- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Apr 12
Originally posted by tim88Um actually no that's not true.
..... in science everything must have a beginning, Scientist know that the universe was not always there! ....
'Everything must have a beginning' is a finding of fact for which you need proof.
Without it it's an assumption and not a fact.
And scientists do not by any means know that the universe has not always existed.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Apr 12
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoIt doesn't disprove the existence of god.
How all this disproves the existence of God ?
Sonhouse was pointing out that RJHinds argument doesn't prove the existence of a god and
wasn't (as far as I can tell) claiming to be disproving god.
15 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo the Big Bang theory is only a theory?
Um actually no that's not true.
'Everything must have a beginning' is a finding of fact for which you need proof.
Without it it's an assumption and not a fact.
And scientists do not by any means know that the universe has not always existed.
The universe is 1 second old - (What was it 1 second before that?
15 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by tim88So everything must have a beginning? Answer me this: Who created God? What is his beginning?
God created the universe from nothing - in science everything must have a beginning, Scientist know that the universe was not alway there! So if the universe was created eight billion years ago? what was the first molecule that started it all? god was always there! how that is possible is beyond human understanding.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Apr 12
Originally posted by tim88The big bang is an event that really happened that may or may not have been the beginning of the universe.
So the Big Bang theory is only a theory?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDQzKTedGNE
The universe is 1 second old - (What was it 1 second before that?
However our current theories cannot see past that big bang (math breaks down when it hits the singularity).
The universe "as we know it" began with the big bang, but the universe may have existed in a different state
before the big bang... Or it might not.
We don't know.
My point is that science and scientists emphatically do not 'know' that the universe was not always there.
And that scientists do not 'know' that everything MUST have a beginning.
15 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindswhoo. this discussion went completely over your head. this was evident from your earlier reply, but you persist in displaying your incomprehension.
Well, you think "perfect eyesight, a gift of millions of years of natural selection."
And still believe there is no God. 🙄
15 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeIndeed that is what I was saying. He was saying we have this jewel of a planet which we certainly do and for that reason there is a god. For reference, compare Earth to Venus, or the moon Io. The only one even close is Mars, or Titan with it's atmosphere and liquid methane lakes.
It doesn't disprove the existence of god.
Sonhouse was pointing out that RJHinds argument doesn't prove the existence of a god and
wasn't (as far as I can tell) claiming to be disproving god.
We already know of at least one other planet now, inside the goldilocks zone, where water can be liquid if there is water there. So finding that planet after roughly 500 planets found gives us a rough statistical number, one in 500 maybe like Earth. So out of literally trillions of planets out there then there are literally billions of planets that could be like earth.
The fact we have only found one so far just shows how really really large the universe is. It certainly ( at least to relatively sane people) is proven to be billions of years old and our universe may not even be the only one, there can be others, maybe trillions of other universes.
15 Apr 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeI did not misrepresent him. The portion I quoted was a direct cut and paste
No, he thinks that we have rather imperfect eyesight after millions of years of evolution.
Can you make a post without misrepresenting the other side?
from his earlier post. You are the one that has the misrepresentation. He said
nothing at all about evolution.
15 Apr 12
Originally posted by sonhouseWe don't know this distant planet is suitable for us to live on. It is all pure
Indeed that is what I was saying. He was saying we have this jewel of a planet which we certainly do and for that reason there is a god. For reference, compare Earth to Venus, or the moon Io. The only one even close is Mars, or Titan with it's atmosphere and liquid methane lakes.
We already know of at least one other planet now, inside the goldilocks zo ...[text shortened]... universe may not even be the only one, there can be others, maybe trillions of other universes.
speculation and you should have enough common sense to know that.
16 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsExactly where did I ever say that planet was suitable for earthy life? I said it showed that one in about 500 planets so far discovered outside our solar system has the possibility of having liquid water IF THERE WAS WATER THERE.
We don't know this distant planet is suitable for us to live on. It is all pure
speculation and you should have enough common sense to know that.
Try working on your reading comprehension skills, it will be a big help to you understanding what other people actually said rather than making grand statements.
I was pointing out finding one extra-terrestrial extra solar system planet in 500 that could have liquid water on it if water was there, was just a statistical tool that could illuminate the likelyhood for planets having liquid water and maybe life. Since we KNOW there are billions of stars in our galaxy and likely at least 5 times that number of planets, say 5 per star average, then there should be billions of planets out there and lets say one in a thousand has liquid water, then there would be millions of planets at least capable of supporting liquid water and that can lead to life.
Those numbers tell me there has to be life on other worlds, millions of earthy planets in our galaxy, think of the billions of other galaxies and tell me the possibility is zero for other Earths out there.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
17 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsNonsense.
From wht we know os scientific laws today, a big bang, would most likey destroy
rather than create.
When we recreate the conditions just after the big bang in particle accelerators we get
huge showers of particles being created from the energy of the collisions.
Also destroy what?
Standard big bang theory doesn't have any 'before' the big bang so there and the universe
was created in the big bang.
So there was nothing (according to the standard model) to destroy.
However if there was something before it may well have been destroyed and replaced with
the universe we see today.
However the laws of physics clearly state that the big bang would create the universe we
see around us.
Contrary to what you want to believe physicists and cosmologists really care about truth and
discovering what reality is really like and if the big bang theory wasn't backed up by sooo much
evidence and didn't make such good predictions we wouldn't be using it or talking about it.
Physics works, which is why we can have this conversation over the internets.