As I understand it, everything did not exist at all a nano-second before the "Big Bang" and everything, absolutely all the energy in the Universe was in existence a nano-second after the "Big Bang." From where did all of this come? How did it come to be? Is it the same thing as believing in a Creator? Why or why not?
If we are living in a natural world of a definable nature everything coming from nothing stretches credulity. Why is the theory behind the universe's "natural" and spontaneous physical creation any more believable than a "supernatural" and intellectual creation?
They are answering different things.
The Big Bang theory is a theory (yes, a theory) that reconciles what we're able to observe about the state and expansion of the universe. It is using observable phenomena to put together what is probably the best theory current about the origin of the universe.
About the origin of existence (which is different), we don't know. As we understand it now, matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed. So where our universe got its matter and energy is beyond our knowledge currently. Maybe we'll figure it out eventually.
Saying it was a Creator is a guess although that doesn't really explain what created the Creator. Besides, in most religious people's minds, the Creator didn't just create existence, but did a whole lot of other doubtful things (talk to people, create animals out of dust, etc.) that are disprovable or at least worthy of reasonable skepticism.
So there is no explanation of a natural, physical cause for the origin of everything? In fact, that things are is proof that there is no origin, if nothing is the precursor.
Nothing definitive as yet, although there are some theories.
I don't see that as a problem or a reason to believe in a creator, either.
Though I am a believer in one I am not a disbeliever in the other. I am merely asking the questions. Another questions might be, what is lost when one does believe in a creator?
Sanity, reason, rationale, honesty, integrity... the list goes on as to what is lost.
That's true and that's possible. The origin of the existence is so mind-boggling that it's impossible for us today to grasp it.
But, then again, quantum mechanics was inconceivable for medieval man, too, and that was only 1000 years ago (a tiny blip in mankind's existence). We have to keep looking.
Reality is a definite; whether you believe it was created by G-d or not, it is something we interact with and observe to unlock the mysteries of existence.
We expect that the natural world is a stable, easily observable and easily apprehendable thing. It isn't. Is there matter? Is the universe static? Is everything chaos and dynamism? The laws of science we have come to accept exist in this universe but were all universes in the multi-verse created at the big bang? Are the laws of science the same in those other universes?
No, those are not reasonable expectations. You can't see bacteria without the aid of a powerful microscope. Radioactive isotopes are not stable. Most of the cutting edge research into subatomic particles is beyond the understand of the vast majority of humanity. That doesn't mean any less that any of these things are not valuable, or that they don't respect that the natural world operates under certain laws (entropy is one of them).
This doesn't mean we've understood all of those laws yet. I'm not sure why some religious people always feel rushed about these things: "if we haven't figured everything out, then it must be the doing of an unobservable being who talks to me." No, G-d is not talking to us. We have to figure it out on our own, and because we don't know yet, does not mean we'll never know.
It is entirely possible that there are other universes, and that they operate differently from ours. It's good to keep an open mind because we really don't know.
Not saying anything about a communicative God. I do ask the question, however, what does one lose if one believes in God? or in keeping with this thread - a creator?
It depends. You can have a very vague definition of G-d like Jews do (G-d is explicitly unknowable in Judaism), or you can have a very, very specific one that could be dispelled by scientific discovery. This is why Christians, who have probably the most concrete definitions of G-d, are probably the most resistant to scientific progress.
As a Jew myself, I see no conflict in probing the mysteries of existence. Scientific discovery is ongoing revelation, and that's been in our hands for quite some time.
Aquinas talks about the absurdity of trying to apprehend the nature of the infinite. Christians also make up a large number of significant scientists in history. Christians belief in a personal relationship with God and Jesus may lead to a certainty about the nature of things. This is more attributable to the limited time and energy one has to work and produce to the exclusion of contemplative endeavors.
The Protestant ethic may have much to do with this.
Maybe, although they're clearly not the evangelical variety. Evangelicals have created an entire absurd "Christian science" that is designed to bolster their own beliefs without peer review.
I think there are lots of Catholics involved in science, too. Catholic doctrine is generally not anti-science as far as I know.
