Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/10/06 01:00 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 10/6/06 09:13 PM, Draconias wrote:
False. It was not matter that appeared. For the first second, no matter existed at all, just energy. Then quantum particles began condensing-- both matter and anti-matter. Matter was more stable.

**cough**lawofconservationofmass**cough**

Not a law, really. Just a general guideline. </pirates> Pair creation thumbs its nose at matter/energy conservation even moreso than causality. Some think it was an extreme version of theis phenomena that caused the bang.

booyah bitch

Prove evolution, scientifically. The human body is made up of way too many anthropic coincidences, to say that we were formed from a big bang or another non scientific theory.
Take the Big Bang for instance, it is scientifically nearly impossible.The premis:
A star explodes, it forms an element called Hydrogen. This Hydrogen would form in pairs of two, which is called deuterium. Even if the nuceli were at the weakest nuclear level, less than 10%, it would be impossible to make deuterium! Meaning the prospects for life would be nearly impossible.

The Quantum theory supports a creationists point of view. If im not mistaken this theory is scientific. All the twenty five elements and thier subatmoic particles are in a stable state. The Quantum theory's principles, if not in place, would define our an amorphous and protean state to such a degree that it is hard to imagine a living organism even being possible. We need to remember basic scientific principles, everything is caused by something other than itself. Just because humans do not have empirical evidence for a universe that holds different physics principles does not mean that having different physics principles are impossible. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely God.Everything that has a beginning in time has a cause.The universe had a beginning in time.Therefore, the universe has a cause.The only thing that could have caused the universe is God (because the cause has to be spaceless and timeless). The human mind is unable to image a universe where there is no space and time. Image a box that has nothing in it. The space in that box is empty, but this does not mean that there is no space in the box. The same with time; imagine a universe where there is no time that flows linearly. It is impossible to image. The way our minds interpret our experience is by having space and having time. Those who believe that time is infinite, call upon their human experience, which tells them that imagining the contrary is impossible.

New scientific evidence from Time Magazine in June 2001 shows that the big bang occurred 15 billion years ago. Before the big bang there was no space and time. It is impossible for our human minds to comprehend what happened before the big bang, refer to the box again, we can only think of empty space not no space. It is also impossible for us to think of time that does not flow literarily. Time started when the big bang occurred and the big bang occurred everywhere at one time. Then all the matter and energy that the universe can use during its existence was created at the time the big bang occurred. A type of anti-matter pushes all the galaxies and solar systems away from each other. The speed at which this occurs is constantly getting faster, pushing galaxies and solar systems further and further apart. But these galaxies and solar systems are not moving into space that never existed. Outer space must be thought of as having positive curvature. A good way to image the way outer space is shaped by taking a piece of paper and making both ends touch each other. If something traveled in a straight line going further and further into space, it would in theory end up back where it started. So again in theory, a galaxy could end up exactly where it started at the dawn of time if it kept moving in the same direction. This will not happen because before this could occur, all the energy that the big bang created will be used up. Eventually the universe would enter a dark era. The only thing that will be left is cosmic waste. There will be no light and no energy 10^100 trillion years from now, just burnt-out cylinders of stars and dead planets. Eventually, all the matter will collapse into black holes then the black holes will disintegrate that matter into particles. These particles will bind together to form big atoms larger than the size of our universe. That’s the end. There will still be space, there will still be time, and there was a beginning to both. Something must have caused this universe to exist and the cause has to be both spaceless and timeless. The cause had to have been able to function where there is no space, which is unimaginable, and with no time which is also unimaginable.

It was not a freak coincidence that life can flourish on Earth and there was a cause to the universe that our planet is apart of. Barr showed evidence of how anthropic coincidences such the process of how chemicals came into existence and the necessity of quantum mechanics were both needed to function exactly as they do to allow life to exist. With scientific evidence showing how the universe both began and how it will end proves that the universe had a beginning in time but will have no end in time. Everything with a beginning in time has a first cause that the first cause of the universe had to be both timeless and spaceless.

At 10/14/06 02:38 PM, Savren wrote:

New scientific evidence from Time Magazine in June 2001 shows that the big bang occurred 15 billion years ago. Before the big bang there was no space and time. It is impossible for our human minds to comprehend what happened before the big bang, refer to the box again, we can only think of empty space not no space.

