Big Bang Found

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.

In the context of the Evolution vs. Creation debate, most people get the distinction.

No, there's just more people who aren't like them. They're the minority. I think so. I mean, I'm one of them. I can think of others. And there's not that many cranks.I could be entirely wrong here, I dunno. What percentage of the people who believe in God do you think are science-deniers?

That's what I was telling shadow71. You should take your own advice.

quote:

---

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.

​

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.

---

That second creationist, that I've now bolded, was referring to people who believe in a creator but aren't science-deniers. The first one that I scare-quoted are the ones who are science-deniers.As I said:

quote:

---

In the context of the Evolution vs. Creation debate, most people get the distinction.

---

When we just refer to creationists generally, we're not really talking about the people who believe in a creator but do not deny science. That's what I was explaining to shadow71. And now you're trying to argue my same point back to me.

My point was that in the context of the Evolution vs. Creation debate, the term "creationist" means the science-deniers rather than just a person who believes in a creator. Also, that the science-deniers are a small subset of the people who believe in a creator.

Not in the context of the Evolution vs. Creation debate. Here, a creationist is someone who denies evolution.

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.And being created "out of" nothing means that there had to be a point in time where the Universe did not exist, which is incompatible with the Big Bang Theory.So the Big Band Theory is not the idea that the Universe was created out of nothing.

Not within the Big Bang Theory. You can check out colliding branes: Here's some wiki links:Brane cosmology - Wikipedia
Ekpyrotic universe - Wikipedia

I'll jump on:

quote:

---

But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there?

---

Every single thing that we have evidence for that can be categorized with the pronoun "who" requires gravity to exist already for them to exist.So anything that could exist before gravity, cannot fall under the pronoun "who".

Sure, just because we have a correct explanation for how lightning happens, doesn't mean that Thor isn't really responsible.But from a scientific perspective, nobody cares. We can explain lightning without the need for Thor, so we just ignore him and go about our day.We may be missing something, like Thor, but it doesn't matter because our explanations work.

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?

"Existing prior" to the Big Bang implies that there was some time before T=0, but there's no such thing as negative time in the Big Bang Theory.The question just doesn't make sense. Its like asking what is north of the North Pole. You can't, all directions are pointing south at that place.Sorry, its just counter-intuitive.ABE:To directly answer your question: No, the Big Bang Theory does not have gravity existing before the Big Bang.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE.

I don't know, I'm not familiar with the Hawking's theory that you're talking about. I saw that one quote, but that's just him talking, that's not really the theory, itself.

I disagree. I'll go a step further: they're practically worthless.That is, in practicality, they don't provide any value.Philosophical/theological issues are the same they've been for centuries. There's never any advancement, because its not rigorous enough to put the results into practice. You never know if its working or not, so nothing ever gets solved.So, yeah, maybe we should just agree to disagree on that one rather than discuss philosophy in a big bang thread.

Doesn't it have something to do with rubbing blue paint in there? Don't get me started. There's a whole new generation of neo-atheist "philosophers" out there on the web that like to talk about how all scientists are doing is really philosophy and that philosophers, like their elitist selves, are the ones who have paved the way for all our advancements. It really grinds my gears.