I am a firm believer in evolution and the big bang theory. It does not have any direct impact on my beliefs in god and Jesus. I think science is of vital importance and plays an incredibly important role in religion. Without science coming up with facts it is impossible to understand the mechanics of god and his inner workings. I think the creation story might have truth to it. I think that Adam and Eve was a science project of sorts designed by God for a reason. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first of their kind and the great grandparents of Judaism and not the beginning of all mankind. But rather the beginning couple created by God with the sole purpose of creating a new way of
living a pious life through him and his chosen religion that he wanted to create for himself. But that's just my personal beliefs.
Hey, ucd, I know we've never seen eye to eye and I apologize for the part I played in our last interaction.
Having said that I must say (at the risk of making hell freeze over) that I agree with you 100% on this one. I've never been much of a religious person for many of the usual reasons that are frequently talked about on the religious forums. On the other hand I have always found the Big Bang theory equally dissatisfying.
Vision, you ask an interesting, but often hackneyed question, yes?
The issue, that is knowing the 5w's and the how, cannot be answered from a ration of thought. Both rational and irrational do not apply. They are light symbiotic, not requiring yes/no to determine, but rather TO contain/process understanding. Rational Irrational is Duality -the core of humanism.
To question it, makes little sense.
The BB came AFTER some other event, yes? The BB was the RESULT of an(other) event(s). Traditionally, and generally it is from the Hebrew script, where the explanations regarding the origin of nature/creation come. Accordingly, the BB would be identical to "And El`ohim said, "..."
It is before the 3 "..." we should be looking, not after the Said//Bang. That is where the irrational comes in. A processor cannot answer questions. The human mind is not designed to answer questions. It is designed to process understanding. If done correctly, yields no necessity to 'know' and infinite experience of understanding (philos/wisdom/applied faith).
The first thing that springs to mind is the question, who created the creator and where did it get all that energy to make a universe?
If I look at the one thing that is consistent with that is the fact that all the energy came from somewhere. The variable is the injection of a creator that also came from somewhere.
Occam would rule out the unknown variable in that scenario as it makes it simpler to look at where all the energy came from and not having to figure out where a creator would originate, too.
It is just a theory. Your phrasing is odd. Do people "believe in" theories?
A theory, by definition, is not yet proven. So, yes, I would say if someone "believes in" the Big Bang theory, then that is not rational.
However, it is rational to acknowledge that it is currently the most commonly accepted theory of how the universe came to be.
I would say that among scientists the most commonly held believe about the origin of the universe is the "Big Bang." Among all people it is creation. Isn't theory a kind of belief? It is not a description of actual events but a construct. Isn't that belief?
I don't think that theory is a kind of belief. In its scientific sense, a theory describes a concept that can be tested; it is based upon a hypothesis and is supported by evidence.
While it is not a description of actual events, it is a concept that is used to explain phenomena.
This is vastly different from a belief in a supernatural being based upon faith.
How does one test for things like global warming, evolution and the big bang? Perhaps the reason why these three ideas are most challenged is not because they, in turn, challenge religious or political belief, but because they do not rise to the intellectual and scientific rigor of Relativity - one of the most tested scientific ideas.
They do present interesting Hypotheses about their respective subjects but do they actually explain with predictable, provable and replicable results?
A theory is an explanation of observed events. I suppose it could be classified as a belief if you believe you're observing the actual events. I would think a theory doesn't really suggest belief, but instead offers understanding of those events.
How does one observe an original, unaltered event when, according to Quantum Mechanics, one cannot observe without altering?
The loophole is in the 'mechanics', which is correct.
QMec cannot observe without altering; no mechanism can.
Unless the mechanic is altered by the event at the same instance the event is revealed/reveals itself and alters the mechanic being observed by the event.
Observation of the micro world and the macro world are two completely different things. How does the collapse of a wave function affect an asteroid colliding with earth?
We have been told in the last couple of years that observing dark matter may create more dark matter. The implication is that Quanta do not make up all matter regardless the size.
Never heard that one, have you got some citations?
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007 … iverse.ars
It isn't so much creating more but hastening the end of the universe - theoretically!
