(August 30, 2011 at 6:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Wait a minute, you came in with that OP and didn't have anything beyond some crackpot screaming conspiracy? What were you going to do when we didn't heed their sage wisdom? Weak.

Be patient my little bunny eared friend you are way to reactionary, my advice would be to lay off the caffine, Halton Arp is not what this view is based on and neither is just that video, as I said it was an "example" of similar views.

I've noted your questions mainly by theVOID which are worth addressing and I shall .......

---

(August 30, 2011 at 6:31 pm)paintpooper Wrote: Hence why I said watch Cosmos.
And if you say a creator created the first particles/atoms... then what created the creator.
Isn't the much more simplest explanation is that... it is what it is. The universe has always contained a finite amount of matter and energy and that will always be true. Accept that the universe... is the universe. No creation had to happen... it just is. This is the universe that we live in, period, end of discussion. No needs for creators because that creates an ending cycle of creation.

Hiya, this is a slightly different topic but one I can answer now, probably belongs more in "ask the Deist".

I did not say a creator created the first particles/atoms I said a BB theory would imo require one to do so, where else would these alpha atoms come from?

My personal beliefs are rather different, not to be sarcastic but I would of thought my first 5 page running battles with the Death Bunny and theVoid would have shown that I don't particularly believe in the BB, maybe a local BB but not an all creating one.

I firmly believe that God (whatever it actually is), space and time have one thing in common ...... they are all infinite with no beginning and no end.

When you add it up the notion that they are not eternal actually is more ridiculous than if they are.

If God has a creator then who created the creator of God and so on, that line continues into an infinite dilemma hence I have no doubt in my mind that God or what you could call a God is infinite ..... however my definition of God is not stable at this point.

Space follows the same suit, space cannot have an edge it goes on forever and I don't give much credit to the spherical theory either, if space is contained by borders or edges what resides outside, then outside that then outside that then outside that ..... it's continuity means whether we like it or not it's eternal.


Please do not question my personal beliefs as part of this cosmology discussion, they are not one and the same one is science one is personal/religious beliefs and I don't want one sidetracking the other thanks.

When you finally get around to telling everyone what it is you think, please explain the abundance of deuterium in the universe absent the big bang.

(August 30, 2011 at 11:22 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: When you finally get around to telling everyone what it is you think, please explain the abundance of deuterium in the universe absent the big bang.

I'm almost ready but when we do re-engage we will have to do this in a structured manor not the feeding frenzy we started out with, I can't go through it properly if I'm batting questions between 3-4 people.

Stop being an asshat troll and either substantiate your "disbelief" with something rational people might accept or shut the fuck up.

(August 31, 2011 at 1:10 am)Epimethean Wrote: Stop being an asshat troll and either substantiate your "disbelief" with something rational people might accept or shut the fuck up.

He said he's organising his response, give him a little breathing room.

Since I know next to nothing about cosmology or the big bang this could get interesting.

(August 30, 2011 at 8:12 pm)Diamond-Deist Wrote: I did not say a creator created the first particles/atoms I said a BB theory would imo require one to do so, where else would these alpha atoms come from?

Big Bang theory says nothing at all about any supernatural creator or creators, its only concerned with the early development of our universe, not the origin of it.

Quote:If God has a creator then who created the creator of God and so on, that line continues into an infinite dilemma hence I have no doubt in my mind that God or what you could call a God is infinite ..... however my definition of God is not stable at this point.

You mean Infinite regress and that's what happens when you invoke the whole "universe must have had conditions or a cause" clause in order to come into existence, then supply an non-answer by using a "condition-less/causeless god" as first cause in your cosmological argument which is often employed by theists but doesn't make it any less absurd. Logically, God has to have a cause or the whole argument falls apart. You can't have your cake and eat it.

If your god doesn't have to have a first cause, then its safe to say the universe doesn't have to have a first cause either, and thus what is actually debated here is our usage of the word "exist", i.e. how we go about defining reality? Which remains a major unsolved problem in physics.

Quote:Please do not question my personal beliefs as part of this cosmology discussion, they are not one and the same one is science one is personal/religious beliefs and I don't want one sidetracking the other thanks.

Wow, now you're going one step further - not only does your god concept not have to have a cause to exist, but now we're not even allowed to address it or critically respond to your claims about this creator hypothesis vs big bang theory. You don't just want cake but the entire confection as well.

^^ Seriously you don't read or comprehend very well do you?

See my last comment .... again if need be, God has nothing to do with this discussion, I only addressed it as paintpooper was kind of referring to my religious beliefs which is not what this thread is about and has nothing to do with the BB theory were discussing.

So once again for those in the back I will not be answering posts which are not on topic my religious beliefs included for reasons of not wanting to side track the thread.

I will restart either later today or tomorrow latest, with due respect to theVOID thank you for your patience, alot of questions were asked and I felt they deserved constructed rebuttals not off hand remarks.

This might be a very black and white way of looking at this subject but...

If you do not agree with the science based theories (which are grounded by facts, evidence and observational rational conclusions based on what facts and evidence we do have at this current point in time).

Then you are most definitely going to be in the big brother camp (which is grounded by myths, superstitions and no evidence whatsoever other than books written by men)

UNLESS of course you don't care either way so you probably won't have an opinion on the matter.

Putting this aside, you have to realise that the big bang theory is not the only theory that attempts to explain the origins of the universe just as the much flawed creationist theory is not the only OTHER theory available to counter the BBT abeit with little or no evidence.

The point is, is that the BBT based on current data, evidence and observation is the most acceptable model at this current point in time.

take this passage from book "the grand design" by Steven Hawkings and Leonard Mlodinow.

"It is said that the electron was discovered in 1897 by British physicist J. J. Thomson at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University. He was experimenting with currents of electricity inside empty glass tubes, a phenomenon known as cathode rays. His experiments led him to the bold conclusion that the mysterious rays were composed of miniscule "corpuscles" that were material consitutuents of atoms, which were then thought to be the indivisible fundamental unit of matter. Thomson did not "see" an electron, nor was his speculation directly or unambigulously demonstrated by his experiments. But the model has proved crucial in applications from fundamental science to engineering, and today all physicists believe in electrons, even though you cannot see them."

In other words to this day there is still no model that better fits the predefined laws of this universe than the model that Thompson discovered to prove that electrons exist. Therefore based on this model we have to scientifically assume that electrons do exist.

This example shows that based on current scientific facts and evidence we have today on the origins of our universe we can safely assume that the BB model is the BEST model we have to answer that question.

Kind Regards,

Citereh

(August 31, 2011 at 8:23 am)Citereh Wrote: This might be a very black and white way of looking at this subject but...

If you do not agree with the science based theories (which are grounded by facts, evidence and observational rational conclusions based on what facts and evidence we do have at this current point in time).

...... or is it? that is my job to show you otherwise, you say it's the best conclusion we have maybe it is maybe it isn't.

Hopefully after this discussion you will be able to judge for yourself.