[Ghostavo]

Tin Can, try reading A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, it will clear your mind about the subject, since you appear to have doubts about some parts of the theory... and what a theory is...

[.::Tin Can::.]

Let pull over what is www.big-bang-theory.com (Very good site since it has the domain name for it and all, and clobbers the science together)

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

Notice the obsessive use over "We don't know". They didn't even know how this mystical energy got there.

Sure, noticed things like broken glass next to a shattered window clearly show it was broken. Sure, a sapling that was where a tree will be, and returning we see a tree, its conclusive that it indeed grew to a tree. However, the frame supports complete evidence, meaning everything we need to see is there.

Let's put the missing pieces into play, like they do with the Bing Bang Theory, with the same glass window.

Let's say the same window has a hole through it. Only this time, let's remove the broken glass. Do we know it was broken now? Was it carved out? Was it made that way? Was something thrown through it? Not sure, but we can speculate what happened.

The Big Bang Theory revolves over an incomplete scene over what we have seen SO FAR to be the believed effects over the big bang. That's it.

Your whining about people telling you you're wrong and your suggestion that somehow "we're all kinda right, in a way" indicated that, rather than an exchange of ideas, arguments and counter-arguments, you saw this as proselytisation, as a Battle of Science Versus Religion (in a sense a false dichotomy to draw, of course).

I'm simply trying to defend that your way of thinking is not proven, and neither is mine, but you insist that what you have to say is right, and is factual, and what I believe is wrong, and is purely stupid.

Now, if you will excuse me, I will watch a movie with my dad and eat dinner.

[Blaise Russel]

For the record:

I'm an agnostic. A proper one. That is, somebody who thinks that the question of 'God' is not one we can answer. I'm disinclined to consider the major religions, partly due to the heavy influence of Man and partly because any God worth his salt - benevolent, all-powerful - should be able to 'save' me or get me to save myself when it becomes clear that I *need* saving.

I... distrust faith, distrust taking something to be true without examination. It can be intellectually dangerous, not examining ideas before putting them in your head. However, it's a necessary part of day-to-day living and can save a lot of time and trouble.

I think science and religion should stay in their own playpens. Rather, I think science should stick to what it can describe - this physical reality that we live in. The mechanisms of religion - hopefully philosophy, oftentimes faith - are usually ill-equipped to discuss this particular field of knowledge. Likewise, science is not capable of going where philosophy and faith are.

This universe is the domain of science and science can explain the universe. Religion lacks the necessary tools to do that. Religion can explain theology, issues of morality and ethics, the 'Big Questions' because those are its fiefdoms - and science can't touch them.

Just a thought.

[Ghostavo]

We don't know how the window was broken but we do know it was broken... can't you follow an analogy?

[Kamikaze]

Attempting to get back on topic...

Wikipedia has an interesting article on Sodom and Gomorrah.

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

Apparently classical Jewish views hold that the inhabitants were destroyed not because of homosexuality but other causes.

This snippet was interesting:

There is no Old Testament text in which yadha refers to homosexual coitus (intercourse), with the single exception of this disputed Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis. The less ambiguous word shakhabh, however, is used for homosexual, heterosexual, and bestial intercourse. Shakhabh appears fifty times in the Old Testament; if it had been used instead of yadha in the Sodom story, the meaning of the text would have been unmistakable. As it is, we have no grounds to assume that the men of Sodom wanted to rape the visitors. We simply know that their intentions were unfriendly.

[Nico]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Notice the obsessive use over "We don't know". They didn't even know how this mystical energy got there.

Please, tell me where god comes from. What's his name? What's his daily schedule? how does he looks like? He is blonde? Is he a he or a she? Man, I'm sure you'll give me a lot of "I don't know".
I love to turn one-sided arguments like that the other way.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Nico, how many times must I stress that I know what I believe in isn't proven either. I'm not trying to force that what I believe is right and that the Big Bang is wrong. I'm defending the fact that both statements are questionable and unproven, so not one beats the other, because there is no fact to either of them.

BTW, God comes from Austria, his name is god, his routine is smiting ass holes, it's a he, he has brown hair, and his looks will kill you since he is the face of all the most beauitful people. He rocks:

God - 1 / Nico - 0

[Blaise Russel]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Let pull over what is www.big-bang-theory.com (Very good site since it has the domain name for it and all, and clobbers the science together)

Remember what we said about names and their relevance?