That theory looks like it's a few years or so old and didn't make it to peer review. Looks like a lot of nonsense, actually.
Dark energy that is observed is many light years away and would take many years to reach us. Sounds like a take on entanglement to me.
Correction.. A theory is a RATIONAL explanation of events.
A belief is the confidence that an event occurred.
So creation is a supernatural explanation while Big Bang is an irrational explanation, both of which are untenable in nature.
Sorry jomine, but you have denied in the face of cold hard facts that which is common knowledge. I can't take anything you say seriously anymore.
Its you who is misguided by the relativits. You just changed your religion from Christianity to relativity, you just accept what they taught with out questioning. Otherwise you would have asked how nothing suddenly got length, width and height to become something. If space was created only after biggbang what gave shape to the primordial universe? How energy, a concept, can be changed into matter?
How time, another concept, can dilate?
Creation or what ever(including experiments) are consummated events and past can only be explained rationally. There is no role for irrational(relativity) or supernatural(religion).
The fact that you have no idea what you're talking about and are in denial of cold, hard facts, which you also don't seem to know anything about is completely laughable. I find it so hard to believe you argue with religious believers when they have better arguments than you do.
Either you do not know what is meant by "rational" or choose to ignore it.
Which is laughable, just parroting the relativist and saying GPS proves relativity and it is hard fact(Any other HARD fact you got?), or having the ability to differentiate between object and concept?
If you are as capable as you claim, do one thing,
Define time, and tell the whole world how it dilates......That way you can win your intelligent arguments hands down!(You will also be proving that GPS works on the principle of "time dilation" as the relativists claim.
Unbelievable. Parroting the relativist?
All your doing is offering obfuscation in place of any rational argument. You're in denial and making ridiculous statements about definitions.
It's like saying computers work on binary; on and off signals and you would be arguing that "Off" cannot possibly exist, "Off" is just a concept and not an object, define "Off"!!!
I can't believe I'm still having this discussion.
Just out of curiosity, are you the same fanatic relativist Beelzedad?
Have you got no other "hard facts"?
So you cannot define time or tell how "it" dilate, so does what religious people usually do when a direct question is put, side step the question.
If you are so sure of GPS, tell why HK experiment failed, both did the same thing, took atomic clocks around earth's orbit.
Got any idea what "exist" is??!!
I can. Religious people are never tired of repeating the same thing again and again(just as you do), in the hope of wearing out the opponent.
So far you only said GPS works on relativity, and failed to see why it is not, even though I explained in detail and told you the same thing done as experiment(the Haffele-Keating Experiment), failed to "prove" relativity. You are simply, blindly, repeating the same thing.
If you have no other "hard facts"(at least, try the gravity probe) or cannot explain any of the basic axioms of relativity rationally, I don't find any reason for me to explain again.
LOL! Are you saying that just because someone else understands the subject matter, they must be one and the same person?
The fact that GPS requires relativistic calculations in order to work are all the "hard facts" anyone needs. We don't even need to venture into other areas of science where relativity plays a big part.
More off tangent gobbledegook, more denial. Truly stellar comedy, jomine.
Understand? I have never seen such a stellar moron before, you mimic him exactly.
So you have no other hard facts, nor able to explain HK, yet just like a believer repeating "god is there", you repeat "GPS proves relativity"!! Great
Resorting to name calling, now?
LOL! There are a lot more facts about relativity. But, since you are in a state of denial of the single lone fact that GPS needs relativity to work, there's no need to go beyond that.
A moron is a moron, whether I chose to call him that or not.
Have you ever heard of "ephemeris"? Do you know the factors that needed to be accommodated to synchronize the clocks? Got any idea how the clocks are synchronized? You know the difference between Lorentz relativity and Special relativity?
And pray, how the clock adjustments prove "time dilation" in relativity?
Is "time" and "clock" one and the same thing?
Why you still refuse to explain how GPS proves relativity, while the identical HK failed?
I cannot put it more simply that you can understand!
Go ahead and resort to name calling. It's your best argument, so far.
No, you could offer more gobbledegook and ask more silly questions and remain in your state of denial, I'm sure of it.
