Lol pic at creationists

[vonkaar]

Scientists don't "give up" at the big bang... there are literally hundreds of theories to explain, mathematically, what happened prior to the big bang. Bubble multiverse theory, brane collision theory, inflationary universe... just to name some popular ones.

[Gidan]

I personally like the theory that eventually all the black holes in the universe (specifically the ones at the center of every galaxy) come together as they have devoured the entire universe between them. At the final moment, they will trigger another big bang and it all starts again.

[Drem]

I personally like the theory that eventually all the black holes in the universe (specifically the ones at the center of every galaxy) come together as they have devoured the entire universe between them. At the final moment, they will trigger another big bang and it all starts again.

that's how i figure it. once the universe return to nothing it will just expand again. like a mozart symphony or something heh

[KaiineTN]

If that's the case, has it infinitely already happened? Do you suppose if the nature of the universe were to shift from expanding to contracting, would it have any effect on time itself?

[Arlos]

Last I looked, all indications are that the universe's expansion is accelerating again. There was some thought for a while that the expansion might slow and the universe might start contracting, leading to what some called "The Big Crunch". However, since the expansion is accelerating, it appears that there is little to no chance it will ever contract, meaning no crunch.

-Arlos

[Drem]

no it hasn't happened. didn't you guys go to school when you grew up?

this is a pretty complex question to answer so you have to go back in astronomical history. the greeks were the first ones to ask if the universe were finite or infinite (really simple questions, like "what would happen if you stuck your hand outside the edge of the universe?"). they concluded it was infinite because a finite universe doesn't make any sense

so next, heinrich olbers proposed it had to be finite. no matter where a star is in relation to its distance from the earth, its luminosity is generally the same, though the size of its surface will change depending how far away from us it is. if it were infinite, and contained stars throughout, then the nighttime sky would appear as a sheer white light of unbroken stars. olbers concluded that it was finite

so then newton discovered the law of gravity and that made all previous concepts sound a little less believable. if everything attracts everything in the universe then why hasn't it collapsed?

well, einstein discovered the theory of relativity, which also suggested the universe had to be expanding or contracting, but he assumed it was static and proposed a cosmological constant that said the effects of gravity cancel after you reach a certain size. he was wrong

hubble came along in the '20s and proved everyone wrong by studying redshifts on variable stars (cepheids) that led to him figuring out that redshift on extremely distant galaxies increased as a linear function of their distance. which proved undoubtedly that the universe is, indeed, still expanding

and then, still further proving the big bang, some people discovered cosmic background microwave radiation. astronomers had thought they found it earlier but had no way to prove it until the space race and Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were able to put a satellite up into orbit to try and pick up microwaves. their antenna was hit from every single possible direction by microwaves. they thought it was a mistake and tested again and again and ultimately proved their existance and won a nobel physics prize and simultaneously convinced all of the intelligent scientific community that the big bang is very, very real

[Drem]

and as for what Arlos is saying, there's a program called The Sloan Digital Sky Survey that measures galaxy density in the universe. and he's right

[ClakarEQ]

I'm not trying to imply the big bang didn't happen, all I'm saying is you assume the conclusion is flawless even though it is based on some assumption. It would only take one discovery to potentially mix things up. There are times when science makes mistakes, assumptions, discoveries, etc, the birth of stars, the finding of objects so large they shouldn't exist, etc. There is no reason to question the science that's been used to provide the "proof" of the big bang at this time. I'm also aware that it's constantly tested, confirmed, etc. You have put your faith in the assumptions and the science used.

Please know that I'm not questioning the big bang, I've got my own spin on religion and it meshes wonderfully with the big bang and Christianity

Also, not being the physicist type and I'm asking this to confirm what I believe but do not know, the information we've collected, the imagery we're seeing, etc, isn't all that data billions of years old? The information isn't "real time", right? Even the stars in the sky at night could have burned out a billion or two years ago, right? How many billions of kilometers did this information have to travel without any possible flaw in that communication? Who's to say all this data collected hasn't been warped by black holes bending light and skewing the data? (please don’t take these examples as literal questions)

The deal is you can pose questions that are not logical to science because they have not been able to prove its truth, that doesn't have to make the question or answer an impossibility.

EDIT
I just wanted to stress that I'm not debating the big bang, evolution, etc. At the same time I'm not going to close my mind to the possibilty that the big bang and the creation of the universe isn't what we think it is today.

[Tikker]

I have issues with people making science and religion mutually exclusive.

I don't have an issue with that statement at all

science is about the how it happened

religion tries to give a why

[brinstar]

It would only take one discovery to potentially mix things up.

this is exactly how science works

the harder and longer a theory resists being disproved, the closer it gets to being accepted as fact. failed attempts to disprove it become part of its body of evidence.

[Narrock]

Funny thing about that picture time-line is that you could have said "God created:" at the top of the first column, and the big bang theorists would be left looking like fools.

[Arlos]

Mindia, claiming God created the Big Bang doesn't mean it didn't happen.

That's exactly why I said that the belief from the Bible that God created everything in no way conflicts with science. There's nothing whatsoever that science can say to the assertion that God caused the Big Bang to occur.

So, by all means, absolutely believe God created everything. Just also know that the Big Bang was part of that creation.

