Topic: Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

[Centurus]

I have none, but I don't dwell on it because I've got better things to do than worry about it. But if you want to say it's true povide enough evidence to indesputably prove it.

You ask for evidence to prove the Big Bang, or at the very least provide credibility to the theory of it, yet you provide no evidence to disprove it, and then state you have better things to do than worry about it, yet you are here on these boards trying to disprove it without any evidence or proof to back up your statements.

If you can't see the oxymoron in the situation, then none of us will be able to show you.

[knightstorm]

I have none, but I don't dwell on it because I've got better things to do than worry about it. But if you want to say it's true povide enough evidence to indesputably prove it.

The big bang theory was a hypothesis based on Einstein's theory of general relativity.  It was supported by observations of Edwin Hubble which demonstrated that the most distant galaxies were moving away from us at higher speeds, thus the universe was expanding.  Eventually, it was theorized that the big bang would have left a background radiation that would still be detectable.  In true scientific method, antennae were built which could detect that wavelength, and cosmic background radiation was discovered.  We can't see the past, but if we have a basic understanding of the phenomenon we're talking about, we can predict what evidence we will find before we find it.

[Spartan-039]

The only reason I'm on here debating it is because I'm sick and I can't go working outside today. Beshides, you want scientific proof, which I have none, execpt perhaps that it disprves age, there are 110-120 ways to age the planet, and only 7 or so ways say the planet is older than 10,000 years old. Beshides, Carbon-14 is very unreliable, put some chicken in the microwave and it will be older, much older than you are. So Carbon-14 is an unreliable way to age th planet, beyond that, I have nothing.

[knightstorm]

The only reason I'm on here debating it is because I'm sick and I can't go working outside today. Beshides, you want scientific proof, which I have none, execpt perhaps that it disprves age, there are 110-120 ways to age the planet, and only 7 or so ways say the planet is older than 10,000 years old. Beshides, Carbon-14 is very unreliable, put some chicken in the microwave and it will be older, much older than you are. So Carbon-14 is an unreliable way to age th planet, beyond that, I have nothing.

List some of the ways to age a planet that say its younger than 10,000 years.

Carbon 14 dating can't date something back further than 45,000.  The methods of determining the minimum age of the earth as over 4 billion years comes from analyzing other radioactive elements.

[Centurus]

The only reason I'm on here debating it is because I'm sick and I can't go working outside today. Beshides, you want scientific proof, which I have none, execpt perhaps that it disprves age, there are 110-120 ways to age the planet, and only 7 or so ways say the planet is older than 10,000 years old. Beshides, Carbon-14 is very unreliable, put some chicken in the microwave and it will be older, much older than you are. So Carbon-14 is an unreliable way to age th planet, beyond that, I have nothing.

State your proof.  State these methods you mention that support your views.  You have yet to mention them, yet you say that every other scientific method for dating the Earth is false and unreliable.

Your statement and arguements are without merit until you give evidence to back it up.

[Spartan-039]

Obviously, I was told wrong by my science teacher, but I know of none of the other methods, I've been trying to do other things online. I rarely bother with this because I'm usually busy with other things, I said only seven were saying that the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. The rest are saying is it's young. I just go with what a good Christian man is saying, he's the pastor of my church and does not lie, wait till this Sunday and I'll have the proof you want.

[knightstorm]

Obviously, I was told wrong by my science teacher, but I know of none of the other methods, I've been trying to do other things online. I rarely bother with this because I'm usually busy with other things, I said only seven were saying that the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. The rest are saying is it's young. I just go with what a good Christian man is saying, he's the pastor of my church and does not lie, wait till this Sunday and I'll have the proof you want.

The figure of the earth's age at 10,000 years is derived from biblical literalism, tracing the genealogies in the bible until you reach a point where you can correlate figures mentioned against the bible with known historical figures and dates.  Your pastor may be truthful in saying that he does not believe the earth to be older than 10,000 years, but that does not mean the earth is not older.

[Centurus]

Obviously, I was told wrong by my science teacher, but I know of none of the other methods, I've been trying to do other things online. I rarely bother with this because I'm usually busy with other things, I said only seven were saying that the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. The rest are saying is it's young. I just go with what a good Christian man is saying, he's the pastor of my church and does not lie, wait till this Sunday and I'll have the proof you want.

Whether or not he lies is irrelevant.  Whether or not he's educated is, and from the sound of it, he isn't.  Remember, there was a time when religion considered blacks as not even human, and native americans as savage and devil worshipers.  And yes, this includes the Christian religion.

If you want to constantly state that everything everyone else here considers true is false because you believe otherwise, then you are no different than those you claim have put you down for believing different than them.  Not very "Christian" of you, is it?

[Centurus]

Obviously, I was told wrong by my science teacher, but I know of none of the other methods, I've been trying to do other things online. I rarely bother with this because I'm usually busy with other things, I said only seven were saying that the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. The rest are saying is it's young. I just go with what a good Christian man is saying, he's the pastor of my church and does not lie, wait till this Sunday and I'll have the proof you want.

