obviously you dont know the whole theory behind gravity some parts of the gravity theory are proven but other parts such as the bending of time and space parts have not been god exists he is longing for your love give christianity a chance yeah christianity is based on faith but scientific theories are also based on faith and just so you know there is more evidence that jesus walked this earth and that he was the son of god than there is of you walking this earth today god is the reason that I am still here today I would be dead right now if he had not come into my life FYI all you have to do is try to love him and you will know that he is there

Abrahamic religions are religions that stem from the Abraham. Thus you get Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I was trying to point out that the need for a timeline with a planned beginning and end is an Abrahamic belief. What if time is instead of a line, say a circle. That was there is no beginning and end, but an awesome circular timeline. That way, you don't need a start and a finish.

Rolls eyes. As if we needed another name to lump religions together.
Ah... your a time loop person. I know someone else who believes in time loops/rivers.
As far as beginnings and endings, maybe time as we know it doesn't exist at all outside of our dimension.
As a general rule I would say the reason most people believe time is a line is because we are born, we live, we die. We as humans live on a time line. I know plenty of Atheists that believe the world runs on time lines, not loops. So saying it is an exclusively Abrahamic (rolls eyes again) belief is a bit all inclusive.

I agree with you, except for the part where there is no explanation for either. There is plenty of explanation for the Big Bang. For example there is why we can only see so far out into the stars, and when we do we see the primeval light called the cosmic background radiation. And in that we can see what our universe looked like just after the big bang. Isn't that awesome? We can see 13.7 billion years into the past just by looking through a powerful enough telescope at the sky. And at that point we see the evidence of the big bang. Light that's been scattered up so that there aren't any groupings that are planets and stars. So all the electrons are bouncing around making lots of light and no planets and stars. This look at our universe's past has made us come to the conclusion of the Big Bang.

I know, I know... your science teacher told you this. Or maybe you read it in a book.
Can I ask you to at least take a moment and question your books and teachers? I love logic and the truth, so I question everything.
Bear with me while I break this down for you.

You are stating that by looking out into space with a super telescope that we can see into the past (13.7 billion years is what your claiming).
The earth and our solar system are round.
So you are stating that no matter which direction I look out into the stars with my super telescope that I can see the past.
Thus since in any direction you look into the stars from here is the past, our solar system must be the center of the universe.

Now I am going to give you another situation that sounds almost exactly like yours.

Many years ago people stated that they saw the sun pass by every day, by looking up.
They believed the sun revolved around the earth.
They believed earth was the center of it all.
(People were even executed for arguing the matter, Who says the Earth revolves around the Sun? | The Genius Project )


So to sit there and make an unprovable claim that our solar system is the center of the entire universe seems to me, illogical, egotistical, and bit well unbelievable, considering our past track record with making ourselves the center of everything.
You can't logically use the erroneous (and again unprovable) claim that we are the center of the universe therefore we can look back in time and see the evidence of the Big Bang by using a telescope, to claim evidence for the Big Bang. Thats not evidence. Its merely another assumption.

I would highly consider you think for yourselves and start asking every question you can dig up on what your teachers tell you. They are highly biased to their religion and wont show you its errors. Oh.. and if you question their most Holy Big Bang religion they will likely get angry and tell you to shut up. (Sounds like a pretty emotional, religious response to me.)

Also this is my reply to a theory is just an assumption:

Sir Isaac Newton: The Universal Law of Gravitation

Its is know as The Universal Law of Gravity. Not as The Theory of Gravity. Also, gravity can be proven and demonstrated by dropping a pen, jumping into the air etc. The Big Bang has yet to be demonstrated.

Gravity is a fact.
The Big Bang is a theory.

Scientists claim gravity as a fact.
Scientists claim the Big Bang as a theory.

how long have you been working on that post? but i must admit.... i admire you in that you give meaningful responses most of the time

I type at record speed. So, not all that long. :wink: Besides I am very passionate about not having other peoples religion forced on me.

SS

Nayr343 wrote:

Where did the materials for the for the big bang come from?

Well, the particles that caused the big bang are everything and everyone one. We are all made of the particles, atoms, electrons, neutrons, and all that. They didn't just pop out of no where, they are everything.

Well, the particles that caused the big bang are everything and everyone one. We are all made of the particles, atoms, electrons, neutrons, and all that. They didn't just pop out of no where, they are everything.

Wait... what? We are the Big Bang? We exploded? And here I thought the Big Bang made us? Could you please explain your circular logic to me?

I agree we are all made out of particles and electrons yada, yada, but after that you lost me.

SS

KIA&SS wrote:

Wait... what? We are the Big Bang? We exploded? And here I thought the Big Bang made us? Could you please explain your circular logic to me?

I agree we are all made out of particles and electrons yada, yada, but after that you lost me.

SS

What? How did you deduce that?

Well, considering what the big bang was made of, the same stuff we are currently made of, the same stuff everything is currently made of, it only seems logical to me that it only seems reasonable to me that it was there prior to the big bang.

I'd like to believe, but where is the evidence of any God?