Well, logically if we deduce that everything that exists in subject to change and decay therefore the universe is also subject to change and decay. Because of this the universe may stop expanding and thus start to implode upon itself. Once this implosion reaches it's very limit and cannot implode further it must, therefore, explode and thus creating a new universe. Therefore, it is highly possible before this universe there was another universe before it.

At 10/14/06 03:42 PM, Neoptolemus wrote: Well, logically if we deduce that everything that exists in subject to change and decay therefore the universe is also subject to change and decay. Because of this the universe may stop expanding and thus start to implode upon itself. Once this implosion reaches it's very limit and cannot implode further it must, therefore, explode and thus creating a new universe. Therefore, it is highly possible before this universe there was another universe before it.

That's the gist of what I had stated in the topical post, my friend. A re sttement of facts is hardly necessary.

People can belive what they want to believe.
I believe in the Big Bang, but if someone wants to believe that G-d made it, let them do it.

At 11/23/06 11:39 PM, Ranger2 wrote: People can belive what they want to believe.
I believe in the Big Bang, but if someone wants to believe that G-d made it, let them do it.

Despite the fact that they are wrong and scientific evidence exists to prove this point?

At 11/24/06 12:19 AM, Talcum wrote: Despite the fact that they are wrong and scientific evidence exists to prove this point?

Actually the big bang theory is a bit flawed. To say the universe is in a cycle is to say that it had to start at some time, and to say that it must end. If it ends, then it must have a beginning and that beginning must have happened somewhere (big bang), and to say that the universe must be centered would be saying the universe has a length, which it doesnt because space is supposed to go on forever. And doupting that space doesnt take up everything is just stupid.

Almost as stupid as the possibility of alien interaction.

At 9/27/06 08:34 PM, sean5892 wrote: I do believe there is an almighty force out there.

So do I, but can't go beyond that.

I do NOT believe that the big bang happened without help of that force.

Yeah, I agree the force started it up, but then kinda let it go.

Why is the earth, and it's plants so fucking perfect? Why does everything just magically fit together on the earth? How the fuck could we start out from 1 cell, and suddenly we all can reproduce, and think?

There's definately SOME almighty power out their, I don't care if it isn't god, but there's and almighty force.

Look I think the power gave a layout of the universe back then. Look, we have life starting with the cell. We have been able to create events, that created the cell. These events took trillions of years before they could actually form together. The chances of something like that NOT happening by then are incredibly slim. I also bet it occured more than once. Those times it may have failed or created another life somewhere else in this universe. It seems to be "so fucking perfect" since we adapt to what we get!

People can believe in what they want to believe. But just becuase they believe its fact doesnt make it so. Both could be wrong. Did anyone ever think of that?

Ok...So here's my thoughts on this stuff. WTF makes you believe in "god"? Where's your proof? Just cause when you were a little kid your parents made you learn about some book some dude wrote 2000 years ago doesn't mean you have to believe it. If someone wrote a book on the secret minds of yellow doors would you believe they had a conciousness. I don't definitely believe in the big bang. Compared to creationism, though, it is composed of more parts that I could believe could happen. So here is why I dont believe in god:

In the begining of a bible (yes I caught up on my motel reading) it states that god made a giant glob of water, split it in half, and put a "fathom" (or something) in between. WHAT? This theory, would make sense 2k years ago. It explains rain, ocean, and everything in between (literaly). But know we know that rain is precipitation, there is no equal balance of water above and below us. Moreso, if the blob of water was split in half how can the earth be round.

Thats only one reason that god wouldn't be real. God was used to explain what couldn't be explained. Anything we know now that wasn't known before was explained by god. But the dilema here is that although we know more now and can explain them, people still belive in god and thus what the two find as true contradict. But there is no reason to believe in god, it explains nothing and it provides nothing. It doesn't make you more knowledgeable if you can say how god created the earth because you can't prove it.

So there, my bigoty bitching is now complete, enjoy badgering me!

At 9/27/06 07:22 PM, Talcum wrote: Discuss.

It's not really so much that which bothers me about your "typical creationist". It's more the fact that they deny that a) there's a large amount of evidence for the big bang, and hence b) assume that it's merely a tentative suggestion.

"Just a theory". Hah. Yeah. Because of course a theory in terms of science is a complete, out-of-the-blue, anti-god speculation as opposed to the best current explanatory model of certain aspects of the universe.

