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.

 

The Big Bang Proves Creationism

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sweetmystery

Originally posted by MrXYZ
So many nice examples of god of the gaps in this thread


What does that mean? What is god of the gaps?

Thanks, SweetMystery


oh la la, I think I figured out how to do the quotes thingy!!

edit on 5-8-2011 by Sweetmystery because: (no reason given)


The god of the gaps is when you don't have an objective answer to a questions, and then claim "it HAS to be god".

For example: "Just look at how complex the universe is, only god could have accomplished that!"

That's a great example for god of the gaps because although the universe seems complex to us, it is NOT proof of a creator. Essentially, you are filing a gap in knowledge with magic by claiming a super-being did it all.



Basically, most of your arguments are prime examples of god of the gaps and don't prove your claims at all...sry




posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


That's how it starts X ! That's how it all started for me. At first, God was only between the cracks in the sidewalk. From there, I remember he moved quickly. Suddenly, he was in every crack and he filled every gap as well. See once you start see'in him in the gaps ? It dosn't take long from there. Soon you will see him in everything. I think you may be about to join us thumpers, X ?


It always starts with the gaps.


Not gonna happen. I'm ok with admitting that I don't know everything, I don't need to fill gaps in knowledge with magic


Especially considering how bad the "god did it" track record is...not once were people who said "god did it" right or able to prove their claims



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The fool is the one who doesn't see science and God together.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jordan River
The fool is the one who doesn't see science and God together.


Now that's an opinion...not fact



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Jordan River
The fool is the one who doesn't see science and God together.


Now that's an opinion...not fact


What are you talking about? I know plenty of scientist who believe in God and the big bang. We split opinion on ats. That is a fact, not an opinion



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


X sometimes you take a joke perfectly.
Other times I can't see how you ever get any of 'em.
Now,
I was either joking
or
trying to rub you the wrong way.

The choice is yours.

Randyvs



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jordan River
The fool is the one who doesn't see science and God together.


The fool part dosn't really bother me. As I see it there isn't a mothers son, born under the sun, that isn't one.
We are all fools who at any moment can become bigger fools, that can yet be fooled time and again.
But I do believe in what you say. As a fool any way. Okay?



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I can't be the only person who believes that the universe has just always been and always will be, that is wasn't created by anything or anyone but self-manifested due to the right conditions being present in whatever space it is and where.
It is made up of the same energy from the macro to the micro, from one "end" to the other.
Us too, our cells at the very tiniest point are the same energy as the desk and the air around us but with different properties giving different images, feelings, etc..



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
Yea Yea jesus blah blah, but where do i sign up for the unicorn thing? can i bring my tamborine?


Unicorns prefer flutes...thought everyone knew that!



You must pay 10% of your wages to the temple..that goes without saying, but on the upside, you get all the free candy corn you could ever want (it is through candy corn that we remember the sacrifice the unicorns gave to humans)


Look, I left my flute at band camp but I can supply my own cotton candy. Is the unicorn thing still going.....



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
So it seems to me that this thread has become one about proving that a god exists, therefore the big bang happened.

Also, when I post what I would call factual evidence, not a words from a bible or a feeling from staring at cracks, but something close to proof it's cast aside without comment.

Population 1 stars, like our sun, have lots of heavy elements in them, around them, in their solar system.
Population 2 stars, the other 98% ± of stars either have little or no heavy elements in them, or there was no heavy element producing predecessor in the area during their accretion.

With that said, when the big bang occurred blasting matter out to the edges of the universe, the elements would have been distributed fairly evenly. Population 2 stars contradict that.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
Yea Yea jesus blah blah, but where do i sign up for the unicorn thing? can i bring my tamborine?


nice, nice. tamborines would go nicely with unicorns, it just feels like a natural fit, to me. bagpipes are too shrill and harmonicas are too bluesy. i won't even discuss the accordion.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich931
 


The current theory is that no heavy metals were produced during the big bang.The Population 1 stars gained their heavy metals from Population 2 stars and the Population 2 stars gained their heavy metals from Population 3 stars see:

en.wikipedia.org...

So Population 3 stars would be made from hydrogen, then supernova seeding the heavy metals observed in Population 2 stars which would also supernova seeding the heavy metals observed in Population 1 stars. The older the star, Population 3 stars being the oldest, the less heavy metals it contains, this is perfectly consistent with the big bang model.

The trouble I always had with the big bang theory is the idea that it exploded for no reason. I have come to accept the cyclical universe as the most likely model. A prior collapsing universe was the energy for the big bang and, in my view, it will happen again. This moves the prime mover question from the big bang for no apparent reason to how can the universe be infinite; big bang, big crunch, big bang, big crunch, ad infinitum, but I personally find it more logically appealing and internally consistent than the current conventional big bang theory that has a mathematical abstract cause, maybe. Where did the universe originate if it is cyclical? I have no idea, though, I believe maybe one day the answer could be discovered but not until much more sensitive instruments and new theories are created though.
edit on 26-8-2011 by MackSPower because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by BigBrotherBear
Using your logic:
The final option though is the "god", yet, the concept is illogical when you meld it to religion
This thing created the universe some what...15+ billion years ago (exceptionally conservative number), yet it did all of this only to let mankind rule some backwoods planet in some fairly unremarkable galaxy for a few thousand years...what an incredibly inefficient deity...and not just that, this deity, that did all of that (not even bothering discussing the other dimensions, or even the sextillion other full giant galaxys)...it also actually cares if your thinking naughty thoughts, and his minions became so enraged at this dinky planet that they rebelled and became a super enemy of God, and came to this not even truckstop qualified planet to play out a giant war.
...



Yup, It is called freewill, it is that important and possibly the greatest gift of all. you are using it right now.
edit on 26-8-2011 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Some religious believer consistently bury their heads in the sand and refuse to look at the evidence of the most powerful explanation for the origin and state of the universe. Why this is so, can only be put down to dishonest, ignorance or delusion.

The best explanation of the state and origin of the universe is called "Big slam". These ignorant Christians characteristically mis-present Big slam, saying that it explain the origin of life. BB is not an explanation of the origin of life. For that check out abiogenesis (not evolution). Nowhere in the Big slam theory is there any comment for how life came about. (Get this)

What is even more inane is that the objections to Big slam are not scientific, but theological. As far as can be establish, there is now little or no scientific objections to Cosmic Expansion. Evidently, all objections were brushed away with the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background.

For some of the experts in this area, check out the work of the following;

1) George Smoot, Nobel Laureate on work for CMB,
2) Alan Guth, Originator of the inflationary theory
3) Michio Kaku
4) Neil deGrasse Tyson
5) Alexei Filippenko

6) Steven Weinburg
7) Victor Stenger
8.) Stephen Hawkins
9) Roger Penrose



This is what Wikipedia has to say about what this model is;

The Big slam is the cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. As used by scientists, the term Big slam generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day. Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big slam theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'. The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's General Relativity as formulated by Alexander Friedmann. After Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts, this observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point. The farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.[1] If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in significant confirmation of the theory, but these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big slam theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant. The observed abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big slam nucleosynthesis.

Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the phrase 'Big slam' during a 1949 radio broadcast, as a derisive reference to a theory he did not subscribe to.[2] Hoyle later helped considerably in the effort to figure out the nuclear pathway for building certain heavier elements from lighter ones. After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its collective frequencies sketched out a blackbody curve, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some Big slam scenario must have occurred.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join