KIA&SS wrote:

Rolls eyes. As if we needed another name to lump religions together.
Ah... your a time loop person. I know someone else who believes in time loops/rivers.
As far as beginnings and endings, maybe time as we know it doesn't exist at all outside of our dimension.
As a general rule I would say the reason most people believe time is a line is because we are born, we live, we die. We as humans live on a time line. I know plenty of Atheists that believe the world runs on time lines, not loops. So saying it is an exclusively Abrahamic (rolls eyes again) belief is a bit all inclusive.

What I was saying is that the belief of a Time LINE instead of a Time LOOP was largely spread by Abrahamic religions. For example, the Greeks believed in a Time Loop as well.

KIA&SS wrote:

I know, I know... your science teacher told you this. Or maybe you read it in a book.
Can I ask you to at least take a moment and question your books and teachers? I love logic and the truth, so I question everything.
Bear with me while I break this down for you.
You are stating that by looking out into space with a super telescope that we can see into the past (13.7 billion years is what your claiming).
The earth and our solar system are round.
So you are stating that no matter which direction I look out into the stars with my super telescope that I can see the past.
Thus since in any direction you look into the stars from here is the past, our solar system must be the center of the universe.

Once again you've found a way to misconstrue what I've said... the reason we can only see stars that are 13.7 billion light years away is because the universe has only been around that long. The light has taken 13.7 billion years to travel to us and then we can see it. We can see farther every millienia as well. It's just the time that the light takes to get to us. So what I meant when I said we're seeing 13.7 billion years into the past is that the light that was emitted 13.7 billion years ago has finally reached us. THAT is how it works. In neither my lifetime, nor yours will we ever discover is the universe has an end, because every year the scope in which we can see out into the universe is getting bigger, because as time passes more light can get to us.

KIA&SS wrote:

Now I am going to give you another situation that sounds almost exactly like yours.

Many years ago people stated that they saw the sun pass by every day, by looking up.
They believed the sun revolved around the earth.
They believed earth was the center of it all.
(People were even executed for arguing the matter, Who says the Earth revolves around the Sun? | The Genius Project )
So to sit there and make an unprovable claim that our solar system is the center of the entire universe seems to me, illogical, egotistical, and bit well unbelievable, considering our past track record with making ourselves the center of everything.
You can't logically use the erroneous (and again unprovable) claim that we are the center of the universe therefore we can look back in time and see the evidence of the Big Bang by using a telescope, to claim evidence for the Big Bang. Thats not evidence. Its merely another assumption.
I would highly consider you think for yourselves and start asking every question you can dig up on what your teachers tell you. They are highly biased to their religion and wont show you its errors. Oh.. and if you question their most Holy Big Bang religion they will likely get angry and tell you to shut up. (Sounds like a pretty emotional, religious response to me.)

I've just disproved this entire point.

KIA&SS wrote:

URL="http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html"]Sir Isaac Newton: The Universal Law of Gravitation[/URL]

Its is know as The Universal Law of Gravity. Not as The Theory of Gravity. Also, gravity can be proven and demonstrated by dropping a pen, jumping into the air etc. The Big Bang has yet to be demonstrated.

Gravity is a fact.
The Big Bang is a theory.

Scientists claim gravity as a fact.
Scientists claim the Big Bang as a theory.

You also happen to misconstrue science here as well. Newton's law is actually a theory. We call it "Newton's law of universal gravitation" because that's what he named it in his great work, "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica." It's actually a theory. Now just because it's a theory doesn't mean anything by the way. Because I believe due to your ignorance you've happened to discount anything that has the word "THEORY" on it. In science there are no division between the word Theory and the word law... For example in science the definition of the Scientific Law is: "a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present." And the definition for Theory is: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Please understand that the scientific community knows what they're doing and can't be out-logic'ed by your feeble attempts at discrediting them.

What? How did you deduce that?

Well, considering what the big bang was made of, the same stuff we are currently made of, the same stuff everything is currently made of, it only seems logical to me that it only seems reasonable to me that it was there prior to the big bang.

So the stuff was there before the Big Bang?
So why did it have to blow up (not saying I think it did)?
And where did the original stuff that blew up come from?

Seems like an endless where did it all come from line of thought.

I'd like to believe, but where is the evidence of any God?

Where is any evidence of the Big Bang?

Once again you've found a way to misconstrue what I've said... the reason we can only see stars that are 13.7 billion light years away is because the universe has only been around that long. The light has taken 13.7 billion years to travel to us and then we can see it. We can see farther every millienia as well. It's just the time that the light takes to get to us. So what I meant when I said we're seeing 13.7 billion years into the past is that the light that was emitted 13.7 billion years ago has finally reached us. THAT is how it works. In neither my lifetime, nor yours will we ever discover is the universe has an end, because every year the scope in which we can see out into the universe is getting bigger, because as time passes more light can get to us.

Um... Your still making our solar system the center of the universe. That is still not proof of squat.

I've just disproved this entire point.

How? Your still claiming things that no one can prove. Its all a bunch of belief systems.

Like I said believe what you like, but don't force me to learn it and then call it fact.