Position, and Time from GPS
• Code Phase Tracking (Navigation)
• The GPS receiver produces replicas of the C/A and/or P (Y)-Code. Each PRN code is a noise-like, but pre-determined, unique series of bits.
• The receiver produces the C/A code sequence for a specific SV with some form of a C/A code generator. Modern receivers usually store a complete set of precomputed C/A code chips in memory, but a hardware, shift register, implementation can also be used.
• The C/A code generator produces a different 1023 chip sequence for each phase tap setting. In a shift register implementation the code chips are shifted in time by slewing the clock that controls the shift registers. In a memory lookup scheme the required code chips are retrieved from memory.
• The C/A code generator repeats the same 1023-chip PRN-code sequence every millisecond. PRN codes are defined for 32 satellite identification numbers.
• The receiver slides a replica of the code in time until there is correlation with the SV code.
• If the receiver applies a different PRN code to an SV signal there is no correlation.
• When the receiver uses the same code as the SV and the codes begin to line up, some signal power is detected.
• As the SV and receiver codes line up completely, the spread-spectrum carrier signal is de-spread and full signal power is detected.
• A GPS receiver uses the detected signal power in the correlated signal to align the C/A code in the receiver with the code in the SV signal. Usually a late version of the code is compared with an early version to insure that the correlation peak is tracked.
• A phase locked loop that can lock to either a positive or negative half-cycle (a bi-phase lock loop) is used to demodulate the 50 HZ navigation message from the GPS carrier signal. The same loop can be used to measure and track the carrier frequency (Doppler shift) and by keeping track of the changes to the numerically controlled oscillator, carrier frequency phase can be tracked and measured.
• The receiver PRN code start position at the time of full correlation is the time of arrival (TOA) of the SV PRN at receiver. This TOA is a measure of the range to SV offset by the amount to which the receiver clock is offset from GPS time. This TOA is called the pseudo-range.
• Pseudo-Range Navigation
• The position of the receiver is where the pseudo-ranges from a set of SVs intersect.
• Position is determined from multiple pseudo-range measurements at a single measurement epoch. The pseudo range measurements are used together with SV position estimates based on the precise orbital elements (the ephemeris data) sent by each SV. This orbital data allows the receiver to compute the SV positions in three dimensions at the instant that they sent their respective signals.
• Four satellites (normal navigation) can be used to determine three position dimensions and time. Position dimensions are computed by the receiver in Earth-Centered, Earth-Fixed X, Y, Z (ECEF XYZ) coordinates.
• Time is used to correct the offset in the receiver clock, allowing the use of an inexpensive receiver clock.
• SV Position in XYZ is computed from four SV pseudo-ranges and the clock correction and ephemeris data.
• Receiver position is computed from the SV positions, the measured pseudo-ranges (corrected for SV clock offsets, ionospheric delays, and relativistic effects), and a receiver position estimate (usually the last computed receiver position).
• Three satellites could be used determine three position dimensions with a perfect receiver clock. In practice this is rarely possible and three SVs are used to compute a two-dimensional, horizontal fix (in latitude and longitude) given an assumed height. This is often possible at sea or in altimeter equipped aircraft.
• Five or more satellites can provide position, time and redundancy. More SVs can provide extra position fix certainty and can allow detection of out-of-tolerance signals under certain circumstances.
• Receiver Position, Velocity, and Time
• Position in XYZ is converted within the receiver to geodetic latitude, longitude and height above the ellipsoid.
• Latitude and longitude are usually provided in the geodetic datum on which GPS is based (WGS-84). Receivers can often be set to convert to other user-required datums. Position offsets of hundreds of meters can result from using the wrong datum.
• Velocity is computed from change in position over time, the SV Doppler frequencies, or both.
• Time is computed in SV Time, GPS Time, and UTC.
• SV Time is the time maintained by each satellite. Each SV contains four atomic clocks (two cesium and two rubidium). SV clocks are monitored by ground control stations and occasionally reset to maintain time to within one-millisecond of GPS time. Clock correction data bits reflect the offset of each SV from GPS time.
