By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Dinosaurs co-existed with man.

bannedagain on 13 October 2010
pizzahut451 said:
highwaystar101 said:
pizzahut451 said:
MDMAniac said:
pizzahut451 said:

i sure as hell dont believe in a a bullshit, retarded made up theory known as Big Bang


You must be genius in physics... Wait, you are not? -.-


No, im not. Physic was my least favourite subject at school. Not because i didnt understand it or was bad at it, i just didnt like it for some reason.Its in our family lol.The only subject we were bad at, is physics and technical education.

And the laws of physics didnt exist before big bang. You cant use physics to prove Big Bang

Sure you can.

We may not know the nature of, um, nature before the big bang, but we can certainly use the laws of physics to prove it happened because they existed at the point of the big bang.

For example, we can observe the way the Universe itself acts to show that a big bang occurred. I asked you once already what you explanation of the metric expansion of the Universe was, but unfortunately I never got a reply. The metric expansion of the Universe is quite an elegant observation that near enough proves the big bang theory by itself.

We can observe the doppler shift of other galaxies and when we do we find that all galaxies are moving away from each other. This can only be possible if the space they existed in themselves was expanding.

Think of it like blowing up a dotted balloon.You have a balloon with a series of dots on the surface, as you blow it up the dots aren't moving around the surface of the balloon, but they are moving away from each other due to the expansion of the balloon. The Universe is the balloon, and the dots are galaxies.

We've measured this rate of expansion and if we reverse it and extrapolate it backwards we find that the Universe had to of been a singularity (A single point) around 13.7Bn years ago.

I would just like to know how a Big Bang skeptic explains this observation.

We cant NEVER know the nature of nature before big bang, because there was no nature in the Big Bang. The nature itself was created in Big Bang. And you cant use physics to prove it happend because the laws of phyiscs (of this universe, at least) were also created in Big Bang. According to Dinesh D'Souza in his book What's So Great about Christianity "If you accept that everything that has a beginning has a cause, then the material universe had a nonmaterial or spiritual cause. This spiritual cause brought the universe into existence using none of the laws of physics. The creation of the universe was, in the quite literal meaning of the tern, a miracle." He emphasizes, "It is very important to recognize that before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics. In fact, the laws of physics cannot be used to explain the Big Bang because the Big Bang itself produced the laws of physics...If the universe was produced outside of the laws of physics, then its origin satisfies the basic definition of the term miracle.

 

On the second bolded part:

But there is a known scientific law that states that anything at rest must remain at rest until an external force causes it to move. So we again must conclude that something of a higher order of being than the universe itself must have caused the big bang. The conclusion remains that God was the first cause. Think about it. You used the ballon as an example, but i ask you: WHO or WHAT is blowing the ballon so that the dots are moving away from eachother because of the expansion of the ballon????? What kind of creature (entity) has that kind of power to move away whole galaxies and expand and ''organise'' the universe like a 2 dollars ballon???  And even if the existing matter created the Big Bang, that kind of matter would have to be (copied it from the article):

spaceless because it created space

timeless because it created time

immaterial because it created matter ( see the problem now?)

powerfull becasue it created Big Bang out of nothing

intellegent because the creation event and the universe was precisely deisgned. (you cant really look at the beuty of the universe and Earth itself, and say that all of that beuty happend ''by an accident'')

And as far as i know, no such matter is possible. However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes.

Right now, AT THIS MOMENT, the thought of God being the creator of the universe is IMO AT THIS MOMENT the most logical one, until our scientists discorver evidence that debunks it. Who knows what scinece will discover in 100 or 200 years, just look how much progress they made in last 60 years. But for now, MY OPINNION is that the God is the creator of the universe.

Scientists have pretty much put it on a platter for you. M theory. they think the big bang was created by a membran  collision with another membran, basically  two universes. The membranes that has and always will be, collide once every trillion or so years creating matter. I see you base a lot of your argument on a beginning and a end. this solves that theory, no beginning, no end. Just always has been and always will.

just watch Morgan Freeman's through the wormhole - what happened before the beginning, can't find it on youtube do to copyright issues. if you have the science channel and a dvr. Record, watch, learn.

