Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(March 3, 2014 at 2:34 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I stopped reading at "explosion of nothing"...
It's not an explosion.
And there was not nothing. Hmm, double negative... you may have trouble with it...let me rephrase: and there was something.
Where did that something come from?
- invalid question, as space time was at the something.
How did that something come into being?
- I don't know...As far as I'm aware, no one knows.
Now the explosion bit... call it an expansion and then we may talk.
It seems, judging by other's replies, that you also mentioned evolution... I'm guessing your understanding of it if as flawed as about the big bang theory...
Enjoy your favorite delusion, but please let yourchildren learn things unbiased by your presupposition of creation.
Have you ever seen the interactive "Scale of the Universe"? http://scaleofuniverse.com/ Run the cursor from left to right and you will see the process in action.
Basically Nothing produces strings, which form quantum foam. Quantum foam produces particles which eventually create hydrogen. Once hydrogen forms real material creation can begin.
(March 3, 2014 at 2:34 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I stopped reading at "explosion of nothing"...
It's not an explosion.
And there was not nothing. Hmm, double negative... you may have trouble with it...let me rephrase: and there was something.
Where did that something come from?
- invalid question, as space time was at the something.
How did that something come into being?
- I don't know...As far as I'm aware, no one knows.
Now the explosion bit... call it an expansion and then we may talk.
It seems, judging by other's replies, that you also mentioned evolution... I'm guessing your understanding of it if as flawed as about the big bang theory...
Enjoy your favorite delusion, but please let yourchildren learn things unbiased by your presupposition of creation.
Have you ever seen the interactive "Scale of the Universe"? http://scaleofuniverse.com/ Run the cursor from left to right and you will see the process in action.
That's a great animation!
Thanks for sharing!
(March 4, 2014 at 4:48 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Basically Nothing produces strings, which form quantum foam. Quantum foam produces particles which eventually create hydrogen. Once hydrogen forms real material creation can begin.
huh?
Where did you get that from?
The animation stops at strings and quantum foam.... and strings are not yet a decent theory... actually they're a bunch of different theories still under development and testing to see which one of them pulls through, if any.
Quantum foam can produce quarks and after the big bang the Universe was a so called "sea of quarks and gluons" which then coalesced forming neutrons and protons... a proton is a hydrogen nucleus and then you can get stars, fusion and then all other elements which make up our tiny planet.
Wow... this place is hostile. I know I'm new here, but the original post seemed to me to be stating his opinions, knowing most of us would disagree with them, in a relatively polite way. And you people come here and started cursing him out unprovoked. I can certainly understand the questions of "What do you expect us to say after you already said you wouldn't change your mind?", and the responses explaining how he gets the science wrong. But the responses here definitely seemed unnecessarily rude. I've been saying for 20+ years that spelling and grammar were the first two casualties of the internet, with civility in third. You people seem to be trying to prove that civility is actually the deadest of the three.
I'm no expert on evolution, so I have nothing to add there beyond what's already been said. But if the OP does come back to check in on this thread, I've got a book recommendation for him, with regard to his misconceptions about the Big Bang. I never really understood it, either, until recently starting to read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". This is an excellent book, and really eye opening. I think before anyone tries to shoot down the Big Bang Theory, they should at least read the first chapter of that book.
That's MISTER Godless Vegetarian Tree Hugging Hippie Liberal to you.
March 4, 2014 at 7:27 pm (This post was last modified: March 4, 2014 at 8:11 pm by Mudhammam.)
(March 4, 2014 at 6:34 pm)Fromper Wrote: Wow... this place is hostile. I know I'm new here, but the original post seemed to me to be stating his opinions, knowing most of us would disagree with them, in a relatively polite way. And you people come here and started cursing him out unprovoked. I can certainly understand the questions of "What do you expect us to say after you already said you wouldn't change your mind?", and the responses explaining how he gets the science wrong. But the responses here definitely seemed unnecessarily rude. I've been saying for 20+ years that spelling and grammar were the first two casualties of the internet, with civility in third. You people seem to be trying to prove that civility is actually the deadest of the three.
I'm no expert on evolution, so I have nothing to add there beyond what's already been said. But if the OP does come back to check in on this thread, I've got a book recommendation for him, with regard to his misconceptions about the Big Bang. I never really understood it, either, until recently starting to read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". This is an excellent book, and really eye opening. I think before anyone tries to shoot down the Big Bang Theory, they should at least read the first chapter of that book.
