For all of you "Big Bang" Believers...

Pete Harcoff · #11 28th March 2003, 11:20 PM

About the opening post:

First, the Big Bang Theory deals with the origin of the universe (in effect, the origin of space-time itself). It's pretty complicated, and unfortunately, I don't know of any good intro sites on the Big Bang Theory (if anyone does, please chime in).

Second, no one disputes that two dead cells cannot create a live cell.

Third, no one claims that we got "all this" from a collision between two rocks.

Forth, I have looked around and I don't think everything formed by chance. Rather, they formed by matter and energy interactions based on the fundamental laws of the universe.

JohnR7 · #12 29th March 2003, 12:22 AM

Yesterday at 10:42 PM Servant77 said this in Post #1  Do you think we got all of this from a collision of two rocks? 

By two rocks do you mean the earth and the moon? That is the popular theory right now, that somewhere along the way the moon hit the earth and bounced off of it.

panterapat · #13 29th March 2003, 12:25 AM

I believe that HOWEVER the world was created- GOD DID IT!

Servant77 · #14 29th March 2003, 12:47 AM

good answer. now about ice cream...

Orihalcon · #15 29th March 2003, 02:35 AM

that has got to be the fastest OT post i have ever seen

cookies and cream with chocolate chunks

sr. scholls · #16 29th March 2003, 03:06 AM

Today at 07:20 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #11

About the opening post:

First, the Big Bang Theory deals with the origin of the universe (in effect, the origin of space-time itself). It's pretty complicated, and unfortunately, I don't know of any good intro sites on the Big Bang Theory (if anyone does, please chime in).

Second, no one disputes that two dead cells cannot create a live cell.

Third, no one claims that we got "all this" from a collision between two rocks.

Forth, I have looked around and I don't think everything formed by chance. Rather, they formed by matter and energy interactions based on the fundamental laws of the universe.

But where did the matter and energy interactions come from? According to the Big Bang Theory, all things in the "unformed" universe were paralleled to each other, gaseous matter collided in accordance with the natural laws of science and the universe. But.....the Big Bang theory ultimately tries to tell us how the universe was created. But how did the bang come from nowhere if this theory were to coincide with many of the theories of evolution? Something evolving from something--but where did that first atom come from? Does it not take the same amount of faith to believe that an Almighty God created the universe as it does believing that the universe was created from....nothing? How could it just happen? Scientifically how is that possible? If you can explain to me how big the universe is, with evidentiary fact, real numbers, things that a human mind can comprehend, then I would say your theory is heading in the right direction to proving itself correct. But although we all realize that the universe is vast and immeasureable and that most advanced mind cannot fathom its infinity, we still believe that it is endless. The difference between us is where we put our faith. My faith rests in my Creator, yours, the created, which leaves much room for doubt and speculation. And for that matter, can you prove one thing in the Bible that is not scientifically and historically accurate? I say your theories have more, "what ifs" and "maybes" than my faith in God does.

 

Btw, when I say "you" I'm not actually attacking one person specifically. I'm not attacking anyone, just looking for loopholes and doubt surrounding these theories from the people who should know them best.

Arikay · #17 29th March 2003, 03:36 AM

Well, one thing to point out, is that evolution is only about biology and not the begining of the universe.

However, One hypothesis is that since the laws of physics break down when we reach the big bang, physics means nothing at the begining of the big bang, so anything could have happend that otherwise wouldnt happen in the normal universe.

Another is that we are just a complex nothing. Just like (93+50)(6+2) +(57-300/2)-(40+20*10)-(600*2)+(300+80) +9 is just a fancy way of saying 0. The hypothesis is that all the energies in the universe equal out to 0. So no energy was created or destroyed in the big bang, because the total amount of energy in the universe is 0.

"can you prove one thing in the Bible that is not scientifically and historically accurate?"

There are plenty of threads here that show that the literal interpretation of the bible is incorrect.
One is my math of the flood thread, found here (yes I like that thread

): http://www.christianforums.com/threads/37629.html

Oh, and "goddidit" is not a good answer for defending the bible, as its not taking the bible literally.

