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

[Aoi Magi]

Anyone encountering the term for the first time who is actually interested in the subject won't be put off by the nomenclature. I don't think scientists should be blamed for the misconceptions of laymen.

Yeh, no one is blaming them, but it doesn't hurt to not use a term which can cause so much misconception among people. Also the drive to actually look up a term is much lower when you encounter it casually, and it seems like a very common term you already know and use, though in a different context.

You think that's the reason Latin and Greek are used by scientists? To create confusion?

No, of course not, they use those because they are actually martians in disguise. But using Latin and Greek does make the terms much less open to misinterpretation, which religious people excel at.

[pocaracas]

In 1931, Lemaître proposed in his "hypothèse de l'atome primitif" (hypothesis of the primeval atom) that the universe began with the "explosion" of the "primeval atom" — what was later called the Big Bang. Lemaître first took cosmic rays to be the remnants of the event, although it is now known that they originate within the local galaxy. Lemaître had to wait until shortly before his death to learn of the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, the remnant radiation of a dense and hot phase in the early Universe.[6]

Somehow, I think Big Bang is a bit catchier than "primeval atom".

[Aoi Magi]

Somehow, I think Big Bang is a bit catchier than "primeval atom".

Then how bout using "kaboom" or "Bada Boom"?
or maybe "teeny tiny universe"?

[Jackalope]

Do you have an alternate name you like?

"Intergalactic giant burrito fart" would be equally descriptive, methinks - and about as (in)accurate.

[psychoslice]

Where the universe came from doesn't interest me the least, its where its going that I am concerned with.

Good point, though an understanding of its origins is a good way of discovering that latter state.

Yes of course your right, its all a learning experience, as long as we don't take it serious like many religious people do.

[snowtracks]

while you neanderthals have been mucking in the intellectual mud, a world class atheist thinker says the ID crowd is correct about the mind and consciousness existing and naturalism/ materialism is royally whacked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_and_Cosmos
this is obvious stuff, so how did the board members get their minds tricked so easily?

Oh, yet more Nagel.

So, first of all, philosophers aren't scientists, so what they have to say has very little impact on scientific fields on its own. Second, the idea of a mind or consciousness existing isn't excluded from naturalistic or materialistic thought, you blithering fool; as I've said numerous times, treating the mind either as a magic woo-woo spiritual thing or nonexistent is a false dichotomy. The mind is easily explained as being an emergent process arising from the material components of the brain arranged in a specific sequence; a conclusion that all the evidence in neuroscience tends to support. Nagel- I'm familiar with his work- and you are working from an unjustified presupposition that material elements cannot be more than the sum of their parts, or cannot be arranged in such a way as to accomplish things that they could not do separately. If you actually think that's true, then I think the entire field of mechanics and engineering would have something to say there.

Lastly, don't think I didn't notice you trying to smuggle in the claims of intelligent design under the cover of claims about consciousness. You're not going to just sneak those in so dishonestly, and if you want to demonstrate ID you've got to... actually do that, rather than cherrypicking single atheists and then pretending that their unsubstantiated claims are somehow proof of ID, even when they haven't addressed ID.

okay the plan was to get you to notice id, then desire id, take id as your own, and then the pay-off was for you to publicly embrace id; but all that planning fell apart due your acute observation prowess.

so if i interpret what you are saying about the mind developing from the non-mind, it seems that between 13 bya - 5 bya carbon based atoms were smashing into each other until one carbon atom got so smashed that it started thinking and then she started organizing the other carbon atoms and now after 5 billion years we have complexity.

[Alex K]

Uuuh uuh I got a name!

The Kablaam Argument

(with insincere apologies to WLC)

---

so if i interpret what you are saying about the mind developing from the non-mind, it seems that between 13 bya - 5 bya carbon based atoms were smashing into each other until one carbon atom got so smashed that it started thinking and then she started organizing the other carbon atoms and now after 5 billion years we have complexity.

Exactly. Except that, no. It was not one carbon atom that got smashed such that it started thinking. Self-organization didn't start to produce something capable of thinking right away, it starts out with error-prone self-replication of simple structures. From this, complexity slowly builds. You need a lot of atoms to make the smart thinking.

[pocaracas]

so if i interpret what you are saying about the mind developing from the non-mind, it seems that between 13 bya - 5 bya carbon based atoms were smashing into each other until one carbon atom got so smashed that it started thinking and then she started organizing the other carbon atoms and now after 5 billion years we have complexity.

actually...
Between 13 bya - 5 bya ago, protons smashed into each other producing ever heavier elements, helium (2 protons&2neutrons), lithium (3 protons&4 neutrons), Beryllium (4 protons&5neutrons), Boron (5 protons&6neutrons), Carbon (6 protons&6neutrons)....etc.

After billions of years of hydrocarbons mingling with each other, you see complex plant and animal life on this planet. And a few of those actually develop their brains so much that they wonder about themselves.

[Cyberman]

Don't forget the rôle stars played in the production of elements. They are the forges of everything on this planet.

[Aoi Magi]

Self-replicating structures which can sustain itself needs to have a basic level of adaptability to it's environment. This adaptability, when reaches a certain level of complexity starts to react to changes in it's environment in order to keep on adapting and replicating. This ability to react, builds up over time to create the notion of self-preservation and sentience.