You also happen to misconstrue science here as well. Newton's law is actually a theory. We call it "Newton's law of universal gravitation" because that's what he named it in his great work, "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica." It's actually a theory. Now just because it's a theory doesn't mean anything by the way. Because I believe due to your ignorance you've happened to discount anything that has the word "THEORY" on it. In science there are no division between the word Theory and the word law... For example in science the definition of the Scientific Law is: "a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present." And the definition for Theory is: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Please understand that the scientific community knows what they're doing and can't be out-logic'ed by your feeble attempts at discrediting them.

First, Gravity has been demonstrated. It is provable.

Second, I do not know what baked up religious book your getting your definition out of but here is the real definition of Scientific law according to Dictionary.com

Scientific law:
A phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law

Natural Law:
A principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society.


Scientific Theory: (By Wikipedia)
A scientific theory is a tested and expanded hypothesis that explains many experiments and fits ideas together in a framework. If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

There is a HUGE difference between theory and scientific law.

The Big Bang is a religious theory. The Big Bang has no proof, no evidence, no nothing to back it up. All The Big Bang has is a bunch of scientists that want to make an effort to explain our existence. It is what they believe might have happened it is not fact.

The scientific community is telling you lies and giving you a religion, without logic and you feel warm and fuzzy inside so you believe it. Go ahead. But don't teach it to me as fact when it isn't.


"If you tell a lie long and loud enough, people will eventually start to believe it"~ Hitler

KIA&SS wrote:

So the stuff was there before the Big Bang?
So why did it have to blow up (not saying I think it did)?
And where did the original stuff that blew up come from?

Seems like an endless where did it all come from line of thought.

Of course it is, both sides of this argument are pointless. Believe what you want to believe, its your choice.

KIA&SS wrote:

So the stuff was there before the Big Bang?
So why did it have to blow up (not saying I think it did)?
And where did the original stuff that blew up come from?
Seems like an endless where did it all come from line of thought.
Where is any evidence of the Big Bang?

This might be somebody else's argument you're fighting, but I ALREADY EXPLAINED HOW THERE IS PLENTY OF SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT FOR THE BIG BANG. I explained it in a way that my little brother could understand...

KIA&SS wrote:

Um... Your still making our solar system the center of the universe. That is still not proof of squat.

I didn't prove that at ALL! Did you read anything that I've said at all? WE ARE IN NO WAY THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. It's just that light takes time to get to us, so to see the other parts of the universe we have to wait. A billion years must go by for the light 14.7 billion light years away to get to us and for us to see that far. We aren't at the center, we are just limited by what we can see.

KIA&SS wrote:

First, Gravity has been demonstrated. It is provable.

Second, I do not know what baked up religious book your getting your definition out of but here is the real definition of Scientific law according to Dictionary.com

Scientific law:
A phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law

Natural Law:
A principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society.


Scientific Theory: (By Wikipedia)
A scientific theory is a tested and expanded hypothesis that explains many experiments and fits ideas together in a framework. If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

There is a HUGE difference between theory and scientific law.

The Big Bang is a religious theory. The Big Bang has no proof, no evidence, no nothing to back it up. All The Big Bang has is a bunch of scientists that want to make an effort to explain our existence. It is what they believe might have happened it is not fact.

The scientific community is telling you lies and giving you a religion, without logic and you feel warm and fuzzy inside so you believe it. Go ahead. But don't teach it to me as fact when it isn't.


"If you tell a lie long and loud enough, people will eventually start to believe it"~ Hitler

Once again you fail. I'm just beginning to think that you're trolling instead of arguing. Not sure if I want to post against this... The Big Bang model is the current explanation that the scientific community believes... Not a religious group. There are currently SCIENTIFIC LAWS, if you love that word so much, that support the big bang. Hubble's law to name one off the top of my head.

Here's another law for you. It goes by the name of Godwin's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Of course it is, both sides of this argument are pointless. Believe what you want to believe, its your choice.

My point exactly.

I ALREADY EXPLAINED HOW THERE IS PLENTY OF SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT FOR THE BIG BANG.

You can say that grass used to always be pink with blue dots until the next millennium. You might even be able make a fabulous scientific argument for it. That still wont make it fact.
(I commend your play on words there. )

Did you read anything that I've said at all?

Yes. And you sound like you are believing someones dogma without deducing your own conclusions, but that is your choice. Go for it!

It's just that light takes time to get to us, so to see the other parts of the universe we have to wait. A billion years must go by for the light 14.7 billion light years away to get to us and for us to see that far. We aren't at the center, we are just limited by what we can see.

I understand light and how it travels. What does that prove?

If you are trying to use how far you can see into space as evidence for the big bang, because as you previously stated, and some scientists claim, you are looking into our past, then you are indeed claiming we are the center.
Now if all you are claiming is that we are limited by what we can see because light takes so long to get to us, then I agree. Light traveling, is science.

But you cannot provide evidence that looking into space is looking into our past, an thus proving the big bang because it makes us the center, and it is also a large assumption. This is exactly what was claimed below from one of your previous posts.