• SV Time is set in the receiver from the GPS signals. Data bit subframes occur every six seconds and contain bits that resolve the Time of Week to within six seconds. The 50 Hz data bit stream is aligned with the C/A code transitions so that the arrival time of a data bit edge (on a 20 millisecond interval) resolves the pseudo-range to the nearest millisecond. Approximate range to the SV resolves the twenty millisecond ambiguity, and the C/A code measurement represents time to fractional milliseconds. Multiple SVs and a navigation solution (or a known position for a timing receiver) permit SV Time to be set to an accuracy limited by the position error and the pseudo-range error for each SV.
• SV Time is converted to GPS Time in the receiver.
• GPS Time is a "paper clock" ensemble of the Master Control Clock and the SV clocks. GPS Time is measured in weeks and seconds from 24:00:00, January 5, 1980 and is steered to within one microsecond of UTC. GPS Time has no leap seconds and is ahead of UTC by several seconds.
• Time in Universal Coordinated Time (UTC) is computed from GPS Time using the UTC correction parameters sent as part of the navigation data bits.
• At the transition between 23:59:59 UTC on December 31, 1998 and 00:00:00 UTC on January 1, 1999, UTC was retarded by one-second. GPS Time is now ahead of UTC by 13 seconds.
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraf … gps_f.html
You will be happy to note that there is a relativistic correction too. Note this though, in HK they used SR,GR,LR and Sagnac to explain, while in GPS they use only SR and GR. Why they chose to omit LR and Sagnac? An atomic clock is based on atom vibration which is affected by gravity and velocity. If instead of using atomic clocks, they used clocks that is not dependent on gravity, there would need no correction. Again relativity does not claim clock slows, it claim time slows and there is a heaven and hell difference between the too. If I tie a clock at the end of a rope and rotate it and the clocks slows, it certainly will not slows down time, it will only slows down the clock.
Thanks for posting that. Will you remain in denial, now?
You still didn't get it, did you?
The gps is not corrected to 39s as you claim. The clock is corrected using standard locations. The difference time is explained by the ephemerals including relativity. Unfortunately all the variables are not known for the calibration, hence the idiotic explanation of relativity too goes.
LOL! Okay, so you are going to remain in denial even though YOU posted exactly the same thing as I did.
i can't make you think. You can "believe" whatever you please and call it rational.
Believers will always remain believers and be loyal to their gods whether its jesus or einstein, though they have no understanding of it.
Why say that? It is you who firmly believes that something does not exist when it most certainly does exist as a common everyday item. Where is the belief that I have? You're just projecting your own shortcomings onto me. The data is there, the evidence is there. You simply have denied it all to exist and that is the bottom line here.
So you believe sun and moon exist. Does your non-belief make it non-existent. You cannot make out the difference between an object and a concept. You consider time as an object and make it dilate. And you "believe" in existence, and telling me that my ability to differentiate between an object and concept is a short coming.
How does gobbledegook help your argument?
Objects behave a certain way based on "concepts" which are the theories that explain that behavior. What is so hard to understand about that?
That is your own personal belief.
No, your ability to deny that which exists is the shortcoming. GPS exists.
Or, are you now going to claim GPS do not exist?
Notice that your post has nothing to do with the fact that GPS exist and work due to relativistic effects. No matter how much you refuse to accept that or deny that is irrelevant to the fact it works. So far, you have done nothing to show otherwise. You even posted a link that agreed with me.
A: The BBT was laid out and completed by none other than a Catholic Priest. In his attempt to explain as science the framing of the universe beyond scripture. His entire epitaph, err, epi tome reeks with the threads of Theos (the brain child of humanism : equation | sensation ). That, disqualifies it immediately as possibility, not probability.
If that is the first question, then by golly, I was correct, humanism is on its way out. The final fig leaf!
The universe is energy, so should the Hebrew consideration be correct, then when Creator "said", energy poured from his mouth and that energy IS the universe. A giant bubble/discus of expanding light energy.
Now, to say the first Q is where, is ridiculous!!!
Where is not the least bit constant.
In fact, Where is the farthest left Duality possible looking for the opposing farthest right duality, to propose information as an answer, as facts.