Today at 12:06 AM sr. scholls said this in Post #16

But where did the matter and energy interactions come from? According to the Big Bang Theory, all things in the "unformed" universe were paralleled to each other, gaseous matter collided in accordance with the natural laws of science and the universe. But.....the Big Bang theory ultimately tries to tell us how the universe was created. But how did the bang come from nowhere if this theory were to coincide with many of the theories of evolution? Something evolving from something--but where did that first atom come from? Does it not take the same amount of faith to believe that an Almighty God created the universe as it does believing that the universe was created from....nothing? How could it just happen? Scientifically how is that possible? If you can explain to me how big the universe is, with evidentiary fact, real numbers, things that a human mind can comprehend, then I would say your theory is heading in the right direction to proving itself correct. But although we all realize that the universe is vast and immeasureable and that most advanced mind cannot fathom its infinity, we still believe that it is endless. The difference between us is where we put our faith. My faith rests in my Creator, yours, the created, which leaves much room for doubt and speculation. And for that matter, can you prove one thing in the Bible that is not scientifically and historically accurate? I say your theories have more, "what ifs" and "maybes" than my faith in God does.

 

Btw, when I say "you" I'm not actually attacking one person specifically. I'm not attacking anyone, just looking for loopholes and doubt surrounding these theories from the people who should know them best.

chickenman · #18 29th March 2003, 03:37 AM

I say your theories have more, "what ifs" and "maybes" than my faith in God does.

I agree, I like the what ifs and maybes, means there's still something to learn

seebs · #19 29th March 2003, 03:53 AM

Yesterday at 09:42 PM Servant77 said this in Post #1

The "Big Bang" theory can't exist...

Well, a theory called that does exist.

First of all, two dead cells cannot create a live cell, nor can energy.

So? What's that got to do with the big bang?

Second, just look around you! Do you think we got all of this from a collision of two rocks? Do you think two dead cells created a single microscopic live cell that evolved into all of this?Do you think this happened by chance? Surely not, this is a work of God, something that we will never truly understand... I know that more people rather here this from a trained, eduacated professional rather than a kid that is not even in high school, but I think I might be on to something. Thank you for reading and replying my thread. God Bless.

What you're talking about, and what scientists are weighing evidence about, are totally unrelated. You might be well-advised to give a year or two of study to the question before declaring that your initial impressions of it prove it wrong.

sr. scholls · #20 29th March 2003, 04:12 AM

Today at 11:36 PM Arikay said this in Post #17

Well, one thing to point out, is that evolution is only about biology and not the begining of the universe.

However, One hypothesis is that since the laws of physics break down when we reach the big bang, physics means nothing at the begining of the big bang, so anything could have happend that otherwise wouldnt happen in the normal universe.

Another is that we are just a complex nothing. Just like (93+50)(6+2) +(57-300/2)-(40+20*10)-(600*2)+(300+80) +9 is just a fancy way of saying 0. The hypothesis is that all the energies in the universe equal out to 0. So no energy was created or destroyed in the big bang, because the total amount of energy in the universe is 0.

"can you prove one thing in the Bible that is not scientifically and historically accurate?"

There are plenty of threads here that show that the literal interpretation of the bible is incorrect.
One is my math of the flood thread, found here (yes I like that thread ): http://www.christianforums.com/threads/37629.html

Oh, and "goddidit" is not a good answer for defending the bible, as its not taking the bible literally.

 

So it didn't say that God created the Universe? I know I haven't read Genesis in a while, but I'm preety sure that it does. Anyways, that's just a sidetopic. I'm trying to stay open minded about every aspect, so I am willing to dissect every point that we will be discussing. Biology, the study of life--no? Wouldn't biology consider how life came to be? And if it doesn't already, is there an "ology" that does which doesn't intertwine with the theory of evolution? I've read in previous posts on this subject in the "evolution is/isn't" thread(or maybe I'm mistaken?) that evolution has nothing to do with how life came about, just how it is changing.

 

Anyways, I'm not very excited to discuss the "is/is nots" of evolution/biology together. The only reason I brought up evolution was because of its tie with the Big Bang theory. Many evolutionists I've met count them as one in the same. My question(s) were leaning more towards the Big Bang theory itself. I'm more interested with this breaking down of these fundamental laws that are the basis of this theory and every other with the creation of the universe and life for that matter. For a theory to try to remain as true to pure scientific reason, it sure does bend and break alot of its own rules to gain grounds. It makes me wonder about Einstein's theory of E=MC2, why that is still a theory although it has proven itself time and again. Does the Big Bang theory have the kind of staying power to be tested endlessly and not falter? I think it will remain a theory and never be proven because for us to test this theory, we would have to create our own Big Bang. We would have to live in a world of nothing, where universal laws and physics don't exist, which could never happen. I was also curious as to your standpoint on my statements the faith needed to believe in an unproveable theory. The only reason I disclaim the Big Bang theory is because you can hypothesize all you want, but until you are actually able to test that hypothesis or theory, then it will ultimately just remain that. This is also true with Creationism. It all boils down to faith. Would you disagree?