It isn't totally proven, but the facts are there to a point where it doesn't add up to say it can't be right.
Science or Religion?
Started by Melchoire, Aug 22 2006 03:06 PM
264 replies to this topic
#102
Melchoire
-
-
- 5284 posts
Posted 01 September 2006 - 06:39 PM
Ya and even then the devout people still deny it completely 
Even some scientists didn't believe that matter could be created out of nothing until CERN labs collided matter at the speed of light and created a couple more atoms And that made alot of Physicists religious because then they knew that God could infact have created everything out of nothing.
Even some scientists didn't believe that matter could be created out of nothing until CERN labs collided matter at the speed of light and created a couple more atoms And that made alot of Physicists religious because then they knew that God could infact have created everything out of nothing.
#103
Ives
-
-
- 4320 posts
Posted 01 September 2006 - 06:46 PM
God has an interesting logic of spiritual and scientific levels. Which is why I think believing in him is what fits for me. But most atheists know what they're talking about, only with the problem that there are three types of atheists: The smart atheist who knows what they're talking about, the "rebel teenager" atheist who converted because they were convinced religion is the cause of all evil, and the "annoying atheist" who thinks shit like Happy Holidays should be taken out of stores because they think waayyyy too much.
#104 Guest_Casilla_*
Guest_Casilla_*
Posted 01 September 2006 - 07:56 PM
kdjklsfj;lgjfl
Okay.
The Big Bang has NOT been proven, no - NO theory has. But the science around the Big Bang has correctly predicted things we've later found - which is an extremely rare thing, and that's why it's taken so seriously. You'd be hardpressed to disprove it, given everything we've discovered because of it.
Another example I'll use is that no, no one's PROVEN the Theory of General Relativity - but without it, we wouldn't be able to put satellites in orbit. They'd fail without the knowledge to make the corrections in orbit and time.
At any rate...the e-mail you saw about the matter and etc. and speed of light is misinformed.
The Big Bang was NOT an "explosion" of matter. That is a misconception. The Big Bang is about the EXPANSION of the Universe. There was no true matter at ground zero - it was all a plasma-like energy. As the Universe expanded and it cooled down, it became matter.
You gotta think of the Big Bang like a bunch of pins on a rubber band, pinned in place. When the rubber band is loose, the pins are close together. When you stretch the rubber band, the pins go further apart. The pins themselves aren't actually moving, the rubber band is just expanding.
THAT is what's happening.
Not that the Universe is expanding because of an old explosion. It's space itself that's stretching, not the matter within it. That's why when we look further away, the faster things are going. 
The Big Bang does NOT explain where the Universe came from or what was before the Big Bang or why the Universe even expanded at all from that point. All the Big Bang says is that once the Universe was small and dense, and now it's large and getting larger.
Im pretty sure the big bang hasn't been proven I heard somewhere that the explosion sent matter shooting nearly at the speed of light so you won't be able to find any traces of the big bang unless you have a telescope that can look at the end of the universe it's hard to prove it.
Even if that were true, we'd be able to see it as long as it didn't go FASTER than the speed of light, which is impossible. =P
And we HAVE "looked back" to the beginning of the Universe. We can't see it optically - we can't see very much optically at all; we have to rely on infared and etc. But we HAVE seen a very dense, very noisy spectrum which we think was a few moments after the beginning.
Okay.
The Big Bang has NOT been proven, no - NO theory has. But the science around the Big Bang has correctly predicted things we've later found - which is an extremely rare thing, and that's why it's taken so seriously. You'd be hardpressed to disprove it, given everything we've discovered because of it.
Another example I'll use is that no, no one's PROVEN the Theory of General Relativity - but without it, we wouldn't be able to put satellites in orbit. They'd fail without the knowledge to make the corrections in orbit and time.
At any rate...the e-mail you saw about the matter and etc. and speed of light is misinformed.
The Big Bang was NOT an "explosion" of matter. That is a misconception. The Big Bang is about the EXPANSION of the Universe. There was no true matter at ground zero - it was all a plasma-like energy. As the Universe expanded and it cooled down, it became matter.
