Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
32 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK (2 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,827 Year: 16,863/19,786 Month: 988/2,598 Week: 234/251 Day: 5/58 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Found
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


(1)
Message 15 of 301 (722326)
03-20-2014 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
03-18-2014 9:21 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2014 9:21 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2014 12:29 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 28 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2014 6:58 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 287 by myvavoister, posted 09-27-2014 12:17 AM shadow71 has not yet responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 17 of 301 (722337)
03-20-2014 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2014 12:29 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2014 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-20-2014 12:44 PM shadow71 has not yet responded
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2014 12:54 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 37 of 301 (722480)
03-21-2014 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Tangle
03-20-2014 6:58 PM


thanks, that explains it for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2014 6:58 PM Tangle has not yet responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 50 of 301 (722710)
03-24-2014 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Otto Tellick
03-24-2014 12:17 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-24-2014 12:17 AM Otto Tellick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by vimesey, posted 03-24-2014 12:56 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 53 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2014 1:36 PM shadow71 has not yet responded
 Message 107 by Taq, posted 03-27-2014 5:15 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 143 by ramoss, posted 03-29-2014 1:47 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 55 of 301 (722735)
03-24-2014 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by vimesey
03-24-2014 12:56 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by vimesey, posted 03-24-2014 12:56 PM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2014 3:58 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 57 by vimesey, posted 03-24-2014 4:02 PM shadow71 has responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 58 of 301 (722744)
03-24-2014 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Tangle
03-24-2014 3:58 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2014 3:58 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-24-2014 4:59 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 62 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2014 5:12 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 59 of 301 (722745)
03-24-2014 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by vimesey
03-24-2014 4:02 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by vimesey, posted 03-24-2014 4:02 PM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by vimesey, posted 03-24-2014 5:11 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 63 of 301 (722757)
03-24-2014 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye
03-24-2014 4:59 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-24-2014 4:59 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-24-2014 6:42 PM shadow71 has responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 65 of 301 (722762)
03-24-2014 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by New Cat's Eye
03-24-2014 6:42 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-24-2014 6:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 80 of 301 (722857)
03-25-2014 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ringo
03-25-2014 12:59 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 03-25-2014 12:59 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by 1.61803, posted 03-25-2014 2:19 PM shadow71 has not yet responded
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 3:06 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 03-26-2014 11:38 AM shadow71 has not yet responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 83 of 301 (722875)
03-25-2014 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by New Cat's Eye
03-25-2014 3:06 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 3:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 4:25 PM shadow71 has responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 85 of 301 (722901)
03-25-2014 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by New Cat's Eye
03-25-2014 4:25 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 4:25 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 5:38 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 87 by 1.61803, posted 03-25-2014 5:51 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 99 of 301 (723180)
03-27-2014 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by NoNukes
03-26-2014 11:51 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by NoNukes, posted 03-26-2014 11:51 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2014 1:40 PM shadow71 has not yet responded
 Message 108 by Taq, posted 03-27-2014 5:24 PM shadow71 has responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 100 of 301 (723181)
03-27-2014 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Diomedes
03-26-2014 12:19 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Diomedes writes:

Well, that would be all them, would it not?

Thanks


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Diomedes, posted 03-26-2014 12:19 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1192 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 111 of 301 (723216)
03-27-2014 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Taq
03-27-2014 5:24 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Thanks Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Taq, posted 03-27-2014 5:24 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019