 I whould also like to ask, why do you believe in a religion that has so many holes in the book? Why do they use fear to operate?(you don't believe you go to hell, fear). there are 4600 realigions out there, what if yours is wrong?  How can you believe the stories from the book? no answers, just a bunch of metaphorical wording to confuse and promote fear. How does it make any logical sense?

How can you protect the beliefs in the past that have been took right out of the bible becuase they where proved wrong? For instance, that the earth is the center of the solar system. They killed thousands if not millions off of this one belief.  

You can't believe the smartest people on earth but you can believe a story, in which everytime god talks to someone they are alone. Why not talk to all the people? Why a first and a second book, if god was perfect then why did he need to write two books? thats not perfection and goes against the logic.

Plus if god sends you to hell, no matter what you ever did could add up to a eternity of  pain and suffering. does this sound like a way to scare people into doing what you want or a real perfect god. Perfection would be to fix the problem or person.

all of the bible views are of self importance and social interaction. Which brings us to are next problem

Most violant offenders have a condition with there frontal lobe (part of your brain). which makes it impossible for them to feel remorse. bad choice making and usual is a product of there enviroment.  Growing up getting beat, raped, tortured. Most of people with this condition also suffered from a accident which damaged there frontal lube. 

The only other people that show this type of aggression and actions is a person under religious belief. Lets also say you get into a accident and you lose all memory of who you are. lets say you are a good christian before the accident and after you are violent and don't believe.  Whats the verdict or the other way around.  Lets say you are a good person but don't believe or a killer and believe. Seems that just as long as you believe in jesus as your savior you can do anything you want and justify that your a sinner and try harder next time. The whole thing is a mess.

Not only that but the bible was not put together until 200 years after jesus died. without records and proof what is true and what is not?

Why did christians burn so much data? The library of alexandria? Is this because they wanted people to be stupid and easier to rule? even if they didn't burn down alexandia, the bible does promote knowledge as being evil, unless of coarse it's knowledge of god then it's good.

Science on the other hand can be put through trials and trubulation to get to the right answer.  religion is always right and can't be proven wrong because of faith.

Lets not forget evolution. I can' t see how it didn't happen. germs mutate, plants evolve, we got step by step of the humanoid evolution and yet thats not enough evidence for creationist. So show me your proof, oh yea you can't it's all faith.

here's my proof but I bet it's not good enough

  • Ardipithecus (5.5–4.4 Ma), with species Ar. kadabba and Ar. ramidus;
  • Australopithecus (4–1.8 Ma), with species Au. anamensis, Au. afarensis, Au. africanus, Au. bahrelghazali, Au. garhi, and Au. sediba;
  • Kenyanthropus (3–2.7 Ma), with species Kenyanthropus platyops;
  • Paranthropus (3–1.2 Ma), with species P. aethiopicus, P. boisei, and P. robustus;
  • Homo (2 Ma–present), with species Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus, Homo antecessor, Homo cepranensis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens idaltu, Archaic Homo sapiens, Homo floresiensis

    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

    FUNCTIONS OF YOUR FRONTAL LUBE.

     

    The executive functions of the frontal lobes involve the ability to recognize future consequences resulting from current actions, to choose between good and bad actions (or better and best), override and suppress unacceptable social responses, and determine similarities and differences between things or events. Therefore, it is involved in higher mental functions.

    The frontal lobes also play an important part in retaining longer term memories which are not task-based. These are often memories associated with emotions derived from input from the brain's limbic system. The frontal lobe modifies those emotions to generally fit socially acceptable norms.

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

    Ok I hope I didn't offend anyone and didn't mean to if I did. I just don't get how people can blindly believe in anything. I believe in science and as having a science point of view, you have to prove it, to make me believe it.

     

     

    Sorry bad grammer.  I just wrote and posted it.  That post was also @pizzahut451

    @Highwaystar101. good points, check out morgan freeman special I wrote down.

    got to go, at work.

