A question or two that STILL need an answer...

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

Theory doesnt need direct observation of the event for it to be scientific. If it needed, then it means all History is pseudoscience, because it cannot be directly observed. Theory needs only EVIDENCE, if direct observation cannot be done.

We have observations and evidence (all galaxies are moving away from each other, universe was different in the past..) that is explained by BBT.

I gave you a star despite us both knowing I don't subscribe to BBT for a variety of reasons. You accurately describe the concept of a theory even though people don't understand that concept.

@Agree2Disagree

That's explained by many other things besides BBT...so how exactly is the big bang theory MORE accurate than say...God stretching the heavens out?

I don't think he's saying it's more valid than any other theory that can equally explain observed phenomena. Read what he said a few more times a little more carefully. It's pretty evident what he is alluding towards. Just push aside the biased opinion of God for one moment. That's all, just one moment. You won't be judged for doing so, you'll instead be applauding for effort of trying to understand.

reply to post by Astyanax


While true of what you say in regards to BBT, it is only true through assumed assumptions. There are a lot of thing's BBT predicts that isn't observed and a lot of thing recently invented in order to make BBT fit current observations. Dark matter being one that come's to mind, and unfalsifiable invention to solve the universe doesn't have enough mass problem.

Dark matter does not interact with matter, and thus we can never directly observe it or create it in thing's like the LHC. We observe the effects only, but correlation does not imply causation and there is an alternative that equally predicts those same observations of dark matter without inventing magical forms of matter.

reply to post by sirnex


I've done it. I've set aside my biased before and all I got was "you're an idiot, you don't know, blah blah blah". Yeah, real welcoming that scientific community is. I'll be fine with my creation beliefs and an undergraduate degree. Trust me, I'll make it.

Besides that, I still don't see how the "percentage" of the viewed sky can support the claim when there's another "percentage" that doesn't support it. Just as I've said, the Francis Filament doesn't agree with the BBT. So, what do we do in this case? Sweep it under the rug? Make up some other outlandish claim such as redshift "diminishing returns" What to do...what to do....

I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anything like that. I'm simply saying that...the BBT is outlandish and no more based in fact than me saying there are invisible pixies that do the job of "gravity" and it's a supernatural event rather than a physical one.....

The events of me throwing something in the air and having the "invisible pixies" bring it back down...is an observation that reinforces my statement....that's exactly what the "expanding universe" is for the big bang theory....

Respectfully
A2D

edit to add: I digress. Can you answer the OP? "What caused the big bang?"

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

reply to post by Astyanax


That is one of the wondrous thing's I can never hope to understand about believers in God. God is not about physics, he is about magical creation of something from nothing. Yet, the hypocritically attempt to use certain aspects of physics *especially quantum physics* to prove their 'God'.

It's just simply amazing that they think it's possible. While I tried to develop a theory for a creator, no one took to the idea, which seems counter intuitive. One would think the religious crowd would jump on such a possible viable mechanism that allows for a creator. Instead, they are faithful hypocrites. Gotta love 'em!

I'm giving you a star for that post as you made someone who is capable of critical thought, to use critical thought. Shame we are a dying breed.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Besides that, I still don't see how the "percentage" of the viewed sky can support the claim when there's another "percentage" that doesn't support it. Just as I've said, the Francis Filament doesn't agree with the BBT. So, what do we do in this case? Sweep it under the rug? Make up some other outlandish claim such as redshift "diminishing returns" What to do...what to do....

Where is the humor in that? I fail to see it. BBT isn't claimed to be absolutely true despite being the most accepted model. It isn't the only model and nor am I claiming that the BBT model is true, I don't personally think it is. Yet your argument against it is unfounded. I argue against your unfounded argument against it as unfounded arguments are idiotic acts of futility.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anything like that. I'm simply saying that...the BBT is outlandish and no more based in fact than me saying there are invisible pixies that do the job of "gravity" and it's a supernatural event rather than a physical one.....

Despite the hypocrisy of your belief, your God is no more valid in comparison to the BBT than the universe being born from the bowel movement of a pink unicorn. Yet, you believe your personal deity to be more valid than any other idea.

Your a flipping hypocrite, not an open minded explorer of reality.

The events of me throwing something in the air and having the "invisible pixies" bring it back down...is an observation that reinforces my statement....that's exactly what the "expanding universe" is for the big bang theory....

About as valid as your God, yet you inherently and hypocritically believe your deity to be more valid. Amazing, really... Just simply amazing.

There is literally no intelligent critical thought put into your argument at all. Your just crap spouting for the sake of crap spouting. That is just disgusting.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

I digress. Can you answer the OP? "What caused the big bang?"

No, I can't neither does the BBT attempt to answer it either.

Can you prove your personal deity is the creator of the universe?

Checkmate....

reply to post by sirnex


That's not checkmate. That's called stalemate and it's considered a draw.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by sirnex

 

That's not checkmate. That's called stalemate and it's considered a draw.

Your right, I'm not very good at chess lol.

Irregardless, your argument is still unfounded and called into question due to your hypocritical belief.