When you find a source that doesn't cite Hitler and Stalin as exemplars of 'evolutionism', we'll talk.

Stuff

What?

First, you misconstrue the tree example. We don't see the sapling; we see the tree. We see that it is growing - that parts are moving away from a central position. I say "Reversing the movement of the tree reveals that it began in a smaller state - a seed, if you will - and grew out into its current state."

You say "The tree was made just like this, and your theory sucks because you weren't there and didn't see it yourself, so you don't *know* how the tree began, and the whole growth-thing isn't really evidence, so I'm just as right as you are."

Yes/No?

Also, something about 'complete frame'. waht?

I'm not sure what else anyone could possibly need. You have Time 0. You have Time n. At Time n, Stuff is moving away from Point. Time progresses in a linear fashion, hence at some point Stuff was at Point. What else is required? CCTV footage? What?

I'm simply trying to defend that your way of thinking is not proven, and neither is mine, but you insist that what you have to say is right, and is factual, and what I believe is wrong, and is purely stupid.

And not doing it very well. Your entire position consists of 'you don't *know* that'. The Orthodox Creationist standpoint has not a single leg to stand on. Come on... you know you're in trouble when you have to work from the conclusion backwards.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Blaise, walk up to a scientist, and ask him:

"Is the Big Bang a fact."

What will he tell you? Call me back when you have done this.

If you cant figure out the picture frame analogy that YOU decided to put into the mix, then I have to explain it to you to get through to your poor excuse for comprehension.

You see a hole in a window, with glass by it. Everyone can conclude it was broken. Yes, it is, because we have the whole picture. Let me LIST the whole picture to be observed:

• The Broken Glass
• The Window
• The hole in the Window

All this together proves the window was broken. Now let take away the Broken Glass.

What can you conclude? Was the window made with a hole in it, or was it purpousfully broken with an object going through it? We dont know. We can guess, but we dont know.

Your "tree" analogy still doesnt prove anything. Trees have been proven to originate from a seed or sappling. It's a fact. All trees grow from seeds, end of story. It has no relation to the big bang theory.

And you know what, you don't know that. Neither do I. That's all there is to it Blaise, I don't know why you make it more complex than it is.

[an0n]

Your window analogy is flawed.

Science looks at the tiny slithers of glass on the ground and stuck in the frame and says "Hey, look, there used to be glass here".

Occasionally they'll say it was a sheet of glass when it was a stained-glass design, but for the most part, they're right to the point that only a window expert would care when they're wrong.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Good point an0n.

[Bobboau]

the tree analogy is not flawed as it is assumeing you have never seen a tree and you encounter one and find it changeing in a predictable way.

[Genryu]

And BTW, I am too lazy to search for a link, but at least one theory has been proposed about where the energy/matter from the Big-Bang came from. I don't remeber exactly what it is, but there was some proof that a void could generate energy, and that this 'void energy' was the start of the big bang. Since it's 3:30AM, I'm going to sleep, and se tomorrow if I can pull my head outta my ass and search for a link 'bout this.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Wouldn't all the evidence you would ever need be right there at the site? The roots indicate it was stationary, and sprouted from something that didn't move. The leaves indicate that it gains energy from the sun and water to live, due to the changing of colors from chemical imbalances in leaves during times of lack of water and sunlight. Basically, everything you could guess from that tree you can find from the tree.

[Bobboau]

on average, everything in the universe is flying away from every other boject in the universe
would it not be logical to say that at one point in time they were all in the same place?

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Blaise, walk up to a scientist, and ask him:

"Is the Big Bang a fact."

What's your criteria for a fact?

[PeachE]

Originally posted by an0n
Homosexual gang-rape in the Bible though. Funny, eh?

i always thought it was funny that, since the married daughters were identified as virgins and both of them later had children by Lot himself, the most righteous family in those cities apparently practiced nothing but incest.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Kamikaze


What's your criteria for a fact?

fact    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

[Stealth]

on average, everything in the universe is flying away from every other boject in the universe
would it not be logical to say that at one point in time they were all in the same place?

could someone not say that perhaps everything was at one point in time closer together, and that was when God created the universe?

[.::Tin Can::.]

Originally posted by Stealth


could someone not say that perhaps everything was at one point in time closer together, and that was when God created the universe?

Apparently not. Personally I think we've screwed up the topic enough, from homosexual gang-rape in the bible to a creation vs big bang argument. Enough already.