If people expect their unsubstantiated and uncritical opinions to be received with anything less than some skepticism and mockery, the internet is probably not the place for them to engage, especially a forum such as this one. No reason for one to get their feelings hurt over it though.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
(March 4, 2014 at 6:34 pm)Fromper Wrote: Wow... this place is hostile. I know I'm new here, but the original post seemed to me to be stating his opinions, knowing most of us would disagree with them, in a relatively polite way. And you people come here and started cursing him out unprovoked. I can certainly understand the questions of "What do you expect us to say after you already said you wouldn't change your mind?", and the responses explaining how he gets the science wrong. But the responses here definitely seemed unnecessarily rude. I've been saying for 20+ years that spelling and grammar were the first two casualties of the internet, with civility in third. You people seem to be trying to prove that civility is actually the deadest of the three.
Well Fromper, I think it stems from dealing with YECs and their hostile attacks on science.
For one, in order to be a YEC, you have to be willfully ignorant. Almost proudly so. And the main motivating force behind people willing to do this in regards to sciences such as evolutionary theory, geology, cosmology, etc, is because of religion. Atheists tend to not stay in herds. We're fractious and always disagreeing with each other. Religious folk seem to like safety in numbers. Atheists find that urm...how can I say this politely. Well, pathetic.
YECs make up most of the driving force behind preventing research and development of life saving scientific treatments in things like Stem Cell research. And they try to breed new generations of their own by attacking our school's ability to teach science.
This tends to piss off a lot of atheists.
So when someone metaphorically walks into our midst spouting YEC nonsense, and stating right off the bat they understand the science (which they obviously don't), and that they don't want to hear what we have to say, shit flies.
Pent up frustration I guess.
Everything I needed to know about life I learned on Dagobah.
Yeah, I agree. It wasn't so much what he said (it was a big part of it), but how he said it. Don't come to a forum for atheists, literally claim to have done the research, state some bullshit, then ask that no one try to convince you otherwise. Then don't act like we are a bunch of aggressive assholes when we challenge some of the statements you've made. It's like smacking a wasps nest with a tennis racket and being astounded when they swarm.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join!--->There's an app and everything!<---
March 5, 2014 at 1:59 am (This post was last modified: March 5, 2014 at 2:00 am by Fromper.)
If people were just challenging his statements and correcting his scientific misconceptions, I wouldn't be complaining about rude behavior. Look at my own post. I politely recommended a book that will help him understand the Big Bang Theory, since his first post showed an obvious lack of understanding.
Now look at the first page of this thread. The first two responses were of the "So if you don't want us to try and convince you, then why are you here?" variety, which I'll agree seems like a perfectly reasonable response to the opening post. The OP responded with something of a generic non-answer, but at least he seemed relatively polite about it. The next three responses all literally swore at him and called him names, without bothering to contribute anything of use to the conversation. Is it any wonder that theists tend to assume that all atheists are just angry and rude?
That's MISTER Godless Vegetarian Tree Hugging Hippie Liberal to you.
(March 4, 2014 at 4:48 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Have you ever seen the interactive "Scale of the Universe"? http://scaleofuniverse.com/ Run the cursor from left to right and you will see the process in action.
That's a great animation!
Thanks for sharing!
(March 4, 2014 at 4:48 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Basically Nothing produces strings, which form quantum foam. Quantum foam produces particles which eventually create hydrogen. Once hydrogen forms real material creation can begin.
huh?
Where did you get that from?
The animation stops at strings and quantum foam.... and strings are not yet a decent theory... actually they're a bunch of different theories still under development and testing to see which one of them pulls through, if any.
Quantum foam can produce quarks and after the big bang the Universe was a so called "sea of quarks and gluons" which then coalesced forming neutrons and protons... a proton is a hydrogen nucleus and then you can get stars, fusion and then all other elements which make up our tiny planet.
Did you see the whole presentation? Move the cursor all the way to the left and then slide it all the way to the right. It starts with strings and quantum foam and ends with the endless universe. Along the way you see the difference in scale between things.
From a visible creation standpoint once the particles form hydrogen then material creation begins.
(March 5, 2014 at 1:59 am)Fromper Wrote: If people were just challenging his statements and correcting his scientific misconceptions, I wouldn't be complaining about rude behavior. Look at my own post. I politely recommended a book that will help him understand the Big Bang Theory, since his first post showed an obvious lack of understanding.
Now look at the first page of this thread. The first two responses were of the "So if you don't want us to try and convince you, then why are you here?" variety, which I'll agree seems like a perfectly reasonable response to the opening post. The OP responded with something of a generic non-answer, but at least he seemed relatively polite about it. The next three responses all literally swore at him and called him names, without bothering to contribute anything of use to the conversation. Is it any wonder that theists tend to assume that all atheists are just angry and rude?
Uhm... I think I was pretty polite, not that he deserved the politeness. The OP signed up for an account, wrote a wall of text, and had no point at the end. He didn't write an intro and he had no interest in engaging the community. He came here to proselytize. It's really simple.