-Arlos

[Nusk]

genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

i dont see that and the big bang being at odds... only problem the light to many is seen as the sun but the sun inst created till the third "day"

[Narrock]

Just leave "human evolution" out of it, because there's nothing in the fossil record proving that man evolved from primates. And no, "Lucy" is not proof.

[Arlos]

Well, on that we're going to have to agree to disagree. I think there's been a lot of evidence for that, but I am not going to try and convince you of it at this point.

-Arlos

[Darcler]

Just leave "human evolution" out of it, because there's nothing in the fossil record proving that man evolved from primates. And no, "Lucy" is not proof.

I believe in both.
I typed out a few paragraphs detailing what I think took place, but I erased it. I dont feel like being picked fun at today.

[Narrock]

Just leave "human evolution" out of it, because there's nothing in the fossil record proving that man evolved from primates. And no, "Lucy" is not proof.

I believe in both.
I typed out a few paragraphs detailing what I think took place, but I erased it. I dont feel like being picked fun at today.

Go ahead Darcler. I won't pick fun at you, and Arlos won't either.

[Arlos]

As I said before, a belief that God created humanity in no way conflicts with the concept of human evolution.

If you want to say the source of each mutation that caused humans to develop was God sending the cosmic ray at just the right location, speed and angle, well, that's not something science can begin to refute.

The thing I want to be clear though, that belief is one of religious faith, it is not science itself, and thus should not be taught in a science classroom, but instead be discussed in Sunday school, etc., just like Sunday school should probably not cover molecular biology. (unless you have a very unusual priest, I suppose... *laugh*)

So yeah, there's nothing incompatible with a belief in evolution, even human evolution, and the concept that God created Humanity and the rest of all life. It's not what I believe myself, since I don't happen to be Christian, but that's what my parents believe, and they're devout enough to volunteer as eucharistic ministers and work in church family outreach programs designed to improve and strengthen marriages.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

As I said before, a belief that God created humanity in no way conflicts with the concept of human evolution.

If you want to say the source of each mutation that caused humans to develop was God sending the cosmic ray at just the right location, speed and angle, well, that's not something science can begin to refute.

The thing I want to be clear though, that belief is one of religious faith, it is not science itself, and thus should not be taught in a science classroom, but instead be discussed in Sunday school, etc., just like Sunday school should probably not cover molecular biology. (unless you have a very unusual priest, I suppose... *laugh*)

So yeah, there's nothing incompatible with a belief in evolution, even human evolution, and the concept that God created Humanity and the rest of all life. It's not what I believe myself, since I don't happen to be Christian, but that's what my parents believe, and they're devout enough to volunteer as eucharistic ministers and work in church family outreach programs designed to improve and strengthen marriages.

-Arlos

I can offer proof (based on hundreds of scientific websites) that apes have always been apes, and man has always been man.

[Arlos]

I'll just point out that the scientific community as a whole disagrees with you.

As I said, agreeing on the nature of human evolution is a tangential issue here.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

I'll just point out that the scientific community as a whole disagrees with you.

As I said, agreeing on the nature of human evolution is a tangential issue here.

-Arlos

Ok, after seeing this picture... I agree with you.

[Ganzo]

The Gospel of the White Lab Coat

There was once a Man in a White Lab Coat. Every day he would feed his white lab mice with cheese. And the mice give thanks to Man and say “Thank thee o great God of the Lab Coat, for providing us with our daily food.” If someday Man forget to put cheese in a cage, than mice say “Forgive us God in Lab Coat for we have sinned, we did not pray and follow your commandments, and you punished us.”

And mice said “Look at our fur it is also white, like the Lab Coat of God, thus we must have been created in God’s image.”

One day a came one sneaky mouse and said “I am son of God in Lab Coat, and I bring his new commandments” And some mice believed in him and followed Son of the God in White Lab Coat and other mice did not believe him and killed him for blaspheming against God in Lab Coat. And cage divided into Mice o f God and Mice of Son, and waged wars on each other.

Then came other mice that said there is no God in Lab Coat and no Son of God, and that cage came from explosions of galaxies, and cheese is generated from cages atmosphere through synthesis. And many mice stopped believing in God and started believing in science of the Cage.
But Man in White Lab Coat did not care what mice believe in, he continued to feed mice, and once in a while would take one of them out of the cage. If that mouse was bad others thought that he was sinful evildoer and God took him to hell, if he was good, that they thought that God rewarded him by taking him to heaven. In reality Man was just taking them for his experiments.

Maybe one day mice will realize reality of their lives, but for now they will continue to fight over White Lab Coat theories.

[Drem]

amen

[Tikker]

I can offer proof (based on hundreds of scientific websites) that apes have always been apes, and man has always been man.

well, no shit

man didn't evolve from modern apes you retard

if you go back far enough tho, there is a common ancestor

[Narrock]

I can offer proof (based on hundreds of scientific websites) that apes have always been apes, and man has always been man.

well, no shit

man didn't evolve from modern apes you retard

if you go back far enough tho, there is a common ancestor

Retard, the generally accepted theory by certain individuals is that "man evolved from apes." I merely repeated that common tag line. Don't attack the messenger.

Furthermore, here's some education for you: http://www.geocities.com/timothy_ah/God11.html