It really doesn't 'matter' where or if Creator came from. What matters is why humans keep asking about that; why they need to know something they already possess understanding of.
Humans need to seize this pathetic pretending of stupidity and hope for all and get back to using 100% of their brains, processing understanding like they process questions that go no 'where' fast.
I am amazed that we would dismiss the existence of a creator that existed before everything came to be and not dismiss a nothing that existed before everything came to be. The gap in knowledge left by science is supposed to be left by science as if scientific knowledge is a perfect knowledge. As if a religious belief is incompatible with a scientific understanding. How is a physical creation of everything from nothing more reasonable than a physical creation of everything from the mind or word of God?
Again, knowledge is irrelevant. Knowledge is a processor, even as this AMD dual core processor in this machine. It is not designed to question-answer. Its purpose is to do, so my input becomes your output and vis-e-vie.
Excuse the paralysis of words here, but Reason is precisely the problem. Physic(al) is merely what humans define as ordered/organized/organic energy. Solidified light. And by there own admission 95% of light -the universe- is not tangible nor visible, making it seem like nothing. Equation claiming everything came from nothing as rational is just as irrational as sensation saying it came from the Bible (the complete and total words of 'g/God'. [Titled] Science and [titled] Religion are identical in nature. I have so many examples. Theos is the root of both and Theos came from Humanism.
But, not to beat up on them too much, the reason they have these perspectives is simply because they have forgotten and the processor (their minds) have assumed control over them. In my book-in-progress, I define this as the Adamic Inception (aka Humanism). A thought in man became an idea, that idea consumed him -the idea of himself as the self proclaimed cosmic scribe of everything that ever was or is to be. What he soon discovered, he went too deep down the rabbit hole of his own mind, and has all but forgotten who he truly is. The evidence of his compensation for that effect is clearly evident today.
So, in a way they are correct: this 'nothing' exists. This 'nothing' is the void in themselves to once more understand instead of settling for knowledge/knowing/processing.
I would agree, so in a quest to use those brains, please tell me what we know of a creator and the understanding we possess?
(clears throat). Ahem, "Everything!".
Reason is precisely 'why' humans pretend not to know. All the knowledge is/was genetically placed into every human. How else do humans suppose any construct of thought came into being. Majik?
Reason is precisely the 5w's & the 'how' humans rely on, in order to continue to remain in this Amnesiac Hostel.
If you or I had no knowledge of, we would not be having this or any conversation regarding this or that. We would be plants.
lol. clever answer.
But in all seriousness, we do know.
Religion is a process of knowledge based on ritualistic sensationalism. Science is a process of knowledge based on ritualistic equation. So, that's Theos.
Knowledge of exists in everyone, it was genetically programmed. So, that's the brain. But, application of knowledge is what is lacking.
We assume application of thought leads to understanding, leads to answers when in fact they do not. Thought leads us further down the rabbit hole of itself. Like madness.
Some say, the application of understanding cannot exist in the brain. That application is often misdefined as faith, even though a minimal practice are used by religion and science.
Faith is not a necessity, not a need to know (need not to know) nor need to believe (disbelieve), but is an action of understanding -watch closely- processed by knowledge (the brain) to maintain tangible-intangible unity. That is called observed by observing-observing by observed. In Talmud, that is called tangible-intangible unity, infinity, aka a human being. Unified and solidified tangible-intangible energy (of) creator. Also called creation.
So, what don't humans know? I suppose the only thing they do not know is 'nothing' (meaning the depth of their self imposed necessity)
Both seem superficial to me, but we had to come from somewhere. The Big Bang is a good theory for science buffs, and a creator is a good theory for religious people. Sometimes people believe that God made the Big Bang happen.
I rented a movie called THE BIG BANG thinking it was a documentary on how the world came to be. It wasn't what I expected. VERY DISTURBING!
Perhaps another explanation of how things came to be.
Don't you hate when that happens? Some movies need a warning. Lol!
It said starring Ron Jeremy... and I thought I had read something about Pastor Ron Jeremy somewhere... Oh, dear!
Well, we wouldn't all be here without a big bang somewhere along the lines!!