Maybe it's just check? Bleh, never did like chess too much.

reply to post by sirnex


My argument is...my argument...your argument is your argument...we'll just leave it at that seeing as how this discussion is leading nowhere and we completely hijacked the thread.

Agree2Disagree?

When I was a kid the other kids around me were putting their felled out teeth under their pillow at night and in the morning they were given gifts, usually money, from what was called a tooth fairy. I was told by George and Tillie the tooth fairy didn't exist. Here I was a young kid missing out on all the stuff the other kids were getting but even so I wanted to know the facts. When I had a tooth fall out I decided to find out the truth. If there was a tooth fairy I would be lavished with the goods if not I would know the truth about the fairy tale. I didn't tell anyone what I was up to because I figured it would be the best way to know for sure. I went to bed hopin for a treasure as I placed my tooth under my pillow, however I suspected it was all in vain but I was excited to know for sure either way. I knew if my tooth was still there in the morning the other kids were lied to and taught to accept lies. Sure enough I woke up and immediately lifted up my pillow and there laid my tooth. I was a little disappointed about the money thing since we were kinda poor but I was glad to know the truth. The tooth fairy didn't exist. People think it is fun telling their kids stuff that isn't real but I've never cared for it. Santa Clause, bunnies that lay colored eggs and hide them, the stork, the list goes on of the lies people tell their kids. It is no wonder these same people follow after jesus. Another made up character with pictures, statues, and stories to follow suit. Most being raised with so much make believe it should not be a wonder why they are so gullible. I was too but I always new something was wrong with the religious concepts I was taught. Not the biblical concepts but the way they were taught and carried out seemed out of sorts. At one point in time I decided to throw out my Christian upbringing as best I could and start from scratch in reading the bible. I was amazed by what I was learning. It wasn't Christian in any way. The BBT and its supporting evidence do not disprove God, nor does the world taking longer than 7 24 hr. earth days or 7 thousand years. The human body evolving from whatever wouldn't disprove God or the scriptures in any way. The existence of dinosaurs do not disprove them either. As much as many Atheists seem to hope so the only thing these actually would prove wrong is Christianity and most if not all other supposed religions. If Atheists would look at the bible with science in mind instead of through the Christian views they would realize the truth in it. However, one semi-atheist non-bible believing person stated to me that what my family believes makes sense however If we accepted it we would have to believe in the bible and we don't want to do that. The Atheists are lavished with the gifts of their belief the Christians and other religions are lavished with the gifts of their belief. We don't want their gifts we want the truth and aren't worried about missing out on all their goods. The prophecies in the bible will prove themselves. There is a witness to the truth but no one believes but when there are two and the prophecies continue to be revealed there will be no excuses anymore. When I was in elementary school I tried to tell a kid Santa didn't exist because he was telling me he did. I finally stopped trying to convince him when he started crying and yelling at me. I didn't know what the big deal was back then, I still don't. I guess he did not want to know the truth, maybe he will now though. New Hope For All

The burden of proof lies in those making a claim for extraordinary existence, not the other way around.

BBT is theorized to have happened in a certain way made up of things we know to be factual. Experiencing it again would seem A) unnecessary and B) kinda dangerous. We know about elements and chemistry and reactions these things have as their properties. IOW- we have facts to back up the theory.

What facts do you have to back up the existence of God?

reply to post by sirnex

Despite the hypocrisy of your belief, your God is no more valid in comparison to the BBT than the universe being born from the bowel movement of a pink unicorn. Yet, you believe your personal deity to be more valid than any other idea.

Your a flipping hypocrite, not an open minded explorer of reality.

Thank you for judging me, just goes to show how little you have understood about my commentary here. I have never claimed that my beliefs in a deity reflect science. However, your beliefs about the BBT, are SUPPOSED to reflect science, yet, they don't. It is founded on the same, if not more, of a leap of faith that any other origins related claim is based on.

A2D

BTW: I never claimed my belief in God was more founded in truth than yours. Not once did I say you are not allowed to believe in whatever you want. Not once did I claim that you're stumbling blindly down the wrong path. Not once did I become condescending towards your beliefs. Not once did I judge you for holding on to those beliefs. I believe everybody has the right to their opinion. I was simply voicing my own opinion on the theory that you hold as yours...just as you have voiced your opinion on MY opinion about a divine Creator. Hypocrisy abounds because you smite me for not being open minded, yet you are clearly not open minded to anything that has to do with a deity. You have pushed it all aside simply because it is "unscientific". I guess the supernatural really doesn't account for anything. I suppose you are one that believes dreams are simply electrical signals and have no significance. You too, probably believe the astral realm is not real....Or when it comes to aliens, you will say that probability makes it so abundantly clear...well...probability doesn't deny a Creator...take it as you wish...but the bathwater does no good without the baby...


[edit on 17-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


You know what the Pythagorean theorem is? I must say I'm a little surprised.

My point is, "only a theory" is a really stupid, stupid argument.