You gotta think of the Big Bang like a bunch of pins on a rubber band, pinned in place. When the rubber band is loose, the pins are close together. When you stretch the rubber band, the pins go further apart. The pins themselves aren't actually moving, the rubber band is just expanding.
THAT is what's happening.
Not that the Universe is expanding because of an old explosion. It's space itself that's stretching, not the matter within it. That's why when we look further away, the faster things are going. The Big Bang does NOT explain where the Universe came from or what was before the Big Bang or why the Universe even expanded at all from that point. All the Big Bang says is that once the Universe was small and dense, and now it's large and getting larger.
Im pretty sure the big bang hasn't been proven
I heard somewhere that the explosion sent matter shooting nearly at the speed of light so you won't be able to find any traces of the big bang unless you have a telescope that can look at the end of the universe it's hard to prove it. Even if that were true, we'd be able to see it as long as it didn't go FASTER than the speed of light, which is impossible. =P
And we HAVE "looked back" to the beginning of the Universe. We can't see it optically - we can't see very much optically at all; we have to rely on infared and etc. But we HAVE seen a very dense, very noisy spectrum which we think was a few moments after the beginning.
Edited by Casilla, 01 September 2006 - 07:56 PM.
#105
Sweeney
-
-
- 1230 posts
Posted 02 September 2006 - 12:38 AM
-tickles Alias-
Once more, for the birds, you cannot prove -anything-. Ever.
Disprove, yes. Prove? No.
Once more, for the birds, you cannot prove -anything-. Ever.
Disprove, yes. Prove? No.
#106 Guest_Casilla_*
Guest_Casilla_*
Posted 02 September 2006 - 05:31 AM
I'm still waiting for this "proof". Obviously I can't find it, and it's really ignorant of you to say I'm just being lazy. Why not help and point me in the right direction? Assuming it's actually there in the first place.
Here's the correct prediction, Alias.
http://en.wikipedia....round_radiation
The Big Bang theory predicted that this would be true in 1948, but they didn't have the equipment sophisticated enough until the 1965 to see it. Until then, the scientific community was split in half over the Big Bang and the steady state theory.
It's why the Big Bang is considered so seriously...because that is a prediction of a tremendous magnitude. That radiation is the remnant of the first few moments after the beginning of the Universe. In fact, it was so convincing that all other theories on the Universe were swept under the table because they could not explain the CMB. Even still, nobody can find an explanation for it that doesn't utilize the Big Bang in some way.
As Joe said, we can't prove anything, ever. I can't prove to you that the acceleration of gravity on Earth is 9.81 m/s^2. I can't. Because in a Universe of infinite probabilities, anything is possible. But I'm fairly confident that gravity or other physical "laws" on Earth aren't going to change their minds anytime soon. =P
As I said, the Big Bang doesn't explain where the Universe came from. It does not exclude God. What is so wrong with accepting the Big Bang as a possible way that God created the Universe?
You don't build a house without a foundation, after all. Well, not a very good house, anyway. You can build trailer homes, I suppose.
I doubt God built a trailer home, though.
Edited by Casilla, 02 September 2006 - 05:33 AM.
#107
Sweeney
-
-
- 1230 posts
Posted 02 September 2006 - 05:46 AM
I'm well aware this sounds like incorrigible ass-kissing... but that is the best analogy for the universe I've ever heard xP
#108 Guest_Casilla_*
Guest_Casilla_*
#109
Fatal
-
-
- 3625 posts
Posted 02 September 2006 - 05:53 AM
religion,ill believe in science when it can prove what created everything
#110 Guest_Casilla_*
Guest_Casilla_*
#111
Sweeney
-
-
- 1230 posts
Posted 02 September 2006 - 06:02 AM
You believe in science every time you go to the doctor's.
Every time you turn on the computer.
Every time you microwave some food.
Every time get a lift in a car.
Every time you go abroad.
Every single day, you believe in science.
Every time you turn on the computer.
Every time you microwave some food.
Every time get a lift in a car.
Every time you go abroad.
Every single day, you believe in science.
#112 Guest_Casilla_*
Guest_Casilla_*
Posted 02 September 2006 - 06:25 AM
You believe in science every time you go to the doctor's.
