Big Bang - Big Dud

Of course the first little critters didn't 'marry' but whatever. There are a couple of scientific disciplines in your question, but here goes for me anyway.
I agree with the big bang theory based on current evidence. A know of matter or a white hole or something expanded into our current universe. Our solar sytem formed and some carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and many other elements were all mixed up in earth's oceans. They combined in certain ways b/c of heat from underwater vents or lightning or something and eventually became proteins and... well:
http://www.geo.brown.edu/...lasstopics/EvoIntro/OrigLife.htm
says it better than I could.

quote:

---

There has to be a law giver.

---

Just as there have to be cops to enforce the law. The Particle Police hve their work cut out for them, getting photons to pull over for breaking the speed limit.But joking aside, the answer is no. Basic regularities (what we call "laws") are far more likely to be fundamental than a complex ordered entity (how could such a thing exist and operate without basic regularities ?). So not only does there not have to be a "law giver" for THIS sort of "law" it is questionable as to whether there even COULD be such a "law giver".

Of course not; the processes by which Mt Rushmore faces were formed plainly show an intelligent input, by contrast to processes involved in formation of the other sides of the mountain, or indeed the mountain itself.Oops. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!Think about it. You are refuting your own case. Mt Rushmore stands out as different from other mountains. The design of Mt Rushmore shows up as a contrast to the lack of design in other mountains.Cheers -- Sylas

The orginal matter all of sudden appearing is the whole foundation for the Big Bang, am I wrong? Without something appearing out of nothing the Big Bang never would have happened.14 billion years, wow, that's a long time. It's funny how we can't have faith in the eternal God and yet think our earth is 14 BILLION years old.The thing about the Big Bang is since you don't know how the original matter came to exist, then it can only be speculated that the original matter/energy did, in fact,come from nothing.Creationists can't go back to when they believed that God formed the heavens and the earth. We both don't know. But what I hear from evos is that they base their theories on the most likely explanation, while you may not be able to comprehend an all-powerful creator, how do you comprehend an entire universe popping out of nowhere?Your presupposition is to only embrace explanations that are scientific/natural processes and my presupposition is to embrace God's word.

who said the earth was 14 billion years old?

don't wet your pants on details, I still have a hard time believing the universe or anything has been around for 14 billion years, and it's not a lack of imagination. If our whole existence was formed over 14 billion years things would be in pretty good order if it took that long, from what I see in the world, it's falling apart.

You post makes little sense.

quote:

---

don't wet your pants on details

---

and what,pray tell, is there to discuss in a forum about science besides details?

quote:

---

If our whole existence was formed over 14 billion years things would be in pretty good order if it took that long, from what I see in the world, it's falling apart.

---

I take it you have some positive linear view of progression in regards to life, the universe and everything ? "it's falling apart" - ah, the victorian ideas about degeneration live on! You are a bit late to that party......

By details I meant the nitpicking of word usage, I didn't mean to say the earth was 14 billion years old because I am not as familiar with the theory and made a slip-up. I apologize. Well, we have succeded in exponentially increased the number of STD's you can transmit from 2 or 3 to over 50, the tsunami, AIDS rampage throughout Africa, war, extinction, about 200 types of cancer, I could keep going.

And the ramification of this for cosmology?The clap affects cosmic principles?

The old activity meter has pegged solid red, and I don't think it's because of an outpouring of enlightenment.People, think before you post.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit: OK, it's another topic that is currently pegged. Still, thing are looking pretty stupid.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-14-2005 19:57 AM

Aside from your 10 billion year error which we can skip for now, you seem to think that the dating is wrong.If so, why don't you drop in on the more recent "dates and dating" threads? If you want to dispute these, even by implication, you should be prepared to discuss what is wrong with them.

Is it actually shaky? Let's think about it.I know the Declaration of Independence was signed in Philadelphia in 1776. I know the first signatory was John Hancock. I know Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington also signed it. I know that it begins with, "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have have connected them with another..." I remember the part about all men being created equal and being endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. I remember there's a long portion listing the injustices of King George III. And that pretty much exhausts my knowledge on the subject. I can't remember most of the rest of the text, though some of it would definitely sound familiar if it were read to me. I can't remember the other signatories. I can't remember if it was actually signed on July 4th, or whether that just somehow became the day we celebrated it.As is clearly evident, there's a lot I don't know about the Declaration of Independence. Does that make what I do know shaky? Does it cast doubt on the fact that it was signed in 1776? That it was signed in Philadelphia? That John Hancock was the first signatory?Of course not.Or how about this. Let's say someone throws a small rock through my living room window. I can tell by the hole in the window and the place where it hit the floor that the trajectory means it came from out near the sidewalk or street. Did someone throw it? Was it kicked up by a passing vehicle? Was it thrown from a vehicle? I don't know. Does that mean I don't really know the trajectory either?Of course not.Or look at it another way. You bake a cake for me and give it to me. I ask you where the cake came from. You tell me you baked it yourself. I asked where the ingredients came from. You tell me from the store. I ask where they came from before that, and you tell me warehouses and factories. I ask where they came from before that, and you tell me mines and farms. And before that, and before that and before that, until finally we're back to the Big Bang and I ask where did the matter for the Big Bang come from, and you say you don't know. And so, I say, you're knowledge about your cake is pretty shaky, isn't it.And that's ridiculous, isn't it.In the same way, we know that all matter in the universe once existed in a very small volume by extrapolating backwards from the current motions of galaxies. That they are currently receding from one another, with recession speed increasing with increasing distance, means they were once all in the same place about 14 billion years ago. Though we don't know where the matter and energy came from just before the Big Bang, we know precisely where it was just after.There's another part of your question that hints at the belief that if we don't know everything then we can't know anything, and this belief is false. The universe is billions of light years across and billions of years old, and it isn't possible for science to know everything. It isn't even possible for science to know 1% of everything. What we know is dwarfed by what we don't know, and that will be always so. But just because there is much we'll never know does not mean there is nothing we can know. I know you know this, and I don't mean to speak down to you, but I don't think you're considering the implications of your argument.--Percy

quote:

---

The orginal matter all of sudden appearing is the whole foundation for the Big Bang, am I wrong?

---

Yes, you are wrong. The Big Bang Model currently does not speak about the origin of matter, or even if there was an origin to matter. Our current knowledge of physics only allows us to speak of the universe after about 10 to the minus 14 th of a second after the alleged origin. The first 10 to the minus 14 th of a second is, so far, beyond our ability to understand, although people are working on this.The foundation of Big Bang is the observation that the distant galaxies are receding from one another, as we would expect if the universe were expanding. The foundation of Big Bang is the existence of a more-or-less uniform background microwave radiation, as we would expect if the universe were, at some time, very hot and very dense. The foundation of Big Bang is the observation that the universe very, very far away looks very, very different than the universe nearby, as we would expect if distance=time (from the finite speed of light) and if the universe has a history.As usual, the foundation for Big Bang is the observations that we make in the here and now, and that our knowledge of physics allows us to understand how the observations are consistent with an ancient universe that was once very hot and dense.

Off topic. Please do not reply to this message. --AdminExactly my point. There had to have been an intelligent designer to get those faces up there. But Evolutionists believe that all four of those men who have their faces up there just evolved on the Earth through the process of evolution. Talk about flaud logic!!This message has been edited by Admin, 02-15-2005 11:03 AM

The formation of mt rushmore is very likely to go way off topic.At best ID might be introduced behind the Big Bang but it would be better taken to threads on that already in the ID forum.