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.

 

Stephen Hawking tackles Creation on 'Curiosity' - New Discovery Channel Program

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


You wrote:

["Come on you guys, if you believe that the Big Bang is true then you have to believe that life also came from it. It's not that complicated. Or is it?"]

As when you pull a rabbit out of a top-hat? No, .....it took a while, and it happened through growing complexity.




posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


So there’s this big bang that makes a big cloud of energy – that after a while of expanding starts to cool down and this allows the first subatomic particles, you know quarks and stuff to form (remember e=mc2 also note there are no toasted cells flying around at this point)

From these subatomic particles the first and simplest atoms (hydrogen) start to form and after a while that hydrogen makes the first generation stars, but a lot of these stars where very big and burned out quickly and explode

these explosions are called supernova’s, and they form the heavier elements through a process called fusion (as in hydrogen bombs) and from the remains of these first generation stars the second generation of stars including the Earth's sun are formed

thanks to the fusion process in the first generation supernovas there are now all the building blocks necessary for life available, such as carbon and oxygen ect, and thanks to this, in the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the of an unremarkable Galaxy something interesting happened……
edit on 3-8-2011 by racasan because: grammer

edit on 3-8-2011 by racasan because: fix something



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


We just have to hang around, and see if our thread-author will point out, that the bible said that first somewhere. Maybe not EXACTLY in those words though.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Well that won’t work
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

That sounds like a simultaneous event to me

my favourite bit in genesis is

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

So gods got day and night working – ok

But three days later

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

so three days later He gets around to making the sun – wtf

do christians think its light out side because of the sun or is it the sun out at the same time its light?

oh yes and while he’s making the sun and moon he casually makes the stars (well they are just itibiti dots of light, probably just candles or something)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


I tried to be humouristic.

Being somewhat onto physics myself, genesis 1 and 2 is a gift from 'god' (well maybe not THAT 'god', but one of the other ones), as they are a perfect basis for reality-checks.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I was trying to work out how anybody could be confused about whether the sun gives us daylight or if something else is happening – here in the far north i don't see how you could make that mistake, but I was wondering about someone from the equator, given that there is almost no twilight at sun rise or set?

Or maybe the author of the bible really was just high on magic mushrooms



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


It's my own experience, that ignorance of science/logic doesn't have a zero-point (as I would have expected before meeting christian pseudo-science/logic). Now I know there is a minus-scale also, where a reflected travesty of real science/logic manifests.

And I have no doubt, that that the christians (et al) operating from this inverted science/logic honestly believe it to be the real thing.

I have e.g. on occasion tried to point out the differences between deductive logic and inductive pseudo-reasoning. It's recieved almost as an insult, and some defense-mechanisms are activated, where a seemingly adrenalin-euphoria actually re-inforces the pseudo-direction. No need for mushrooms.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join