Every time you turn on the computer.
Every time you microwave some food.
Every time get a lift in a car.
Every time you go abroad.
Every single day, you believe in science.
Now now, I disagree with that.
You don't have to believe in science, ever.
Science isn't something you believe in. =P It's either there or it isn't.
Your TV works not because of your believing in science. It works because it works, dammit! Science is going to be there and in motion no matter what you think of it.
So go ahead, don't believe in science.
That doesn't mean science doesn't exist.
Unless you want to be REAL philosophical and say that nothing really exists and everything you experience is just a figment of your imagination.
My boyfriend thinks like that. He says, "When I die...you all cease to exist."
And he's correct, really, if you don't count in the afterlife (which, ironically, he does believe in...)
#113
Sweeney
-
-
- 1230 posts
Posted 02 September 2006 - 06:27 AM
Very true...
Here's a thing though, does God continue to exist if noone believes in Him?
Here's a thing though, does God continue to exist if noone believes in Him?
#114 Guest_Casilla_*
Guest_Casilla_*
#115
Hawk
-
-
- 9688 posts
hawk·ish·ly
#116 Guest_Casilla_*
Guest_Casilla_*
Posted 02 September 2006 - 02:22 PM
Pfft, Ive heard that analogy a trillion times. Our football coach always said that in like, 3rd through 5th grade about our three point stances.
The analogy of the house without a foundation is old, yes, but not when applied to evolution/Big Bang. At any rate, I thought I was rather clever at the time, only to find out someone had thought of it, first.
Hard, you know, when you've got six billion people on the planet, to be original. =P
#117
Xiphos
-
-
- 3365 posts
Posted 03 September 2006 - 08:15 AM
in the long run i think science will bring about the truth of all religion, but sadly i don't think it will be in my lifetime
#119
Plew
-
-
- 1754 posts
#120
Sweeney
-
-
- 1230 posts
Posted 05 September 2006 - 01:00 PM
No such thing as fact, outside of pure mathematics.
#121
Ives
-
-
- 4320 posts
Posted 06 September 2006 - 02:54 PM
I agree. Though I stick with my belief that 1+1 = 2 is sheer proof of Jesus being the Lord and Savior of the saved.
#123
Sweeney
-
-
- 1230 posts
Posted 06 September 2006 - 06:01 PM
Linds, this debate has been going strong for centuries
#124
Ives
-
-
- 4320 posts
Posted 07 September 2006 - 04:42 AM
Well, it doesn't really matter, because a religion topic is just going to pop up in a week after this topic is inactive.
#125
Aetas
-
-
- 507 posts
Posted 18 March 2007 - 07:29 PM
Actually, a lot of people wrongly credit the idea of evolution to Charles Darwin. the talk of evolution was going on a lot at that time and Darwin was only one of the researches in the field. He came up with the theory of natural selection, only one way to describe how evolution works. There are other theories such as sexual selection and more. Charles Darwin didnt invent the idea of evolution, just did some research to support its claims .
And Alias, it was in fact, an explosion, as is held by scientists around the world.
Athean is right that the Qur'an discusses the big bang explicitly in the 7th century AD, a time where there was little to no scientific knowledge. Only in the 21st century were we able to come up with such a theory. Something that the Qur'an discussed 1400 years ago.
I havent seen it put in a better or more concise way before.
.And Alias, it was in fact, an explosion, as is held by scientists around the world.
Athean is right that the Qur'an discusses the big bang explicitly in the 7th century AD, a time where there was little to no scientific knowledge. Only in the 21st century were we able to come up with such a theory. Something that the Qur'an discussed 1400 years ago.
I havent seen it put in a better or more concise way before.
=) Islam is not just a religion, it's a way of life. Didn't you tell em that Hydro?
I've heard of ONE better way. Science is the pen through which God has written the Universe.
It's in mah Math's classroom
CRAP! THIS IS AN OLD TOPIC!
Sorry, I didn't mean to gravedig. Please do whatever you feel necessary.
If He's real, yes.
If not, no. =P
If not, no. =P
LAST COMMENT FOR ME HERE.
If a tree falls in the forest, but no one hear it, didn't it still fall?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
