I'm too dumb to be an atheist

[rsb]

[Fromper]

Actually, gravity really is just a theory, and a disproven one, at that. Newton's math was very, very, VERY close, but not quite perfect, because he was missing details that couldn't be observed on anything smaller than trying to predict the orbit of the planets around the sun. And even then, his math was only noticeably wrong for Mercury, by a very small fraction of a percent (He was off by 43/3600 of a degree per century). Einstein's General Theory of Relativity corrected this.

I'm currently reading Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", which goes into a lot of this, including the Big Bang. I highly recommend it. I think you're underestimating how much evidence there is for the Big Bang Theory.

The Big Bang theory is a silly Catholic theory about creation. If you think about it you will see how ridiculous it is. It only works for a supernova and it can't be applied for the entire universe.

If you don't believe in gravity go step off of a high bridge, cliff, or building without a parachute. If you don't end up smashing into the ground you may have a point. But I'll bet that you will fall like a rock and kill yourself. BTW, how do you explain how things always eventually fall toward the ground?

I will once again recommend Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", since he explains the Big Bang a lot better than I could. And why you think it has anything to do with Catholicism is beyond me.

As for gravity, you totally missed the point of what I was saying. We were talking about the accuracy of scientific theories, and rsb tried to claim that gravity is a law, not a theory. So I pointed out that it's a theory which is accurate enough to use it to explain anything less extreme than Mercury's orbit around the sun, but it's still just a theory. And it's actually not perfect, as its very tiny inaccuracy regarding Mercury proves. But for anything here on Earth, it's close enough for its inaccuracy to not be measurable. Again, the point was that gravity is "just" a theory, but that well established theories are extremely accurate, even when every detail isn't explained yet, and they're sometimes still useful even when there's a detail that's been proven wrong.

[rsb]

Spoke to soon on monopoles, after reading the article in more detail and doing a little research:

"Some condensed matter systems propose a structure superficially similar to a magnetic monopole, known as a flux tube. The ends of a flux tube form a magnetic dipole, but since they move independently, they can be treated for many purposes as independent magnetic monopole quasiparticles. Since 2009, numerous news reports from the popular media[16][17] have incorrectly described these systems as the long-awaited discovery of the magnetic monopoles, but the two phenomena are only superficially related to one another.[18][19] These condensed-matter systems continue to be an area of active research. (See "Monopoles" in condensed-matter systems below.)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole

So it appears to me we still have no evidence. Or I could be wrong, please let me know if I am.

Nothing about this changes the fact that only an idiot could believe in Noah, given even the most basic scientific knowledge. I don't think reading "a brief history of time" would help with basic geology and radioactive dating. Try a book on the grand canyon.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

[rsb]

Two links on the from hydrogen till now part:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity Don't be scared by the math it is all basic simple observed percentages dressed up to look impressive and overly complicated (dam scientists just love to LOOK super smart more than anything don't they?), just ignore the parts you don't get.

If the elements themselves are too confusing, start here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element

Then move on to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochronology and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating.

Actually pretty simple, but very interesting stuff largely overlooked by many pop shows who tend to focus on bleeding edge science.

[LittleAFish]

I'm too dumb to be an atheist too - don't have a clue what is being discussed here. But I'll learn and grow wiser. It takes time and lots of reading. Good luck!

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Two links on the from hydrogen till now part:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity Don't be scared by the math it is all basic simple observed percentages dressed up to look impressive and overly complicated (dam scientists just love to LOOK super smart more than anything don't they?), just ignore the parts you don't get.

If the elements themselves are too confusing, start here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element

Then move on to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochronology and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating.

Actually pretty simple, but very interesting stuff largely overlooked by many pop shows who tend to focus on bleeding edge science.

Speaking of hydrogen, I wonder if you had a very large volume of pure hydrogen and subjected it to fantastic pressures if it would go nuclear?

[Whateverist]

As for wondering how everything could come from nothing, I wonder if you've ever questioned what evidence you have for thinking that there was ever an absolute, total nothing before there was anything at all. Christians don't believe that. They think the means to everything was already there all along in the form of God. Physicists don't think that either. They think each successive state of the universe(s) were always preceded by the necessary pre-existing conditions. The only difference is the scientists don't begin by assuming they already know everything.

By definition everything had to originate from Nothing. The stumbling block is that it is very difficult to understand what Nothing is and what its properties are.

I guess we are at a semantic divide. Why say "nothing" if by that you actually mean something like strings, foam or God? Perhaps pure nothing has never existed. Hundreds of years ago people would have thought a jar with nothing but air in it was empty. Now we know better. Less than a hundred years ago we would have thought the vacuum of space was nothing but now we understand that space itself has structural properties which apart from anything else can generate uber-tiny phenomena which in vast quantities may do God only knows what.

[Cinjin]

Evidence? Or did you just pull it out of your ass, as usual.

Me thinks ....

[Wyrd of Gawd]

By definition everything had to originate from Nothing. The stumbling block is that it is very difficult to understand what Nothing is and what its properties are.

I guess we are at a semantic divide. Why say "nothing" if by that you actually mean something like strings, foam or God? Perhaps pure nothing has never existed. Hundreds of years ago people would have thought a jar with nothing but air in it was empty. Now we know better. Less than a hundred years ago we would have thought the vacuum of space was nothing but now we understand that space itself has structural properties which apart from anything else can generate uber-tiny phenomena which in vast quantities may do God only knows what.

As I wrote it's extremely difficult to get a grip on what Nothing is. It obviously becomes something once strings form. However, there's no current way to determine when that is. If strings exist where did they come from? The most likely answer is that they came from Nothing. That's because no matter where you start you always have to go deeper into the well.

We don't know what the properties of Nothing are but one of them is that it is extremely cold. So maybe it's the the cold that acts in some way to create the strings.

BTW, our particular zone of space isn't a true vacuum. It's full of stuff. It's just short on breathable air. But there are large zones of apparent Nothing in the visible universe. Those voids could be completely devoid of material.