We can see 13.7 billion years into the past just by looking through a powerful enough telescope at the sky.

So which is it? Are we the center because we can look out into the stars and see the past? Or are we not the center and we can't therefore see the past?

Lets assume the bible folks are right for a second. (Don't kill me guys, speaking in theoretical.)
If God created it all at the exact same time then the light would still take the same amount of time to reach us. We would still be limited by what we could see.

Big Bang and God are both religious. Pick whichever you like... or pick Zeus if you prefer, but the Big Bang is still not fact.
If and when they can provide demonstrable, observable evidence of the Big Bang then it may be science, but right now it is nothing more then a religious belief.

Once again you fail. I'm just beginning to think that you're trolling instead of arguing.

Failed what? I am not in class and you are not my teacher.
I am arguing. What am I arguing? I am arguing that both Creation and the Big Bang are religious. I am arguing that I do not want the big bang religion shoved down my throat in science class because it isn't science.

The Big Bang model is the current explanation that the scientific community believes... Not a religious group.

You do realize how stupid that sounds right?

Religion: A setdictionary.reference.com/browse/set of beliefs concerning the cause, naturedictionary.reference.com/browse/nature, and purpose of the universe. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

You don't have to have a god to have a religion. Humanism, Buddhism are religion without god. The Big Bang is a religion without a god.

Your right the scientific community believes the big bang... they have a religion known as the big bang.

Hubble's law (Also known as Lemaître's Law) is the name for the astronomical observation in physical cosmology that: (1) all objects observed in deep space (interstellar space) are found to have a doppler shift observable relative velocity to Earth, and to each other; and (2) that this doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is proportional to their distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies. In effect, the space-time volume of the observable universe is expanding and Hubble's law is the direct physical observation of this process.

That proves you can see the universe expanding. It does not provide evidence for the big bang. (My science, big bang believing teacher hates me. )

Here are couple of interesting reading sites if you actually care to seek the truth.
Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (I find it funny he was a priest but that's just me.)
The Hubble Law - Answers in Genesis

Here's another law for you. It goes by the name of Godwin's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Laughs. Your right. However I have been seeing this ridiculous push that Hitler was awesome. (I disagree.) In any case, its true you tell a big enough lie loud enough eventually someone will believe it.

Laddergoat. wrote:

I doubt that, as we are prone to massive exaggeration in our every day lives.

Regardless, the theological concepts found in any Bible today are inherently the same as the original manuscripts which were later canonized.

KIA&SS wrote:

You will note above I used the 'scientific definition of Theory' posted by someone else. I broke down exactly what those words defining it mean. Definitions are definitions and you can't change them just to make your theory look better then some other persons theory.

A scientific theory, by definition, is one which is well-substantiated. You deny this?

KIA&SS wrote:

You have no clue what I believe. Personally, I believe both God and the Big Bang are religious. Both are theory.

How is the big bang religious? Being a theory does not equate to being religious.

KIA&SS wrote:

There is nothing wrong with science and I will never attempt to paint it negatively. Science is wonderful and I have no argument with actual true science. The Big Bang is not science. The Big Bang is the attempt of certain people (not all) in the scientific field to rationalize the beginnings of life.

The big bang has nothing to do with the beginnings of life. All the big bang does is explain the development of our universe; it doesn't even explain the origin of the universe.

KIA&SS wrote:

They have no solid scientific proof of the Big Bang.
They have no scientific proof of God either.
Therefore both are based completely upon personal belief and so are religious, and not science.

You honestly believe there is no solid scientific proof of the big bang? Most astrophysicists would disagree, and you'll have to forgive me for taking their word over yours.

The big bang has observable evidence, and has continued to gather evidence over numerous decades. It's the most accurate model of the universe we have.

KIA&SS wrote:

Again, I never said what I believe. What makes you so sure when you go to the doctor that he has diagnosed you correctly? There is something called misdiagnosing and it happens frequently.

I don't know I'll be diagnosed correctly. But I'm going to put my trust in something that has been tested using the scientific method, just like the big bang. And the last several times I've been on the operating table, it hasn't failed me.

KIA&SS wrote:

I guess you and I both will have to take what the doctor says on blind faith wont we.

Blind faith? Right...if you want to believe that common medical practices have little evidence behind them, be my guest.

KIA&SS wrote:

First sentence... Theories do not turn into facts.
Third sentence... They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. (You know what understandings means? That someone has faith in it. You know creative reflection means? They thought about it.)
Fourth sentence... They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences.

I like how you nit-pick certain elements of statements to fit your argument, and then conveniently ignore everything else.
Scientific theories are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. The big bang, being a scientific theory, has extensive observation and experimentation. Creationism does not.

KIA&SS wrote:

True, they incorporate some facts, laws, and logic. (I already covered hypotheses.) But that does not make their theory fact as this paragraph clearly states in the first line of what you showed me.

How many times are you going to say theories aren't fact? We know a theory is not the same as a fact. Nobody is arguing it is.

You keep leap-frogging around the issue by constantly retorting to Dictionary.com.

