Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Jacob(smooth)]

---

The typical answer to get around the fact that the singularity-big bang model violates the laws of nature is that the laws of nature only came into being a fraction of a second after the big bang.

Of course, that makes the singularity-big bang a supernatural explanation for the universe.

---

Wrong. All it means is we don't have a good answer at this time. Making up a god to fill the gap in our knowledge is a proven failed option.
I do realize ambiguity tolerance, and the NEED for cognitive closure can be strong. It's about psychology, not science, or religion.

This might be the most profound observation of the last ten pages. We're evolved to make best fit hypotheses, the caveman who decided that the twitching orange and black thing could be a creeper or a tigers tail but that without enough evidence he couldn't say did not live as long as the one who hypothesised a tiger and ran away.

One reason science can be so counter intuitive.

[rsb]

[quote='Alex K' pid='608453' dateline='1393150274']
...

How do you know that the visible universe is 10 - 13.7 billion years old?

Because the oldest first generation stars are 9 or more B years old, and your numbers are bs. That old. As measured by their stellar spectrum. And that statement backed up by the spectrograph of the observations should make you tremble like you were moses before god, it is because it is, not because I say so.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

[quote='Alex K' pid='608453' dateline='1393150274']
...

How do you know that the visible universe is 10 - 13.7 billion years old?

Because the oldest first generation stars are 9 or more B years old, and your numbers are bs. That old. As measured by their stellar spectrum. And that statement backed up by the spectrograph of the observations should make you tremble like you were moses before god, it is because it is, not because I say so.

The usual method for determining age is how far away the object is. IOW, some people claim that because a galaxy is 13.7 billion light years from us that means that the object is that age. Do you agree?

[rsb]

Because the oldest first generation stars are 9 or more B years old, and your numbers are bs. That old. As measured by their stellar spectrum. And that statement backed up by the spectrograph of the observations should make you tremble like you were moses before god, it is because it is, not because I say so.

The usual method for determining age is how far away the object is. IOW, some people claim that because a galaxy is 13.7 billion light years from us that means that the object is that age. Do you agree?

No, only about 9-10 B as observed the 13.7 is extrapolated. here is the link.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1319/

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The usual method for determining age is how far away the object is. IOW, some people claim that because a galaxy is 13.7 billion light years from us that means that the object is that age. Do you agree?

No, only about 9-10 B as observed the 13.7 is extrapolated. here is the link.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1319/

OK, so whatever the reputed age is how do you know that it's an accurate number? For the sake of argument the number can be anywhere from 1 minute to a zillion years.

[rsb]

Well to really know I have to consult the pope. Because the pope is Christ's representative on earth. And the pope has a Vatican astronomer who says:

http://www.vaticanobservatory.org/

[Really?]

The thing about Catholicism is that it has existed in a form with a similar structure to its current one for well over 1000 years. What a lot of fundies don't seem to get is that an institution that OLD has already had to deal with every argument they bring up. Whats more, in its 1000 year+ history it has had to deal with the fallout of being wrong so often that it has literally just given the up on trying to fight the discoveries of science (even if it adopts somewhat questionable arguments against certain applications).

I will readily admit that my degree area only covered introductory cosmology (physics III at an State University). Pretty much every argument presented since page 1 of this thread shows a poor comprehension of even newtonian mechanics much less higher order quantum or reletivistic physics. The big bang theory would seem to violate some principles of newtonian physics.... in the same way that newtonian physics was on the verge of being a heresy compared to aristotelian mechanical "models" (I know that from a historical perspective the pre-enlightment physics didn't actually include a model but was instead a set of principles but for the purpose of this discussion we can use the term as a similar place holder).

The arguments presented here are roughly the equivalent of people who said that newtonian mechanics couldn't possibly be true because it involves to many "invisible" or imparted forces and an invisible force is MAGIC (this was one indeed for a long time one of the principle arguments against newton). IF any of the arguments that were presented here were in any way remotely valid they would have been made by scientists and those scientists for have recieved a nobel prize for providing the the evidence that one of the most important cosmological theories of 20th century was impossible. Instead what has been found is pages and pages of corroborating evidence. If any further proof is needed that this is how science works consider that nobody has tried to use super-string theory to defend BBT. 2 Decades of research and not much to show = a theory that is no longer well received.

[Menos]

Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

The current “theory” is that the universe came into being from some explosion called the Big Bang. The standard Big Bang theory does not match smoothness of the cosmic background radiation. So the theory of Inflation was added to the standard Big Bang. That is the latest conjecture of modern science.

Now there are many problems with this “answer” to the origin of the universe. If nothing existed before the Big Bang, then the Big Bang violates a number of principle and laws of science. It violates conservation of mass-energy. The energy went from nothing to all the energy of the universe. It violates cause and effect. Nothing never just explodes and becomes something. It violates all observations, since nothing never just explodes into something. It also does not explain the origin of the laws of nature or why there is even order in the universe.

If something existed before the Big Bang, then the origin question is not answered at all. If the universe always existed, then the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that all order disappeared an infinite time ago. But that is not the case. Also there is still no explanation of the origin of the laws of nature or why there is even order in the universe.

they cant answer that quesiton because there faith based positions will be comprimised. whats that? NO evidence..surprise surpsie
they follow dawk like flies LOL.

[Esquilax]

they cant answer that quesiton because there faith based positions will be comprimised. whats that? NO evidence..surprise surpsie
they follow dawk like flies LOL.

Grace has been banned for months, and... what?

[Alex K]

they cant answer that quesiton because there faith based positions will be comprimised. whats that? NO evidence..surprise surpsie
they follow dawk like flies LOL.

Grace has been banned for months, and... what?

Apparently, something with there flies something something. If it looks like a fly and dawks like one?