     

     



    Around the Network
    Cypher1980 on 13 October 2010
    Porcupine_I said:
    chocoloco said:

    Another little known fact, I am the second coming of Christ.


    you are invited to my bread , fish and water party


    Can I bring my mate Judas. You'll love him charismatic super dependable.......



    bannedagain on 13 October 2010

    woops



    Farmageddon on 13 October 2010
    pizzahut451 said:
    Farmageddon said:

    You've already got a couple of great answers, but I'll try yet another approach.

    I'll supposed everything you say is right.

    You start off saying that pshysics and nature only came to be with the big bang.  Then you start talking about "before the big bang". But time is a part of nature and physics. So if time only came to be with the big bang, talking about "before the big bang" equates to talking about "before time". Which makes as much sense as talking about "outside of space".

    There's no before without time and there's no outside without space because by definition there's no time if there's no time and there's no space if there's no space.

    You then apply the laws of science to before the big bang. But wait, didn't you just say nature and physics itself didn't exist before the big bang? So how come you're applying them to that environment?

    Your argument has no internal logic.

    And it goes on, you say:

    "And as far as i know, no such matter is possible. However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes."

    Other Gods and explanations have already been mentioned, but have you ever heard about the concept of the God of the Gaps? That's what you're doing. "I don't know how that could work, so that must have been God".

     

    Before Big Bang there was only God, and he is timeless and spaceless,and he can exist out of time and space and so no time or space was needed for him to create the Big Bang.  So i can easly  say before time. Simple. There. You see how i disporeved your ''I wanna confuse you'' post with one sentence???


    There's no "I wanna confuse you". Your argument has no internal logic. In a sense, you are already confused :P

    "Before the Big Bang", according to you, means "before time". But what is that? How can there be "before time"? How do you define causation without time?

    Besides, what about the part where you use newtons law "before the Big Bang" even though you said there was no nature or physics "then"? Does that make sense, am I just trying to confuse you?

    If everything is so different and unkown, how can you determine what still stands and what doesn't. Can we really expect to be able to apply logic to your scenario?

    Also, don't you see how postulating your God as the answer is a big, unfunded leap? I could say:

    Before Big Bang there was only the primal matter for the big bang, and it is timeless and spaceless,and it can exist out of time and space and so no time or space was needed for it to become the Big Bang.

    How is your take on it any more right?

    You just arrive at a situation you can't explain and call God in. How is that any different from Thor and so on?



    BMaker11 on 13 October 2010
    pizzahut451 said:
    Farmageddon said:
    pizzahut451 said:
    highwaystar101 said:

    Sure you can.

    We may not know the nature of, um, nature before the big bang, but we can certainly use the laws of physics to prove it happened because they existed at the point of the big bang.

    For example, we can observe the way the Universe itself acts to show that a big bang occurred. I asked you once already what you explanation of the metric expansion of the Universe was, but unfortunately I never got a reply. The metric expansion of the Universe is quite an elegant observation that near enough proves the big bang theory by itself.

    We can observe the doppler shift of other galaxies and when we do we find that all galaxies are moving away from each other. This can only be possible if the space they existed in themselves was expanding.

    Think of it like blowing up a dotted balloon.You have a balloon with a series of dots on the surface, as you blow it up the dots aren't moving around the surface of the balloon, but they are moving away from each other due to the expansion of the balloon. The Universe is the balloon, and the dots are galaxies.

    We've measured this rate of expansion and if we reverse it and extrapolate it backwards we find that the Universe had to of been a singularity (A single point) around 13.7Bn years ago.

    I would just like to know how a Big Bang skeptic explains this observation.

    We cant NEVER know the nature of nature before big bang, because there was no nature in the Big Bang. The nature itself was created in Big Bang. And you cant use physics to prove it happend because the laws of phyiscs (of this universe, at least) were also created in Big Bang. According to Dinesh D'Souza in his book What's So Great about Christianity "If you accept that everything that has a beginning has a cause, then the material universe had a nonmaterial or spiritual cause. This spiritual cause brought the universe into existence using none of the laws of physics. The creation of the universe was, in the quite literal meaning of the tern, a miracle." He emphasizes, "It is very important to recognize that before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics. In fact, the laws of physics cannot be used to explain the Big Bang because the Big Bang itself produced the laws of physics...If the universe was produced outside of the laws of physics, then its origin satisfies the basic definition of the term miracle.