Creationism is a theory in the sense that it's an attempt to explain something.
The big bang a is a scientific theory in that it's well-substantiated and has observable, empirical evidence going for it.
Long story short, one has merit, the other doesn't.

KIA&SS wrote:

Sometimes, but it can also be a load of bull. Such as if I was to ask based on your above definition by the AAAS who confirmed (let alone repeatedly) the Big Bang through observation? When has anyone observed through experiment an explosion create anything but a mess? Who was there to see the Big Bang happen? What facts?

It's not as if the big bang exploded and then presto, you had universes packed with black holes and planetary systems. Really, the only thing that exploded during the big bang was energy. That energy later cooled and was able to convert into the more common particles that you see today.

KIA&SS wrote:

It is no less nor more scientific then the Big Bang. They are both majorly religious.

The big bang has nothing to do with religion. It's not a religious concept; it's a scientific one with scientific evidence and scientific backing. You can deny this all you want but it's not going to change.

KIA&SS wrote:

But you cannot provide evidence that looking into space is looking into our past, an thus proving the big bang because it makes us the center, and it is also a large assumption. This is exactly what was claimed below from one of your previous posts.

So which is it? Are we the center because we can look out into the stars and see the past? Or are we not the center and we can't therefore see the past?

When you look at the sun, you're seeing it as it was 8 minutes ago. When you look at the stars, you're looking at what they looked like millions of years ago.

This is basic fact, and has nothing to do with us being at the center of the universe. If you were instantaneously transported millions of light-years across our universe, you'd see our sun as it was millions of years ago.

KIA&SS wrote:

My point exactly.


You can say that grass used to always be pink with blue dots until the next millennium. You might even be able make a fabulous scientific argument for it. That still wont make it fact.
(I commend your play on words there. )

Yes. And you sound like you are believing someones dogma without deducing your own conclusions, but that is your choice. Go for it!


I understand light and how it travels. What does that prove?

If you are trying to use how far you can see into space as evidence for the big bang, because as you previously stated, and some scientists claim, you are looking into our past, then you are indeed claiming we are the center.
Now if all you are claiming is that we are limited by what we can see because light takes so long to get to us, then I agree. Light traveling, is science.

But you cannot provide evidence that looking into space is looking into our past, an thus proving the big bang because it makes us the center, and it is also a large assumption. This is exactly what was claimed below from one of your previous posts.

So which is it? Are we the center because we can look out into the stars and see the past? Or are we not the center and we can't therefore see the past?

Lets assume the bible folks are right for a second. (Don't kill me guys, speaking in theoretical.)
If God created it all at the exact same time then the light would still take the same amount of time to reach us. We would still be limited by what we could see.

Big Bang and God are both religious. Pick whichever you like... or pick Zeus if you prefer, but the Big Bang is still not fact.
If and when they can provide demonstrable, observable evidence of the Big Bang then it may be science, but right now it is nothing more then a religious belief.


Failed what? I am not in class and you are not my teacher.
I am arguing. What am I arguing? I am arguing that both Creation and the Big Bang are religious. I am arguing that I do not want the big bang religion shoved down my throat in science class because it isn't science.



You do realize how stupid that sounds right?

Religion: A setdictionary.reference.com/browse/set of beliefs concerning the cause, naturedictionary.reference.com/browse/nature, and purpose of the universe. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

You don't have to have a god to have a religion. Humanism, Buddhism are religion without god. The Big Bang is a religion without a god.

Your right the scientific community believes the big bang... they have a religion known as the big bang.


That proves you can see the universe expanding. It does not provide evidence for the big bang. (My science, big bang believing teacher hates me. )

Here are couple of interesting reading sites if you actually care to seek the truth.
Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (I find it funny he was a priest but that's just me.)
The Hubble Law - Answers in Genesis


Laughs. Your right. However I have been seeing this ridiculous push that Hitler was awesome. (I disagree.) In any case, its true you tell a big enough lie loud enough eventually someone will believe it.

None of this uses logic. I just realized I'm arguing with someone in middle school using college level physics. I'm sorry middle school kid, didn't mean to confuse you. I'll just go now.

Another argument over religion? That's useful.

None of this uses logic. I just realized I'm arguing with someone in middle school using college level physics. I'm sorry middle school kid, didn't mean to confuse you. I'll just go now.

Your response is funny... its about the same as my college professors. He tried to have me kicked out of class because his logic was challenged. He was over ruled.
(If your definition of logic is taking it on faith that the big bang is real... then I guess not.)

A scientific theory, by definition, is one which is well-substantiated. You deny this?

Is a scientific theory well substantiated? Yes. Does well substantiated make it fact? No. Even scientists agree that there are problems with the Big Bang Theory.

BB top 30 problems
HowStuffWorks "Problems with the Big Bang Theory"

Is the Big Bang well enough substantiated for me to take it on faith that that is what happened?

How is the big bang religious? Being a theory does not equate to being religious.

Has the big bang been proven, demonstrated, or observed?
Does not anyone that believes the big bang have to take it on faith that the big bang happened, that the scientists are telling the truth?
Is there not a group of people who subscribe to belief in the big bang?
Have you read the definition of religion?

