Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
72 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, kjsimons, Pollux, Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 66 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,214 Year: 4,326/6,534 Month: 540/900 Week: 64/182 Day: 36/16 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Security Update Coming Soon


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Found
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 301 (722334)
03-20-2014 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by shadow71
03-20-2014 11:51 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2014 11:51 AM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2014 12:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 20 by hooah212002, posted 03-20-2014 1:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 301 (722344)
03-20-2014 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by shadow71
03-20-2014 12:38 PM


They should not use such a broad brush.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2014 12:38 PM shadow71 has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 301 (722370)
03-20-2014 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by hooah212002
03-20-2014 1:11 PM


Small subset? So the main players on the creationist side; the loudest, most vocal and most wealthy, are NOT "creationists who lie about science because they cannot bring themselves to accept evolution"? Discovery Institute and CMI are just creationists that accept a creator, but also accept science?

No, there's just more people who aren't like them. They're the minority.

Most of the creationists that come here are only creationists that believe in a creator, but accept science?

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by hooah212002, posted 03-20-2014 1:11 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by hooah212002, posted 03-20-2014 4:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 301 (722381)
03-20-2014 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by hooah212002
03-20-2014 4:33 PM


When we talk about creationists in this arena, you aren't one of them.

That's what I was telling shadow71.

Context is pretty important.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by hooah212002, posted 03-20-2014 4:33 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by hooah212002, posted 03-20-2014 5:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 30 by kbertsche, posted 03-20-2014 9:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 301 (722383)
03-20-2014 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by hooah212002
03-20-2014 5:06 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by hooah212002, posted 03-20-2014 5:06 PM hooah212002 has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 301 (722496)
03-21-2014 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by kbertsche
03-20-2014 9:38 PM


You guys are making this much more complicated than it really is. A "creationist" is simply someone who believes in creation.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by kbertsche, posted 03-20-2014 9:38 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 60 of 301 (722746)
03-24-2014 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by shadow71
03-24-2014 4:48 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
The next step would be for you to tell us how something was created out of nothing.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 4:48 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 6:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 64 of 301 (722759)
03-24-2014 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by shadow71
03-24-2014 6:21 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Is there a theory of what existed pre Big Bang and how it came into existence?

Not within the Big Bang Theory.

I'm serious, I would like to read some papers on that issue.

You can check out colliding branes:

Here's some wiki links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 6:21 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 7:00 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 301 (722838)
03-25-2014 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by kbertsche
03-24-2014 7:28 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
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".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by kbertsche, posted 03-24-2014 7:28 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(6)
Message 76 of 301 (722846)
03-25-2014 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by kbertsche
03-25-2014 11:27 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
This is a very good analogy to show the error of reductionism. The fact that the laws of nature give a good description of reality does not and cannot remove God from the picture any more than they remove Whittle from the picture. Natural law describes the mechanism which is at work, but nothing more. In a philosophical sense, natural law is descriptive, not causative. It describes mechanism, not agency.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by kbertsche, posted 03-25-2014 11:27 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by kbertsche, posted 03-25-2014 8:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 82 of 301 (722870)
03-25-2014 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by shadow71
03-25-2014 1:14 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
when time did not exist

If time doesn't exist, then you cannot have a "when".

were there laws of nature

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2014 1:14 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2014 4:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 84 of 301 (722879)
03-25-2014 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by shadow71
03-25-2014 4:11 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Then gravity did not exist prior to 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2014 4:11 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2014 5:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 301 (722907)
03-25-2014 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by shadow71
03-25-2014 5:27 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
So if the Big bang theory is correct, Hawking's theory is false?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2014 5:27 PM shadow71 has seen this message

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 90 of 301 (722992)
03-25-2014 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by kbertsche
03-25-2014 8:09 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
these philosophical/theological issues matter a great deal.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by kbertsche, posted 03-25-2014 8:09 PM kbertsche has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 03-26-2014 12:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 301 (723055)
03-26-2014 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Coyote
03-26-2014 12:42 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
How else is one to determine, after years of naval gazing, that one's own particular naval is the one perfect specimen in all the universe?

Doesn't it have something to do with rubbing blue paint in there?

Philosophers keep reminding us that scientists receive, after years of study, a Doctor of Philosophy degree. Perhaps its time we changed that, eh? Philosophers have ridden on our coat tails long enough!

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 03-26-2014 12:42 AM Coyote has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022