reason I think all explosions are destructive is because they are. The explosions such as an "explosive income" or "explosive knowledge" are metaphorical. Using the secondary definition of the word explosive doesn't support much.

Not really. They can also be constructive, when used for mining or quarrying, when it really is an explosion of knowledge as happened after the Religious dominated Dark Ages gave way to Science, as in increases in productivity, as in the Big Bang (which probably was not an explosion as we know it anyway). In fact, the only reason that you exist is thanks to explosions. It was early stars exploding that created the heavier elements you are made of.So don't denigrate the creative power of explosions. Without such explosions you wouldn't even exit.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'd rather not refer to myself as what I'm physically made of. I have a soul and I would rather be a masterpiece of Creation than an evolutionary process.This message has been edited by daaaaaBEAR, 01-25-2005 23:32 AM

You may well have a soul but the packaging is simply the result of explosions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

daaaaaBEAR,I am certainly no expert on the subject but perhaps I can shed some light on the situation. I think the first problem is in the name "Big Bang". It is my understanding that it would have been better termed "Big Expansion". It is not an explosion but rather a spreading out of space. I have found that Sylas has some fabulous explanations about it starting hereIf nothing else, reading that thread would give you much insight into the BB without having to wade through 20 pages of posts.Hope this helps.

You say our "packaging" is the result of explosions, but what about the soul. The soul is intangible and could not be the result of explosions unless humans have no souls which would put us at the same level as any life-form. What is the origin of the soul? Surely there was not a culmination of souls in what expanded into our universe, animals don't have a spiritual nature like humans and it seems impossible that a soul would evolve and more improbable that humans would spontaneously gain a soul through the evolutionary process.Unless we're all just empty human beings.

Off Topic:What is the evidence for the existence of souls?

---

*not an actual doctor