The big bang has nothing to do with the beginnings of life. All the big bang does is explain the development of our universe; it doesn't even explain the origin of the universe.

Your right. Because the big bang is nothing more then belief but... here is what your scientists say.

Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

As far as life... do you not have to have a universe before you have life? Or do you?

You honestly believe there is no solid scientific proof of the big bang? Most astrophysicists would disagree, and you'll have to forgive me for taking their word over yours.

So your believing them? Having faith in their word?
(I am not asking anyone to take my word. I am asking you not push your religion on me in science class.)
Most...maybe. But not all. "There Was No Big Bang!" Say Several Leading Cosmologists (A Galaxy Classic)

The big bang has observable evidence, and has continued to gather evidence over numerous decades. It's the most accurate model of the universe we have.

Who has observed the big bang or any sort of like event?
Is it really?
Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists

I don't know I'll be diagnosed correctly. But I'm going to put my trust in something that has been tested using the scientific method, just like the big bang.

Have you looked up scientific method recently?

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
Wikipedia

Who has observed the big bang?
Who has measured the big bang?
Who has performed the big bang in experiment?
Who has reduced the big bang to a formula?
Who has tested the big bang? (successfully)
And yes... this one you get. The big bang has hypotheses involved.

Hmm...one out of five conditions have been met... I don't believe the big bang qualifies.

The big bang, being a scientific theory, has extensive observation and experimentation. Creationism does not.

Who observed the big bang?
Who experimented with the big bang?
Who ever created anything? (That did not already have matter of its own.)

How many times are you going to say theories aren't fact?

Until religion is out of my science class.

Creationism is a theory in the sense that it's an attempt to explain something.
The big bang a is a scientific theory in that it's well-substantiated and has observable, empirical evidence going for it.
Long story short, one has merit, the other doesn't.

I have been over this.
http://www.icr.org/article/177/ (This one states the point best but that is just what I think.)
Creation: ?Where?s the Proof?? - Answers in Genesis
Scientific Evidence that God Created Life

The big bang has no more evidence and is no more observable then creation.

Empirical means: 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience 2 : relying on experience or observation alone. 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
Online Dictionary

Again... who observed the big bang?
Who experienced the big bang?
Who has verified through observation and experimentation the big bang?

It's not as if the big bang exploded and then presto, you had universes packed with black holes and planetary systems. Really, the only thing that exploded during the big bang was energy. That energy later cooled and was able to convert into the more common particles that you see today.

Was anyone there to see that?
And what about the dirt that was squished into the size of a period on this page?

The big bang has nothing to do with religion. It's not a religious concept; it's a scientific one with scientific evidence and scientific backing. You can deny this all you want but it's not going to change.

I don't have to deny it... because it simply isn't true.
You have to prove it isn't a religious concept. Because all it is, is a belief.
What provable, observable, demonstrable, scientific evidence?

When you look at the sun, you're seeing it as it was 8 minutes ago. When you look at the stars, you're looking at what they looked like millions of years ago.

This is basic fact, and has nothing to do with us being at the center of the universe. If you were instantaneously transported millions of light-years across our universe, you'd see our sun as it was millions of years ago.

Okay... I get the light... but may I mention the moon and few other science facts?

Don't take my word for anything use your own brain and go do some research.

(Here are some interesting places to start your research... then go find more.)
Ive heard that the Moon is moving away from Earth by about an inch 25 cm each year Why is this happening - Astronomy Magazine

The moon is 238,857 miles from earth. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that if the moon is moving away from the earth that in years past it used to be much closer. If you reverse this rate of recession millions or billions of years you have a real problem. Every 1000 years = the moon would be 125 feet closer. Every million years 23.67 miles closer. Every billion years 23,670 miles closer. If the universe is 4.5 billions years old then the moon was 106,515 miles closer then or 45% closer to the earth. Because of the gravitational influence upon the earth the tides would have flooded all the land mass twice a day. (Inverse square law = if you half the distance your quadruple the magnetic attraction).
Calculations taken from:Apologetics Study 15

Again I urge you go use your own calculator and do your own research!

According to: Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading
Earth's magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.

Take us back 30,000 years. The earth would have had the intensity of a magnetic star. No life could have existed on earth.

According to: Is the earth's rotation slowing down?
&
I've Heard That The Earth's Rotation Is Slowing. How Long Until Days Last 25 Hours? | Popular Science
The earth is slowing down.

(I urge you to find your own resources.)

If the earth is losing even 1/1000 of a second every day. Every 10 months = 1 second. Millions of years ago life could not have been supported on this planet. Billions of years ago the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth surface into perhaps a pancake shape. (Maybe the earth really was flat once upon a time...)

So if your light travel proves millions/billions of years and that is your supposed proof of the big bang then how does that line up?

My Opinions chapter 6 verse 3: And the earth would have been a flat, flooded, wasteland unable to have any evolving going on at all.

SS

Let's play a game: Count the fallacies!

Let's play a game: Count the fallacies!

Sounds fun! Start with my post, and then include everyone else. :cool:

KIA&SS wrote:

Is a scientific theory well substantiated? Yes. Does well substantiated make it fact? No. Even scientists agree that there are problems with the Big Bang Theory.

