If you're atheist..

[CrashBand]

Something cannot come from nothing, as has already been proven. Nothingness lacks any form of base. However, "whatever begins to exist has a cause."

Ah, the cosmological argument. Intellegant design does not present a solution to the problem.

As I said before, it's kicking the can back.

[Block]

Not a scientific theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of the facts. Not just a person's system. It's the whole scientific community's "system" of explaining observable phenomena.

Something cannot come from nothing. This is true. I never said the Big Bang says we came from nothing. The Universe exploded some 14 billion years ago and is expanding ever since. You can't argue this... The facts speak this. The culmination of every observable phenomena goes hand in hand with the Big Bang theory. We don't know what started it or what have you, but it happened and you can't deny this.

Just because we weren't alive when the Universe came into being, or when life first started on Earth, or when life in water evolved to land-dwelling creatures doesn't mean we can't know it happened. The evidence is there and it all culminates in the scientific theories in which I talked about...

Why do you believe in creationism? Do you have evidence you'd like to share with the rest of the scientific world? I'm sure you'd be applauded for surfacing such evidence and proving Big Bang wrong and evolution as false. Hell, you might even get a Nobel Prize for that shit. Or is it just faith, in which you have no evidence and just... well, believe in it...?

You're not worth engaging simply because of the fact you have no idea what theory means, you obviously haven't read anything from my back and forth with Class, and you believe that the big bang theory is a fact (not to mention you randomly asserted your asinine opinion into an already dead argument). Your definition of theory is completely inaccurate. And the big bang theory is not a fact. We have no idea whether or not the universe exploded in to existence, or whether or not it is still expanding. certain scientists theorize this happened, while others completely disagree--string theory, to name one. The same goes for the theory of evolution.

Ah, the cosmological argument. Intellegant design does not present a solution to the problem.

As I said before, it's kicking the can back.

I noticed you conveniently left out the end of my post.

Does that mean we can explain everything? No. Were we alive when all this shit started? No. It's all speculation.

You might want to include that last tid bit the next time you quote me.

[Eedee]

Are you trolling me here?

The definition I said of a scientific theory is accurate. The Big Bang theory is as close to fact as we can get. Same with the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution. The Universe is expanding, that's a fucking fact. Scientists all over the world AGREE the Big Bang is the leading explanation of the facts we find as we observe the universe.

And the fact you called it the "theory of evolutionism" is very telling you have no idea what you're talking about. edit: Which I see you just now edited to the proper term.

[Block]

Are you trolling me here?

The definition I said of a scientific theory is accurate. The Big Bang theory is as close to fact as we can get. Same with the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution. The Universe is expanding, that's a fucking fact. Scientists all over the world AGREE the Big Bang is the leading explanation of the facts we find as we observe the universe.

And the fact you called it the "theory of evolutionism" is very telling you have no idea what you're talking about.Actually, smart ass, I added 'the theory of' after already completing the sentence with evolutionism. Then went back and changed it. As I told class, your sad attempts at condescension aren't going to work here.

You're a fucking idiot. That's all I can say.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... theory?s=t

scientific theory

noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

Nowhere is there a mention of fact in the definition of scientific theory.

No, the big bang is not the closest we can get to a fact. There are many other theories just as popular as the big bang theory.. This doesn't make them facts. No matter how hard you want to believe that it does, your belief in something does not make it a fact.

Again, I can't reiterate this enough: You're a fucking idiot. SOME scientists theorize that the universe is expanding. Have you or has anyone else been to the edge of the universe? We barely have the technological advancements to get to the next planet over, how the hell can you claim that it's a fact that we know so much about the universe? Your arrogance is astounding.

Scientists all over the world also agree that String Theory is plausible. Steady State Theory is plausible. M-theory, etc.

Actually, the Big Bang theory is NOT a theory about the creation of the universe. It is a description of the behavior of a universe with a constant amount of energy-matter, which is allowed to cool in an expanding universe.

When we run the theory backwards (to see how the universe behaved in the past) we come to a moment where we can no longer explain what happens. We can't even explain how time itself could have existed "before" a certain moment. This is why we conclude that there was a moment that marks the "beginning" of the universe as we perceive it.

However, the Big bang theory does not tell us how the universe began (whether it was "created" or if it came from some other type of universe).

The scientist who came up with the hypothesis that later became the Big bang theory was a priest. That is why the earliest moment that can be analyzed using the Big Bang theory is sometimes called "creation".

---

There are ideas as to what could have come BEFORE the first moment at which the Big Bang theory can be applied (the "beginning" or the "creation"). However, because they cannot yet be tested, they are not officially theories yet, even though some of these ideas carry the word "theory" in their names.

The cyclic universe. M-theory. String theory. Multi-verse (the ones with the colliding "branes", where the collision energy and site provides the expanding energy we perceive as being our universe). And many more.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25 ... :int=0&-C=



I'm not getting in to this again. Your arguments circumvent way too often. And as I said already, you obviously haven't read my references that I posted.

[Eedee]

Scientific observations... Here, let me dumb this down for you: Galaxies are moving away from us. That's a fact. Background radiation is coming from every part of the Universe. That's a fact. Holy shit. Look at these facts. Let's add them up. The Universe must be expanding and if it's expanding, it must have been closer together in the past and that means it must've started with a "bang". Get it now?

I don't appreciate you calling me a fucking idiot, either. You're just too dense to understand basic scientific concepts.

The definition I used for a scientific theory is correct. I just said 'fact' instead of 'observations', which are basically the same fucking thing.

Oh and by the way, fucktard, we don't need to get to the edge of the universe to know it's expanding. That's like "we need to go to Italy to know it exists". You really are a fucking block, aren't you?