I find myself in a difficult position. On the one hand I cannot believe in a creator, because I believe in evidence and science based research, and belief in a creator seems irrational, illogical and indeed in most respects, unnecessary, because science, research, observation and experiment increasingly finds natural ways in which events once regarded as supernatural or miraculous can be reasonably explained.
However, it does seem to me that cosmological scientists in their adoration of mathematical equations and extrapolations from these equations, allow their theories to lead them into areas which utterly ignore common sense - they would prefer to believe their mathematics than basic common sense. Without a satisfactory explanation I can understand, I cannot believe that matter and energy can just materialise out of nothing. I therefore believe that 'something' - the universe, or previous universes, or energy acted upon to create a universe of matter - has always existed
I don't think the "Big Bang" is irrational at all. It is just that it is difficult for the human mind to comprehend the concept, because we think in a very small way, but ideas concerning the beginning of the universe are too big for our little minds. However, the concept of the Big Bang is entirely mechanistic and therefore entirely natural and understood by physics. The concept of God however, is entirely supernatural, and as science has shown that the supernatural plays no part in the universe, then there is no need to resort to it as an explanation for the creation of the universe.
And that which proceeds the Big Bang? From where does everything come? Have we become accustomed to dismissing God through arrogance or through certainty? I am not so sure that we don't lose more than we gain by doing so. I do find it entertaining that atheists tend to be rather arrogant and humorless about a matter of their own belief.
I never condemn an atheist to hell, because I am far more concerned about my own beliefs and thoughts but I do see that atheists are quite comfortable dismissing believers are defective, stupid, delusional, etc.... I suppose the surety of science has never lead to death camps and pogroms.
You say dismissing God is arrogant. Isn't asserting God's existence with certainty also arrogant?
I noticed you did not respond to my questioning of your assertion that climate change, Big Bang, and evolution are the most questioned theories. Are they most questioned by scientists, or by laymen who cannot accept the possibility that science will, once again, prove some of their long-held beliefs to be wrong?
Asserting the existence of God isn't but calling anyone who doesn't believe delusion, foolish, stupid, etc...would be. Well global warming is more challenged by science than it is asserted by science. Evolution as proposed by Darwin is subjected to continued discussion.
I find it interesting that we tend to defer to science as if science was a religion of high priests rather than a method of organizing thought and understanding.
There are frequent assertions by psuedo-science mavins, like Algore, that there is such a thing as settled science. I can think of nothing more unscientific than settled science - not even the existence of God.
Who is deferring to science as though it is a religion of high priests...?
Science is about gaining understanding of the natural world and its phenomena using systematic and organized method.
While certain ideas or facts may be considered to be "settled science," scientists would certainly question any theory or idea that is contradicted by new knowledge. It has happened many times.
Sorry, can't agree with you that settled science is more unscientific than the existence of God. I'm surprised you would say such a thing and wonder if you truly believe that.
I would agree with you PrettyPanther about the three topics you mention. None of these three theories (particularly evolution, which is really a proven fact rather than a theory) are seriously questioned by most scientists. All that is questioned, and rightly, by scientists is the detail of how these events occur and the precise course they take. Unfortunately, when scientists argue over detail, the media and die-hard non-scientific opponents, who in some cases such as climate change have a vested interest, jump on this and claim it as proof that even scientists are unconvinced about the theory's validity.
Is there such a thing as a scientifically proven fact? If it is incontrovertibly proven by the scientific method isn't it a law? Has any reliable scientific body named evolution a law? Has it actually been observed? There are aspects of the theory that appear again and again. Mutation, natural selection, adaptation but have we actually observed a new species develop? Can it be proven through experimental means? The mechanisms of evolution can be demonstrated and replicated but can evolution itself?
As for Global Warming, it is a disproved pile of politically and financially motivated garbage.
Of course it is very difficult to prove anything 100%. For example I cannot prove it as 'fact' that fairies don't live at the bottom of the garden - all I can say is that there is absolutely no evidence for them, and plenty of reason for not believing in them. In science, if the word fact is to have any meaning which makes it worth discussing the difference bewteen fact and theory, then a fact is something for which the evidence is so overwhelming that objectively and dispassionately, there is no alternative 'theory' which merits sensible consideration.