The figure of the earth's age at 10,000 years is derived from biblical literalism, tracing the genealogies in the bible until you reach a point where you can correlate figures mentioned against the bible with known historical figures and dates.  Your pastor may be truthful in saying that he does not believe the earth to be older than 10,000 years, but that does not mean the earth is not older.

If I may also add, Knightstorm, that his preacher cannot state with 100% accuracy and with 100% proof that the Earth isn't older than 10,000 years.  All his pastor has is his belief, but with nothing more to substantiate his claims.

Also, the Bible, through the generations, has been translated numerous times from numerous languages, some of which are either dead or dying languages, and that segments of the Bible may have been translated inaccurately as well.

[Spartan-039]

Biblical terms say the Earth is 6,000 years old. I belive him, he's also the one who told me about those methods. He bashes evoloution and the Big Bang theory often. If you wish to dispute him, be prepared because he graduated college as part of a Science Honors Society. he knows much more than I do and I believe what he says.

[Centurus]

Biblical terms say the Earth is 6,000 years old. I belive him, he's also the one who told me about those methods. He bashes evoloution and the Big Bang theory often. If you wish to dispute him, be prepared because he graduated college as part of a Science Honors Society. he knows much more than I do and I believe what he says.

And you assume that the rest of us aren't educated?  Keep in mind, there are many here that have degrees in various sciences, and others that have studied independently for many years various scientific disciplines.

What reasons does he give to disprove the theory of evolution and the Big Bang, other than it probably doesn't agree with his religion.

[Just plain old Punisher]

Biblical terms say the Earth is 6,000 years old. I belive him, he's also the one who told me about those methods. He bashes evoloution and the Big Bang theory often. If you wish to dispute him, be prepared because he graduated college as part of a Science Honors Society. he knows much more than I do and I believe what he says.

What you believe is what you believe.

It's only relevent to you, and to people who believe like you.

What you neglect to see is the simple and obvious fact staring you right in the face: The reality of a creationist universe (the universe in which you believe) isn't dependent on a silly centuries old belief that the earth is 6,000 years old.

I'll state that again, just so we understand each other clearly:

No christian worth his salt believes that the earth is 6,000 years old. Does that mean that God doesn't exist? Of course not, it only means that the earth isn't 6,000 years old. Your pastor isn't perfect, no man is perfect. He is wrong. And here's the kicker: no where in the bible does it say that the earth is 6,000 years old.

In any case, the debate here is rather pointless. You're young, so I can understand how this might be new and interesting to you --- but we here have had this little argument time and time again, and it never goes anywhere. You see, the problem is that we're speaking two different languages. The language of belief, created by faith...and the language of science, created by observation and proof. You can't use terms from one to attempt to disprove concepts from the other. In other words, science belongs with science, and faith belongs with faith.

Of course, people like to mix their beliefs and the problem comes exactly when people do just that. They expect that their own personal religious beliefs can and should affect EVERYONES viewpoint of the universe. Down that path lies folly, and a lot of wasted energy. You cannot prove your own viewpoint -- but then again, why would you want to anyways? Rememeber, what you believe is only important to you. Why waste your time trying to convince people who will not be convinced?

It has been my own personal experiance that the time spent debating the pointless is often better spent reconciling the differences between my scientific beliefs and my religious beliefs. In other words, to understand that while faith can be important to your understanding or view of the world -- it isn't the only valid perspective. Science exists to explain that which can be explained. Religion exists to explain that which cannot be explained.

[Just plain old Punisher]

Eh, centur,

the big bang and "God did it" both have the same problem with them:

There isn't any explanation as to what happend BEFORE God existed, or what existed -- if anything -- before the big bang.

That's the hypocracy of the creationist mindset. They are unable to explain what existed before God. Of course, in the bible it states that "God is and ever was" implying a certain paradox that is difficult or impossible to comprehend in human terms. But still, the hypocracy still exists: The unablity to explain what came BEFORE.

They use this critique against the big bang theory; stating that since we don't know what came before the big bang that somehow invalidates or pokes a large hole in the theory, yet they seem to be unwilling to address that the very same critique can be applied to the creationist concept as well. What came before God...what existed before he created the universe.

[Spartan-039]

I never said that, I was only stating that which I was told. He spent alot of time studying both arguments with an open mind. He found more evidence supporting Christian beliefs than those supporting the Big Bang. Also, I may be young, but I don't find this intresting, I just took a look and decided to put a small note in and it became this debate. I did my best to follow my pastors steps as best I could to allow me to see exactly what he saw and I saw exactly what he saw, it makes more sense to believe in something like ID or Christianity than  the Big Bang, I'd rather not belive in something that happened by complete accident.

[Just plain old Punisher]

I never said that, I was only stating that which I was told. He spent alot of time studying both arguments with an open mind. He found more evidence supporting Christian beliefs than those supporting the Big Bang. Also, I may be young, but I don't find this intresting, I just took a look and decided to put a small note in and it became this debate. I did my best to follow my pastors steps as best I could to allow me to see exactly what he saw and I saw exactly what he saw, it makes more sense to believe in something like ID or Christianity than  the Big Bang, I'd rather not belive in something that happened by complete accident.

