It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Before the Big bang.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
THe thing about having faith makes you blind,
Science will always test things (A lot of people use the phrase disprove)
the thing is god is never up to the test.




posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   
how do u test evolution then??????????? it cant be tested. there are 5 types, but the type i am curious how u would test is macro evoltion. micro-evoltuion has been observed, but macro has not. you cant create new speices. there can be variations amoung species. but where is teh proof for evolution? simple...there is none..



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   


how do u test evolution then??????????? it cant be tested. there are 5 types, but the type i am curious how u would test is macro evoltion. micro-evoltuion has been observed, but macro has not. you cant create new speices. there can be variations amoung species. but where is the proof for evolution? simple...there is none..


hey uh Josh, I would have to disagree with you on the species part. we do observe that there are different species that can still bring forth, but they are the same kind.

the term species and kind, often get confused. there are many different species, but certain species belong to certain kinds and different kinds are not interfertil, you cant breed a dog with a cat nor a human with a chimp they are different kinds. dogs, wolves and foxes are different species, but they are the same kind. the horse and the zebra are different species, but they are the same kind.

the bible says that they will bring forth after their kind. well thats all we observe, that proves that verse is correct.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
how do u test evolution then??????????? it cant be tested. there are 5 types, but the type i am curious how u would test is macro evoltion. micro-evoltuion has been observed, but macro has not. you cant create new speices. there can be variations amoung species. but where is teh proof for evolution? simple...there is none..


First, why would you answer your own question?
Second, as you said yourself there are 5 types of Evolution. You say that Micro-Evolution has been observed, but Macro-Evolution has not. Just because one has and one hasn't doesn't conclued that that ALL don't exist, especially if one does.

I could literally take your logic and say that because I haven't observed God, I can conclued that he/she/it does not exist.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueApocalypse
I could literally take your logic and say that because I haven't observed God, I can conclued that he/she/it does not exist.


that is exactly why both are based on faith. evolution is a religion, its not science. how can you observe it, and test it? and where is the evidence for it?



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   


that is exactly why both are based on faith. evolution is a religion, its not science. how can you observe it, and test it? and where is the evidence for it?


Here's a few excellent examples, mostly observed in plants.
Observed Instances of Speciation

There's also the circumstantial evidence that throughout paleohistory organisms are constantly disappearing and then new, markedly similar organisms appear.

Also, what I found really definitive is that whales still have a pelvis and femurs.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Zaknafein]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   


I could literally take your logic and say that because I haven't observed God, I can conclued that he/she/it does not exist.


dude you are so smart, that is what we have been saying all along. we admit that ours is a religion, how about you admit yours is too.


EC



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Hey can I just throw in proof of evolution,
this is really good,
I bet you cant guess,
NO? you dont know what it is,
Its called the fossil record from my understanding it is an extreamly good proof of evolution.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   


Its called the fossil record from my understanding it is an extreamly good proof of evolution.


Fossils cant possibly count for evolution. you know why?
you cant prove those bones had any kids, and you sure cant prove that those bones had different kids. and just because a human gets burried a few layers above a hamster does not mean that hamsters turned into humans over billions of years. there is no fossil record. the layers do not represent different ages. polystrate fossils such as trees have been found petrified standing up connecting many layers. some trees have been found upsidedown connecting many rock layers, how does that happen over millions of years? it cant. there is no fossil record.

EC


EC



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Evolution Crusher have you ever read a book on evolution. HOw everything is in an order adn no there is no direct proof things came from each other but the fact they are all in order some things very simular to things before.
Then evolution itself has been witnessed if only on the micro scale through dogs and cats.
Lastly how many T-rex skeletons have been buried with dogs, cats or humans in their ribcages.
Oh really what a surprise.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
you know what, I noticed that the title of this thread is "before the big bang"
I have a question.

what was before the big bang?


EC



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 03:38 AM
link   
'What was before the big bang'
I know this answer destroys the point of the thread but no one really knows, its like asking someone what was in the news paper teh day before you were born but your not allowed to do any research or anything you just cant know, O.K bad example but I couldnt thkn of a better one.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
my question would be for anyone on this thread who would like to answer.

what was before the big bang? with a big bang there would be no evolution. so if the big bang theory is ever proven wrong here, then evolution might as well be thrown out the window.

even those who are for the big bang theory, lets have a logical brainstorm here real quick. think about it. let me share with you what this gjy names TOM told me.