So is your assertion that "it only happened once before anyone saw it, w can't know anything about it!" In fact that's stupider, because at least the "only a theory" people have the fallback of being confused by what "theory" means.

By your argument, forensic science is a complete hoax. Since nobody saw the murder (and logically, we're not going to experiment by making other murders) you would think that we can never ever figure out how the murder happened!

Here's the fact, friend.. .the universe behaves exactly like you would expect it to if it were created by - for lack of a better term, really - the "big bang".

Experiments and calculations (really a type of experiment - it's not all lab flasks and german accents) are being done to see if there could be other reasons for the universe to behave in this way. So far all that's come up is a refinement of the big bang theory, which strongly implies that it's the answer.

Now of course we will never be completely sure - that's just a fact of anything in history, from twenty minutes ago to thirteen billion years ago. But we're something like 99.999987% sure.

I'm about to say something that some of you might not be ready to hear........


God is Gay.



Did I just blow your minds ???


That ..... Just ...... Happened !!!!!

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I'm not saying it is a hoax, I'm saying it's VERY EASY to "manipulate" the results when the event happened out of observation.

The fact is, not even the entire VIEWABLE Universe, behaves like it should according to BBT....

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


So you believe that the evidence is being manipulated, do you? This is interesting.

You believe in conspiracy. One of the prime aspects of conspiracy wonks is that the less evidence of their particular conspiracy there is, the truer it must be - and any evidence contrary to the conspiracy is planted and faked BY that conspiracy.

So in other words, you will look at the evidence for an expanding universe set before your face, and claim not only that it's "not enough" but also that it's been "manipulated". You meanwhile have NO evidence of your own backing the claims of conspiracy and manipulation you're making.

Since you can spell "Pythagorean" i'm going to just assume you can see the gaping holes in the logic you're using here, man.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


*facepalm*

I never said I thought it was being manipulated. I'm just saying that it'd be extremely easy to do....Why do people misconstrue my words to make it sound like I'm saying something that I'm not.

I'm simply looking at the possibilities and it is ABSOLUTELY REASONABLE to assume that they COULD POSSIBLY be manipulated....

It's like 9/11...they give us the reasons WHY the buildings collapsed(the universe began) and we're skeptical about it because SOME of the pieces just don't fit right....

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Really? Because you're arguing against the big bang theory because you think that the evidence could have been manipulated.

This is no different than arguing against the big bang theory because you believe the evidence was manipulated, except that you're using weasel words to get out of making such a bold claim directly.

either way, you are arguing on the basis that the evidence cannot be trusted.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Well, I'd say that things are just "fitted" to suit the agenda...you know..omit some stuff here and there...the pieces just don't fit when i look at it...

Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.
The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.
If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 10^59. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

That's just 10...I could continue if you'd like....

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Thank you for judging me, just goes to show how little you have understood about my commentary here. I have never claimed that my beliefs in a deity reflect science. However, your beliefs about the BBT, are SUPPOSED to reflect science, yet, they don't. It is founded on the same, if not more, of a leap of faith that any other origins related claim is based on.

A2D

Nor am I arguing that your beliefs in deity reflect science. Your a hypocrite based on WHY you disbelieve the science behind BBT as that reason of why is very applicable to your deity of choice. It's hypocrisy.

My beliefs however in regards to the BBT are very much more sound. I disbelieve in the BBT for scientific reasons as the BBT makes certain assumptions that don't appear to be true. Where as your argument of we've never recreated the big bang is a logical fallacy for disbelief. Have you ever observed God directly? Have you ever created a God? You see the point yet or do you choose to remain a hypocrite for the sake of argument?

BTW: I never claimed my belief in God was more founded in truth than yours. Not once did I say you are not allowed to believe in whatever you want. Not once did I claim that you're stumbling blindly down the wrong path. Not once did I become condescending towards your beliefs. Not once did I judge you for holding on to those beliefs. I believe everybody has the right to their opinion. I was simply voicing my own opinion on the theory that you hold as yours...just as you have voiced your opinion on MY opinion about a divine Creator. Hypocrisy abounds because you smite me for not being open minded, yet you are clearly not open minded to anything that has to do with a deity. You have pushed it all aside simply because it is "unscientific". I guess the supernatural really doesn't account for anything. I suppose you are one that believes dreams are simply electrical signals and have no significance. You too, probably believe the astral realm is not real....Or when it comes to aliens, you will say that probability makes it so abundantly clear...well...probability doesn't deny a Creator...take it as you wish...but the bathwater does no good without the baby...

I most certainly am open minded in regards to a deity to the point where I attempted to develop a viable theory for HOW a deity could exist to create the universe. Your unfounded biased opinion only makes you sound ignorant. No one, religious or not would even bother to discuss the possibility with me in the thread I created. It was essentially ignored and devoid of any intelligent discussion. Which saddens me, as I would expect people like you who believe in deity to literally pounce upon such a possibility.

So, to call me closed minded is an unfounded opinion, because YOU aren't even attempting to listen to my opinions and views. So shove that arrogant pride back up where you pulled it from as that is where it belongs, with the rest of your BS argument. You hypocrite.