There's always disagreement within the scientific community. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of scientists accept the big bang theory.

KIA&SS wrote:

BB top 30 problems

Way to use a reputable source.

KIA&SS wrote:

HowStuffWorks "Problems with the Big Bang Theory"

And as the article states, none of the alternative models are as widely accepted, and several of the arguments against the big bang were refuted in the very same article.

KIA&SS wrote:

Is the Big Bang well enough substantiated for me to take it on faith that that is what happened?

How do you think something becomes well-substantiated?

KIA&SS wrote:

Has the big bang been proven, demonstrated, or observed?

Well, if you had fully read the own article you supplied me with: "The theory makes several predictions, many of which have been proven through observational data."

We obviously can't have observed the big bang when it happened. But not being able to observe an event doesn't mean we can't prove it took place. Nobody observed the Barringer meteorite either, but given the mile wide crater, it's pretty obvious what happened.

KIA&SS wrote:

Does not anyone that believes the big bang have to take it on faith that the big bang happened, that the scientists are telling the truth?

Any particular reason why scientists would not be telling the truth? Is it all some big conspiracy?

KIA&SS wrote:

Is there not a group of people who subscribe to belief in the big bang?
Have you read the definition of religion?

I know what the definition of religion is. And you're heavily stretching its definition so you can categorize the big bang as a religious concept.

KIA&SS wrote:

Your right. Because the big bang is nothing more then belief but

What does that have to do with what I said? I'll try it again. Contrary to what you said, the big bang has nothing to do with the origins of life.

KIA&SS wrote:

here is what your scientists say.

That's not what scientists say. That entire site is written by a creationist.
If you're going to lie about a source, at least make it less obvious.

KIA&SS wrote:

As far as life... do you not have to have a universe before you have life? Or do you?

That's like saying the big bang deals with botany because you need the universe before you can have plants.

KIA&SS wrote:

So your believing them? Having faith in their word?
(I am not asking anyone to take my word. I am asking you not push your religion on me in science class.)
Most...maybe. But not all. "There Was No Big Bang!" Say Several Leading Cosmologists (A Galaxy Classic)

Learn the definition of faith.

And of course there's people who don't agree with the big bang. The fact remains that the majority of scientists do.

KIA&SS wrote:

Who has observed the big bang or any sort of like event?
Is it really?
Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists

Out of the numerous sources you've given me this entire time, you've only gotten one reliable one.

Who observed the Barringer meteor strike? I guess it's just a theory...

KIA&SS wrote:

Have you looked up scientific method recently?

Have you?

KIA&SS wrote:

Who has observed the big bang?
Who has measured the big bang?
Who has performed the big bang in experiment?
Who has reduced the big bang to a formula?
Who has tested the big bang? (successfully)
And yes... this one you get. The big bang has hypotheses involved.

Hmm...one out of five conditions have been met... I don't believe the big bang qualifies.

The funny thing here is the HowStuffWorks article you gave me and articles posted by other users have answered most of those questions.

KIA&SS wrote:

Until religion is out of my science class.

People like you are what keep religion in science class.

KIA&SS wrote:

I have been over this.
Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II) (This one states the point best but that is just what I think.)
Creation: ?Where?s the Proof?? - Answers in Genesis
Scientific Evidence that God Created Life

Answers in Genesis? LOL

KIA&SS wrote:

Okay... I get the light... but may I mention the moon and few other science facts?

Don't take my word for anything use your own brain and go do some research.

(Here are some interesting places to start your research... then go find more.)
Ive heard that the Moon is moving away from Earth by about an inch 25 cm each year Why is this happening - Astronomy Magazine

One, I'm not going to waste much of my time responding to an article which states, "If the universe is 4.5 billions years old."

Second, you're assuming linear functions for those calculations.

Third, you're doing a horrible job hiding the fact that you're nothing more than a young-earth creationist.

There's always disagreement within the scientific community. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of scientists accept the big bang theory.

May I point out that people believing the world was flat was once widely accepted by the science community and world? May I point out that the earth being the center of the galaxy was once widely accepted by the scientific community and world?

Way to use a reputable source.

I believe I told everyone to find their own sources a couple of times in my post.

And as the article states, none of the alternative models are as widely accepted, and several of the arguments against the big bang were refuted in the very same article.

Exactly. None of them are as widely accepted. (AKA more people believe the big bang.)
And your point is?
May again I point out that people believing the world was flat was once widely accepted by the science community and world? May I point out that the earth being the center of the galaxy was once widely accepted by the scientific community and world?

So they refuted a couple of the arguments. (I read the article before I posted it.) And your point is? It still did not prove that the big bang was anything more then a theory, or that it is fact.

How do you think something becomes well-substantiated?

Through logical scientific experimentation. Through the use of true science fact and scientific method.

Well, if you had fully read the own article you supplied me with: "The theory makes several predictions, many of which have been proven through observational data."