[[[13.7 billion years ago, the entirety of our universe was compressed into
the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity, this is the
moment before creation when space and time did not exist. According to the prevailing cosmological models that explain our universe, an ineffable
explosion, trillions of degrees in temperature on any measurement scale,
that was infinitely dense, created not only fundamental subatomic particles
and thus matter and energy but space and time itself. Cosmology theorists
combined with the observations of their astronomy colleagues have been able to reconstruct the primordial chronology of events known as the big bang.]]]

notice that it said that time and space did not exist. well if time and space did not exist, then matter cannot exist as well. how do you get space from non-space?

so that blows the entire theory away. if time and space do not exist, neither can matter. so if all three cannot exist, then the universe has nothing to cause it to expand. how can nothingness expand? what would drive it outward? what did drive nothingness outward? what started the big bang?

there are two theories about what started the BB. some people say that it was an explosion, and others say that it was just an expansion. both theories have flaws.

the BB never happened.

EC



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
my question would be for anyone on this thread who would like to answer.

how do you get space from non-space?
EC


Well, I'd say that this is exactly what you say happened when God created the universe. The big bang looks a lot like "Let there be light" to me.

Harte



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Reply Message by new user Terinjokes (account awaiting activation):


MOD EDIT:
post removed. member application denied

[edit on 21-8-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Josh Your wrong, macro evolutionhas been observed. During the industrial revolution in England moths that were white became black to blend with soot covered buildings thus harder to see by predators. So lets say that manhy of these tiny changes happened to a creature ud end up with a new animal entirely.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
ONe strain of the big bang theory says that beore the big bang was the big crunch. Which inturn had a big bang before it and so forth.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
M-Theory is the best one yet. It unifies the five string theories and adds an 11th dimension. And it has gravity originating from the 11th dimension. Check it out.

www.damtp.cam.ac.uk...

The reason I like this one best is because it has been my hunch before the scientists came up with it. I still don't think it is perfect, but it is extremely close.

Big bang is way too flawed to be true. Gravitational calculations don't work at all when it comes to proving it. There is the fact of the universe being full of particles that blink in and out of existance that actually messes with the outcome of those calculations because of their influence on mass. That is just for starters.

I was just thinking, if as they say, time is the fourth dimension, then time is only a dimension. Or if it isn't the dimension itself, but is in that dimension, what if you removed all dimensions and had time isolated, how would it be explained then, you don't have any point A or point B or start to anything or end to anything, if there is only time. My point is, forever, eternity, never, beginning, end, you can't apply these words to the universe, or reality, but you can look at the universe (whatever that really is) through the filter of the 4th dimension and apply time concepts to it.

MageKMaer





Originally posted by ZeroDeep
www.discover.com...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Catholic Church, which put Galileo under house arrest for daring to say that Earth orbits the sun, isn?t known for easily accepting new scientific ideas. So it came as a surprise when Pope Pius XII declared his approval in 1951 of a brand new cosmological theory?the Big Bang. What entranced the pope was the very thing that initially made scientists wary: The theory says the universe had a beginning, and that both time and space leaped out of nothingness. It seemed to confirm the first few sentences of Genesis.



Eventually, astrophysicists followed the pope?s lead, as evidence for the Big Bang became too powerful to ignore. They accepted the notion that the entire observable universe?100 billion galaxies, each stuffed with 100 billion stars, stretching out more than 10 billion light-years in all directions?was once squashed into a space far smaller than a single electron. They bought the idea that the cosmos burst into existence precisely 13.7 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. But even now, many astrophysicists are still uncomfortable with the implication that the Big Bang marked the beginning of time itself. And the theory has yet to yield a satisfactory answer to a key question: What made the Big Bang go bang?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is very interesting. I picked up the magazine after fighting off 2 geologists and an astro physicist.

But low and behold. I have read through some of it, and seemed very catchy?

What do you all think?

Deep



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I would say that there were probably other big bangs before the one that they are currently tracking.

Can anybody tell me what the difference would be between a big bang and a super sized supernova?

MageKMaer


Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
you know what, I noticed that the title of this thread is "before the big bang"
I have a question.

what was before the big bang?


EC



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   
It all depends on your definition of things. Faith doesn't make you blind. The definition of faith is to believe in something without proof. We all do that to some degree or another.

Science will always try to test things. It won't always be successful at it. And there is a lot of science that is based upon assumption without proof.

If you are a pagan and you worship the Sun as your god, there is a good chance you can test the existance of your God. If you want to test whether or not the Sun cares about you, that might be hard. If you want to test whether or not the Sun is passionate, you might have an easier time, as it is hot and intense. Either that or it is pissed off.

MageKMaer


Originally posted by Shenroon
THe thing about having faith makes you blind,
Science will always test things (A lot of people use the phrase disprove)
the thing is god is never up to the test.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join