PS - I don't "believe" in the Big Bang theory. It's the most reasonable explanation of the observations we've made about the Universe and I accept this theory as the most plausible. Believing is for blind idiots who don't have proof and just need something to make them feel better.

I'm still not sure if you're just trolling me or not.

[Block]

Scientific observations... Here, let me dumb this down for you: Galaxies are moving away from us. That's a fact. Background radiation is coming from every part of the Universe. That's a fact. Holy shit. Look at these facts. Let's add them up. The Universe must be expanding and if it's expanding, it must have been closer together in the past and that means it must've started with a "bang". Get it now?

I don't appreciate you calling me a fucking idiot, either. You're just too dense to understand basic scientific concepts.

The definition I used for a scientific theory is correct. I just said 'fact' instead of 'observations', which are basically the same fucking thing.

Oh and by the way, fucktard, we don't need to get to the edge of the universe to know it's expanding. That's like "we need to go to Italy to know it exists". You really are a fucking block, aren't you?

PS - I don't "believe" in the Big Bang theory. It's the most reasonable explanation of the observations we've made about the Universe and I accept this theory as the most plausible. Believing is for blind idiots who don't have proof and just need something to make them feel better.

I'm still not sure if you're just trolling me or not.

You capitalized universe, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Theories can and have been disproved. Facts cannot be disproved. If one theory was a FACT, there would not be other THEORIES contending with it, and everyone would be inclined to agree. Because, well, facts are not arguable. However, this obviously isn't the case. ergo: a theory is not a fact. Period.

Which leads us back to something I've stated twice already: It's all speculation.

Background radiation is not an indication of expanse, neither is the movement of galaxies. Both could exist in an infinite universe. (which is also another THEORY)

How can you try to say that A and B = x? Background radiation + the movement of galaxies does not = expanding universe.

Either way, this is completely off topic from creationism vs evolution. Beside the fact that the big bang does not even come close to explaining 0+0=1.

[Block]

To you it's plausible to believe that out of absolute desolation and darkness; out of absolutely nothing came this cosmic explosion (what exploded, anyhow? since there was only nothingness?) which magically created the building blocks of life as we know it today. Then out of sheer chance and randomized, infinitely improbable selection sparked life? BUT it's completely infeasible to you that something could have actually designed the complexity of life?

Yeah, let's all go collect some rocks (which we have no idea how the fuck they came in to existence) and explode them until they produce life. Because THAT makes total sense.

[CrashBand]

Jesus Christ.

You haven't adressed it so I'll state it again.

Intelligent design does not solve this problem of 'nothing to something'. It actually gives us a tougher problem which is 'how do you explain the the creator'.

And then you face palm me and hide behind the statement that it's only speculation.

What's speculation?

Negative evidence against evolution?

Not being able to explain the origin of life / origin of the universe?

Mathematics of the eye doesn't ad up?

None of this is substantial evidence for intelligent design.

[SliK]

If the argument is "something cannot come from nothing"... Where did your creator(s) come from? Have they existed forever? If so, couldn't the universe have existed forever? Or what...

Something had to have came from nothing or else nothing would be here. Also, they believe even the nothingness of space is "something", hence the super-collider.

Edit: just realised the post above me addressed this- carry on.

[classthe_king]

I'm just butting in to say that string theory is not an alternate theory to the big bang. String theory is trying to combine the theory of relativity, which applies to big objects and quantum theory, which applies to subatomic objects. It has nothing to do with the origins of the universe. Same with M-Theory.

[classthe_king]

Carl Sagan once said,

"If God created the universe, we must then ask the next logical question: what created God? We might say God came from nothing, or that God always existed. If we say that God came from nothing, why not skip a step and say the universe came from nothing? If we say that God always existed, why not skip a step and say the universe always existed?"

And that sums it up perfectly for me. Stephen Hawking even said

“One could say: "The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary. The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.”

@Rise, these are the two best quotes for explaining how the universe was created without a god. Basically it was never created, it has just always existed. The Big Bang was a result of the universe collapsing on itself after losing all entropy and then exploding again. Obviously this is not fact but it's the best conclusion we can come to at the moment. I hope this helps you understand

TL;DR: No one ever said 0+0=1

[CrashBand]

TL;DR: No one ever said 0+0=1

(i) To the atheists/non-believers of a "creator"; How do you explain the equation 0+0=1? How can there be nothing, and then suddenly something.

Class already touched on this. The universe may have been eternal.

[Slim Fiasco]

(i) To the atheists/non-believers of a "creator"; How do you explain the equation 0+0=1? How can there be nothing, and then suddenly something.

How do you explain 0+0=God? How can there be nothing, and then suddenly something that can create everything? And again, the burden of proof is with the believers. You need to prove that God exists and you can't.

[Eedee]

Block is obviously trolling, guys. Don't waste your time responding to his attempts.

[Block]

:facepalm Jesus Christ.

You haven't adressed it so I'll state it again.

Intelligent design does not solve this problem of 'nothing to something'. It actually gives us a tougher problem which is 'how do you explain the the creator'.

The big bang theory and evolution don't solve it either. As I said, all anyone can do is speculate. I never once claimed to be right. I only proclaimed what I believe, and why.

And then you face palm me and hide behind the statement that it's only speculation.

What's speculation?

The beginning of everything. How the universe and life came in to existence. It's speculation, there are no facts involved, only theory.

Negative evidence against evolution?

Not being able to explain the origin of life / origin of the universe?

Mathematics of the eye doesn't ad up?

None of this is substantial evidence for intelligent design.

I referenced a book and a community of scientists that none of you seem to want to acknowledge. That's not my problem, that's your own ignorance.