Scientists Have Found New Evidence Supporting the "Big Bang" Theory!

**FSANE** · 03-18-2006, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by MysticZ28

Gods Debris

WOW, You expect me to read 144 pages?

Any clifnotes?

**MysticZ28** · 03-18-2006, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by FSANE

WOW, You expect me to read 144 pages?

Any clifnotes?

Takes about an hour and a half ... but all you really need to read is the 2 page introduction ... it'll let you know if you have what it takes to read more.

**BillyT** · 03-18-2006, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by FSANE

I am not a religious person, but I have no clue what "Big-Bang" is. Can someone please explain. I asume it has something to do with God. Explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

**ocshaman** · 03-18-2006, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by dipherentdesign

i get so flustered when it comes to quantum thinking...so what came b4 the big bang?

hawkings states that what happened before the big bang, can't be known, and doesn't matter, because everything was erased. It's the same stance that has been argued as a better reason that it was created, but both boil down to the same thing.

**YoMommasTA** · 03-19-2006, 10:50 PM

welcome to my hard drive....the big bang was me formating my drive...you will all exist until the next format...enjoy

**TMF** · 03-20-2006, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by mbrownin

What "perfection" would that be exactly?

Open your eyes and take a look past the end of your nose. You really think that random events are responsible for all of this ?

**Ice Spiral** · 03-20-2006, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by FSANE

I am not a religious person, but I have no clue what "Big-Bang" is. Can someone please explain. I asume it has something to do with God. Explain.

Simply this:

About 14 billion years ago, our entire Universe was a tiny ball of gas and elements. For some unknown reason, it exploded, expanding at a rapid rate of speed. This fireball, aka cosmic singularity, eventually cooled as it expanded, forming protons, electrons, atoms, galaxies, solar systems and planets.

The Universe is still expanding. Background radiation is all we have left to measure the origin of this fireball.

Where the fireball came from - who knows?

**Ice Spiral** · 03-20-2006, 06:36 AM

**TMF** · 03-20-2006, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by Ice Spiral

Yep, I'm convinced

**BillyT** · 03-20-2006, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by TMF

Yep, I'm convinced

Here ya go, is this better?

**TMF** · 03-20-2006, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by BillyT

Here ya go, is this better?

For the majority of Earths population it is. Ancient mans depiction of the creation may leave some to be desired, I'll give you that, but as for me, Creation is where I'm at. If some type of Big Bang did take place, it was Gods doing, and our best science can not explain it, so they come up with a couple dozen theories that all the people with no faith can buy into. Your belief in the current theory is as ridiculous to me as my belief in creation is to you. So I guess we can agree to disagree.

**mbrownin** · 03-20-2006, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by TMF

Open your eyes and take a look past the end of your nose. You really think that random events are responsible for all of this ?

I can't say whether the universe is how it is by design or not. What's so special about the universe as we know it that it couldn't be "random"?

My favorite creationist argument is something like:

"There's no way the world is like it is randomly, able to support life as we know it."

Guess what genius, life exists like it does because the world is like it is, not the other way around. Life evolved to be able to survive what the world had to offer. The world wasn't made to support some pre-conceived, God-created form of life.

**TMF** · 03-20-2006, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by mbrownin

I can't say whether the universe is how it is by design or not. What's so special about the universe as we know it that it couldn't be "random"?

My favorite creationist argument is something like:

"There's no way the world is like it is randomly, able to support life as we know it."

Guess what genius, life exists like it does because the world is like it is, not the other way around. Life evolved to be able to survive what the world had to offer. The world wasn't made to support some pre-conceived, God-created form of life.

Have we found other life that's been a result of this "big bang" ? I'd say what we have here is special. I appreciate your opinion, but it's not mine. Evolution is a theory you prescribe to, not me. I don't have the answers, I will someday though.

**BillyT** · 03-20-2006, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by TMF

Evolution is a theory you prescribe to, not me.

Evolution is a PROVEN THEORY as I point out in this thread:

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories
http://www.ls1.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15346

**mbrownin** · 03-20-2006, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by TMF

Have we found other life that's been a result of this "big bang" ? I'd say what we have here is special. I appreciate your opinion, but it's not mine. Evolution is a theory you prescribe to, not me. I don't have the answers, I will someday though.

Have we been able to even look? With all the galaxies, with all the stars, with all the planets out there, the ones that think ours is the only planet with life are the ones who can't see past their noses.

**TMF** · 03-20-2006, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by BillyT

Evolution is a PROVEN THEORY as I point out in this thread:

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories
http://www.ls1.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15346

Come on Billy, that's a foolish statement. Like I said, evolution is a theory, proven, or not. I know you like to send us off to read your links, and we're all supposed to believe, but I know that evolution is still a theory, widely accepted in the scientific community, but still a theory. And honestly, there's nothing you can offer me to make me believe in the theory, but I enjoy the discussion.

**BillyT** · 03-20-2006, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by TMF

Come on Billy, that's a foolish statement. Like I said, evolution is a theory, proven, or not. I know you like to send us off to read your links, and we're all supposed to believe, but I know that evolution is still a theory, widely accepted in the scientific community, but still a theory. And honestly, there's nothing you can offer me to make me believe in the theory, but I enjoy the discussion.

What exactly was foolish about my 100% correct statement that Evolution is a proven theory?

What's truly foolish is continually pretending that something that's been scientifically proven over and over again can simply be ignored in favor of completely unproven religious mythology as a viable alternative.

I guess if clicking the link to such facts is too though for ya, I'll post it right here for your convenience.

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

**Ice Spiral** · 03-20-2006, 10:40 AM

Another blow to creationism is that we aren't even a special solar system in our galaxy, and our galaxy isn't even in a special location.

We aren't in the center of anything; you'd think God(s) would have us in a special spot.

**BillyT** · 03-20-2006, 10:41 AM

Here's a bit more explanation for those who STILL don't understand what a theory is in science, and how it's not the same as it's use in everyday English.

Distinctions between theory and fact
The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. The use of the word "theory", however, has been a common source of confusion regarding the view of evolution among scientists. In everyday English, "theory" indicates "conjecture" or "speculation" [10]. In this sense, "theories" are opposed to "facts" — statements that are real or true regardless of what people think. In scientific terminology however, a theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and tested through controlled experiments, or be verified through empirical observation. In this scientific sense, "facts" are parts of theories – they are things, or relationships between things, that theories must take for granted in order to make predictions, or that theories predict. In other words, for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship – for example, it is a "fact" that every apple ever dropped on earth (under normal, controlled conditions) has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains these observations is the current theory of gravitation. In this same sense evolution is a fact and the modern synthesis is currently the most powerful theory explaining evolution. Within the science of biology, modern synthesis has completely replaced earlier accepted explanations for the origin of species, including Lamarckism and creationism.