     

    On the second bolded part:

    But there is a known scientific law that states that anything at rest must remain at rest until an external force causes it to move. So we again must conclude that something of a higher order of being than the universe itself must have caused the big bang. The conclusion remains that God was the first cause. Think about it. You used the ballon as an example, but i ask you: WHO or WHAT is blowing the ballon so that the dots are moving away from eachother because of the expansion of the ballon????? What kind of creature (entity) has that kind of power to move away whole galaxies and expand and ''organise'' the universe like a 2 dollars ballon???  And even if the existing matter created the Big Bang, that kind of matter would have to be (copied it from the article):

    spaceless because it created space

    timeless because it created time

    immaterial because it created matter ( see the problem now?)

    powerfull becasue it created Big Bang out of nothing

    intellegent because the creation event and the universe was precisely deisgned. (you cant really look at the beuty of the universe and Earth itself, and say that all of that beuty happend ''by an accident'')

    And as far as i know, no such matter is possible. However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes.

    Right now, AT THIS MOMENT, the thought of God being the creator of the universe is IMO AT THIS MOMENT the most logical one, until our scientists discorver evidence that debunks it. Who knows what scinece will discover in 100 or 200 years, just look how much progress they made in last 60 years. But for now, MY OPINNION is that the God is the creator of the universe.

    You've already got a couple of great answers, but I'll try yet another approach.

    I'll supposed everything you say is right.

    You start off saying that pshysics and nature only came to be with the big bang.  Then you start talking about "before the big bang". But time is a part of nature and physics. So if time only came to be with the big bang, talking about "before the big bang" equates to talking about "before time". Which makes as much sense as talking about "outside of space".

    There's no before without time and there's no outside without space because by definition there's no time if there's no time and there's no space if there's no space.

    You then apply the laws of science to before the big bang. But wait, didn't you just say nature and physics itself didn't exist before the big bang? So how come you're applying them to that environment?

    Your argument has no internal logic.

    And it goes on, you say:

    "And as far as i know, no such matter is possible. However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes."

    Other Gods and explanations have already been mentioned, but have you ever heard about the concept of the God of the Gaps? That's what you're doing. "I don't know how that could work, so that must have been God".

     

    Before Big Bang there was only God, and he is timeless and spaceless,and he can exist out of time and space and so no time or space was needed for him to create the Big Bang.  So i can easly  say before time. Simple. There. You see how i disporeved your ''I wanna confuse you'' post with one sentence???

    Alright, I'll be the one who, instead of making a giant complex argument, will make it simple. 

    How do you know what you say is true? Tell me, please. How do you know? Because you simply "believe" and have "faith"?



    Around the Network
    WereKitten on 14 October 2010
    pizzahut451 said:
    ...


    Answers in BOLD


    I think that you're out of your depths on the physics/math side of the argumentation, and I doubt very much that I would be able to neatly explain concepts such as how space-time metrics work in general relativity and in common big-bang theories, or at least I can't through a few forum messages. If you're really interested, you'll find material aplenty on the net and you can take your time to chew through it, but even before that I think you should read and thnk about how scientific theories are born and die and how the scientific method works.

    If you're not interested, I suggest you don't mix up physics with speculation because you don't have atm the shoulders to support the weight of your claims.

    I'll just turn to the baseline others have chosen as well: you seem to be resorting to the god of the gaps. But there's no reason to accept the christian/jewish version of it instead of the invisible flying spaghetti monster version performing the same hidden work, or Descartes' evil genie doing everything in your mind.

    Faith and proof is what I think you should meditate about.



    "All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

    "..." - Gordon Freeman

    IMU1808 on 15 October 2010

    "One of the most accurate and trusted historical records known to man: the bible."

    I wanted to give this a chance but after they said early in the second link, I just stopped. Watched the first vid, though. Don't see how some old tissue proves anything.