We obviously can't have observed the big bang when it happened. But not being able to observe an event doesn't mean we can't prove it took place. Nobody observed the Barringer meteorite either, but given the mile wide crater, it's pretty obvious what happened.

I love how you say, "many have been proven" but you don't state which ones.
The meteor has crater. The big bang does not even have that. The big bang is not obvious it is just... how did you say it? The most widely accepted.
If the big bang was provable there would be no need to accept it or reject it.

Any particular reason why scientists would not be telling the truth? Is it all some big conspiracy?

But scientist don't claim the big bang as fact. They just claim it as an effort to explain. They don't even claim it is true. They claim it is an attempt, a theory.
It is a religious push to teach a specific belief in schools.

I know what the definition of religion is. And you're heavily stretching its definition so you can categorize the big bang as a religious concept.

How am I stretching it? Does the big bang fit the definition or does it not?

Religion: A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

Let me point out right here that Buddhist do not believe in god and therefore do not necessarily believe in creation either.

That's not what scientists say. That entire site is written by a creationist.
If you're going to lie about a source, at least make it less obvious.

I suggest everyone click the link themselves and make there own deductions about who wrote it. (No where does it claim a creation writer, in fact the whole site if you click on science has various view points.)
If your going to call me a liar I hope you can prove it. In any case here are some more sites saying exactly what scientists say about the big bang. (Look at them for yourself better yet find your own sources.)

The big bang theory leaves several major questions unanswered. One is the original cause of the big bang itself. Several answers have been proposed to address this fundamental question, but none has been proven—and even adequately testing them has proven to be a formidable challenge.
Origins of the Universe, Big Bang Theory Information, Big Bang Facts, News, Photos -- National Geographic

The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws, and the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic.
Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes I read it.

The idea that the universe as we know it was born in a split second of exponential growth is cosmological gospel. But no one can agree on a single version of the theory called inflation. In fact, there now exist so many approaches, with such a wide range of predictions, that a few cosmologists have suggested inflation could never be disproved by observation.
Which Way to the Big Bang?

(The above is the world leading journal of original scientific research, global news and commentary. Is it reputable enough for you view of reputable?)
Oh and look at that, cosmological gospel. I may sound snide in saying this but that particular wording even sounds religious.

That's like saying the big bang deals with botany because you need the universe before you can have plants.

Yes, and?

Learn the definition of faith.

Maybe you should learn it.

Faith: 1.Confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.Belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.Belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. A system of religious belief:the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

The big bang fits into faith, especially numbers 1-2-4.
(Dictionary.com go look for yourself.)

Out of the numerous sources you've given me this entire time, you've only gotten one reliable one.

Which one?
And why don't you find the others reputable?
Could it be because their content simply doesn't line up with your beliefs?
Isn't that what some people say creationists do, ignore the facts that don't fit into their belief?

Who observed the Barringer meteor strike? I guess it's just a theory...

It has a hole in the ground and if we could dig down far enough we would find the rock. Which would be the observable proof.
If someone is ever able to likewise with the big bang then it will become fact. For now it is only theory.
Scientists claim the meteor as fact. They claim the big bang as theory.
Are you seriously trying to compare the two?
Is that the best you have?

Have you?

I posted the definition via Wikipedia. So yes.

The funny thing here is the HowStuffWorks article you gave me and articles posted by other users have answered most of those questions.

That's funny because I read both, and your right they did answer the questions.

Who has observed the big bang? No one.
Who has measured the big bang? No one.
Who has performed the big bang in experiment? No one.
Who has reduced the big bang to a formula? No one.
Who has tested the big bang? (successfully) No one.

People like you are what keep religion in science class.

How so? Since I seem to be the only one here trying to get it out.

Answers in Genesis? LOL

Answers in national geographic. I told you and everyone else to find your own sources.
Or are you folks so religious that you only look at one side of the battle?
Know your enemy know yourself.
My enemy is religion in science class. Of course I will look at all religious sides.

One, I'm not going to waste much of my time responding to an article which states, "If the universe is 4.5 billions years old."

So... Astronomy Magazine, the worlds best selling astronomy magazine isn't reputable enough for you?
Are you kidding?
Or are you too afraid to get out of your religious box?

Second, you're assuming linear functions for those calculations.

And your assuming the big bang.
At least science fact, proves the moon is moving away. It can be measured and observed. The big bang hasn't had either.

Third, you're doing a horrible job hiding the fact that you're nothing more than a young-earth creationist.

I haven't said what I am.
I believe in facts, science facts that can be proved and demonstrated, and observed.

Neither the big bang nor creation has observable, demonstrable, science fact.
Therefore logically both are religious and both don't need to be in my science class.
Put them both in world view if you like but not in my science class.

You are fighting off of religious bias. I am asking you to put down your belief for half a moment and actually just look at the facts.

I don't care if you believe in the big bang, creation, Zeus, Santa, the tooth fairy, or unicorns. That is your right and I love that right.
All I care about is that I am not forced to learn your religion against my will in science class.

And seriously friend... if your not willing to at least use your own calculator or believe the proven fact that the moon is moving away from earth then you have a horrible case of religious brainwashing.

SS

This is embarrassing.