At 10/10/06 01:00 PM, therealsylvos wrote: **cough**lawofconservationofmass**cough**

Actually, no. The law of conservation of mass is wrong. We know this for a fact and it is a well-accepted reality. The law of conservation of mass and energy, though, is true. You can create mass from energy and vice versa-- the big question is just how we generated energy in the first place, and that question is way out of my league.

ibid.

What? Ibidem or something else?

but you too, are assuming the impossible.

Not true. I am only assuming the possibility of the unlikely. You assume the blatantly impossible. No matter how likely creation through a god is, the big bang is more likely. Fewer unexplainable originations and variables.

At 11/24/06 04:41 PM, FlyingRoof wrote:

So there, my bigoty bitching is now complete, enjoy badgering me!

Acually your one of the first people who gets it. They did not have the technology to explain the rising and falling of the sun to they came up with an answer. Could be a wrong one. But it keeps people happy.

Interesting theory you have there, except can you prove it? The thing is that nobody can prove anything, because obviously, no scientists or anybody was alive however long ago the Big Bang happened.

At 11/26/06 11:35 AM, Frenzy wrote: Interesting theory you have there, except can you prove it? The thing is that nobody can prove anything, because obviously, no scientists or anybody was alive however long ago the Big Bang happened.

So we'll keep dumping millions of dollars every year to get closer and closer to nothing!

At 10/14/06 02:38 PM, Savren wrote:

booyah bitch

Prove evolution, scientifically. The human body is made up of way too many anthropic coincidences, to say that we were formed from a big bang or another non scientific theory.

First of all, HEY BUDDY.

Second of all, arguing from anthropic coincidences and relative nuclear strengths being implausible assumes a false dichotomy of either "life as we know it" or "no life"

Say that the elements could not form stable compounds and arrangements as they do now. Who's to say they wouldn't be able to form OTHER stable arrangements that would result in life of a form different from what exists in our universe?

Third, the statement "I think that this is pretty unlikely because I can't understand it" is not a valid scientific disproof of a theory. You actually have to find evidence that runs contrary to the predictions of that theory.

let's face it really the world/ universe appeared outta nowhere, and people and animals didn't evolve from a cripled little bacteria... that' the only things we know... and might be that the Egiption Civilisation worked in cooperation whith the aliens, or evolved lifeformes that bouth the humans 2 earth...

to hell with god creating everything. I could say I built that garage. But I didnt lift a finger. You see what im saying here?

yeaH I'm seeing what you are telling me... but after Darwins Theory, and other theorys That we (humans) come from bacteria isn't right so the "big bang" theory or/and allien theory still stands i think...

At 11/26/06 02:26 PM, dawin45 wrote: yeaH I'm seeing what you are telling me... but after Darwins Theory, and other theorys That we (humans) come from bacteria isn't right

How isn't the evolutionary theory right?

How isn't the evolutionary theory right?

Because you for eg. didn't become a human from a bacteria, aND never will and never where...and no evolutionary stage or experiment could explain that, it's just simply not possible scientificly...

The big bang and evolution makes a hell of a lot more sence than 'god made it'

Can people be that fucking stupid that they would throw away hundreds of years of scentific study for one fucking book thats about some asshole building this shit hole universe and sending his only son to die on this shit hole planet.

Lord of the fucking rings is more entertaining for the fact that a ring can make you go invisible so you can sneak into girls shower rooms.

i feel much better

except that the big crunch doesn't work...

do your research, the unvireses rate of expansion is speeding up due to the gravitational attraction of dark mater. the big crunch will never happen.

At 11/26/06 02:34 PM, dawin45 wrote:

How isn't the evolutionary theory right?

Because you for eg. didn't become a human from a bacteria, aND never will and never where...and no evolutionary stage or experiment could explain that, it's just simply not possible scientificly...

Right...so because YOU don't understand it, "it's not possible scientifically"?

If you guys are truly interested in the subject matter read "Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe" By Simon Singh, it detailes how the theory of the Big Bang first started all the way up to what we know now. You will see how the early scientists began figuring out how our universe works.

Maybe if you guys read it and learn, this debate will end...

At 11/24/06 04:41 PM, FlyingRoof wrote: Ok...So here's my thoughts on this stuff. WTF makes you believe in "god"? Where's your proof?

Simply put it this way. Where's your proof there isn't.
There's none either way.
Also you say you believe it because you parents told you to. I'm a different religion from them,
we have the ability to think for ourselves

The red shift is quite convincing proof of the big bang...