You stated that you believed him that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Complete accidents happen every day. The seemingly improbable happens more than you may think.

Things exist as they are, not as you hope them to be. The universe is vast and complex, and it has been there long before we have had the brain size necessary to contemplate its vastness.

I think you're confusing "sense" with "comfort". It can make perfect sense for a universe to exist without a supreme being. The reason why you believe in ID is because it makes you more comfortable to believe in it.

[Centurus]

Eh, centur,

the big bang and "God did it" both have the same problem with them:

There isn't any explanation as to what happend BEFORE God existed, or what existed -- if anything -- before the big bang.

That's the hypocracy of the creationist mindset. They are unable to explain what existed before God. Of course, in the bible it states that "God is and ever was" implying a certain paradox that is difficult or impossible to comprehend in human terms. But still, the hypocracy still exists: The unablity to explain what came BEFORE.

They use this critique against the big bang theory; stating that since we don't know what came before the big bang that somehow invalidates or pokes a large hole in the theory, yet they seem to be unwilling to address that the very same critique can be applied to the creationist concept as well. What came before God...what existed before he created the universe.

Oh I absolutely agree.  However, our young, confused guest was very adamant that the Big Bang was false in every aspect, but yet refused to state any proof of his claims and beliefs, but insisted that the proof the rest of us base our claims and beliefs were false and inaccurate, without any reasoning behind his claims as well.

There are some, and I will admit I am one of them, that believes that there is a God, and that he was responsible for the Big Bang, and from there the universe as it now came into existence, and that this universe is governed by natural law and the laws of physics, as we understand them at this point in time.  Someone else stated that very same point before in this thread, or another.  I can't be exactly sure which thread, nor who it was, but I agreed with his statement.

It's my way of sorting out that which can be scientifically proven, with that which we may never be able to completely understand.  I, like many on these boards here, including you my good friend, take into account that somewhere down the line in the future, what we believe is true may be proven to be absolutely true, yet the opposite is also likely, that what we may hold true today may be disproven later on.  But, many of us agree that it will be done through the scientific process, and not through mere faith.

[Corbomite]

So, it may be moving on it's own, not because of a bang.

Not according to these, which have been proven time and time again. Pay attention to the ones in bold:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Newton's Three Laws
of Motion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Newton's First Law of Motion:
I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

This we recognize as essentially Galileo's concept of inertia, and this is often termed simply the "Law of Inertia".



Newton's Second Law of Motion:
II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.  

This is the most powerful of Newton's three Laws, because it allows quantitative calculations of dynamics: how do velocities change when forces are applied. Notice the fundamental difference between Newton's 2nd Law and the dynamics of Aristotle: according to Newton, a force causes only a change in velocity (an acceleration); it does not maintain the velocity as Aristotle held.

This is sometimes summarized by saying that under Newton, F = ma, but under Aristotle F = mv, where v is the velocity. Thus, according to Aristotle there is only a velocity if there is a force, but according to Newton an object with a certain velocity maintains that velocity unless a force acts on it to cause an acceleration (that is, a change in the velocity). As we have noted earlier in conjunction with the discussion of Galileo, Aristotle's view seems to be more in accord with common sense, but that is because of a failure to appreciate the role played by frictional forces. Once account is taken of all forces acting in a given situation it is the dynamics of Galileo and Newton, not of Aristotle, that are found to be in accord with the observations.



Newton's Third Law of Motion:
III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  

This law is exemplified by what happens if we step off a boat onto the bank of a lake: as we move in the direction of the shore, the boat tends to move in the opposite direction (leaving us facedown in the water, if we aren't careful!)."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the first law, something had to happen to get the material of the universe moving in the first place because the opposite of that law is also true: An object at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force. By the third we can deduce that something did push the material to get it moving and it was full of energy. Whether that was the big bang, inflation or God will always be up for debate I figure.


Guys, Membrane Theory does explain what was there before the Big Bang. In fact, it explains what caused the Big Bang and the entire structure of our universe. I encourage you to check out that site I linked earlier.

[knightstorm]

I never said that, I was only stating that which I was told. He spent alot of time studying both arguments with an open mind. He found more evidence supporting Christian beliefs than those supporting the Big Bang.

And as I have stated before you can't refer to those as Christian beliefs because they only refer to one group of Christians.  Its like saying that Nazism is a white belief.

[Spartan-039]

Sorry about earlier everyone, I raise the white flag. But I've was taught to be intolerant of other beliefs because the devil would try to allure me into a trap of some sorts. But, I guess the only way to find out for sure is to die and find out for yourself. Then to the problem of sending a messenger back to the living. also, the beliefs I was refering to was standard Christian beliefs, not counting Johovah's Witnesses..

[knightstorm]

Sorry about earlier everyone, I raise the white flag. But I've was taught to be intolerant of other beliefs because the devil would try to allure me into a trap of some sorts. But, I guess the only way to find out for sure is to die and find out for yourself. Then to the problem of sending a messenger back to the living. also, the beliefs I was refering to was standard Christian beliefs, not counting Johovah's Witnesses..

Doesn't refer to Catholicism, which is the largest Christian denomination in the world.