As far as new species being observed - I'm not sure. Species don't usually evolve in just a matter of decades so maybe not in the time in which we have been studying nature in depth, but certainly new races and subspecies have evolved in the last couple of hundred years for example in populations isolated on islands.
As for global warming - it's certainly not disaproved! I'm not saying it's proved either, though I think the evidence strongly supports it. And why do you think it's motivated by politics or finance? It's in the interests of politicians and businesses to ignore the long term dangers of climate change for short term benefit for the population and themselves through industrial growth!
What proof of global warming exists? That entire house of cards is constructed on computer models full of flawed concepts and numbers created and perpetuated by admitted frauds.
A fact is a specific data point not something for which evidence is so strong as to make it as nearly a certitude as can be determined - that would be a Law. Like the Laws of Thermodynamics, or The Laws of Planetary Motion, etc.... Laws are far more rare than facts.
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/05/12/5-s … hind-them/
The following is the creation story of the Bible, as seen through the comic eyes of Dave Allen. It is not one for the Christians, because it is comedy, so will be offensive to them.
Good lord, I haven't seen a Dave Allen bit in a long while. He was so funny. Is he still alive?
Sadly not. He died a few years ago. He was the best story teller I've ever seen, and very funny (so at least I can sign off on a note of agreement with you uncorrectedvision!)
Dave is one funny dude!
Here is one that is even less suitable for christians.
The Scot who sued god, and if language offends you already know to avoid Wee Willey Connolly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwooM4yh … re=related
As a Catholic Christian Dave Allen makes me laugh even harder.
As a Catholic, you might like this one.
When I was young, about 17, Benny Hill was followed by Dave Allen and Monty Python - I had to roar with absolutely silent laughter or my mother would hear. She would not have appreciated the humor.
I think many of my complaints today are a product of the bottled up spasms of laughter.
Top quality all the way!
Benny Hill was a comic genius in my view, and the Monty Python crew were a riot.
Gotta love the Internet, and yes, even it's users for posting all this stuff for posterity, nothing gets left behind anymore! I love it!
Our memories are now online and easy to reach.
I was discussing that exact thing with my brother last night - over the internet. 12 short years ago my oldest son had to use library books for research, just 4 years ago I compiled a data base for my youngest son to use for research. I have constructed a multi-chapter bibliography while sitting at a computer rather than carrying note cards to a library for weeks of work.
I have decided to re-research and re-write my thesis on Viking Expansion and the Economic Development of 9th Century Russia as a book and I plan to do it from the comfort of my living room sofa.
Hi, I have my own opinions about the big bang, I tend to think that at the beginning, when scientists up to this point say the energy came from nowhere, I actually believe that somehow it came through a singularity in a black hole. I think there is more to it than just one universe. Every galaxy has a black hole at its centre, it must be there for a reason, it makes sense to think that the energy escaped through a black hole and because it was crushed to a tiny little group of atoms, it shot out of the singularity and like a hole in a tyre pushes out the air. As for God, I have no idea, I think that we put God on one side, and science on the other. If you put them together we may get the answer, but I do believe that we only know a tiny bit of whats really happening, other dimensions, how reality really is, what is real and whats just our guesses. This is just my opinion, probably wrong but there it is.
by qwark6 years ago
What was the "medium" within which the "Big Bang" happened? There are other interesting considerations.
by Retrohawaii5 years ago
I believe in a God not necessarily in what the bible discusses
by Uplifterx4 years ago
Big Bang asserts that matter can come out of void. No, it doesn't. This Big Bang myth is the newest religion which has been invented and sustained to gull the masses.
by janesix4 years ago
The Big Bang is a religious concept, not science. It takes faith to believe that it happened. If you believe in the Big Bang, why?
by jomine5 years ago
the new science deals in concepts like relativity and quantum, which are irrational. it says about annihilation by black holes. it says everything "created" from singularity out of nothing. it says virtual...
by Csaba Krause4 years ago
A global group of 33 leading physicists have rejected the crank theory of big bang. They have published an open letter in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20, to let the scientific community know that the spirit...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.