Question for Athiests - Page 23 - Political Forum

Yarn · 12-30-2007, 07:17 PM

educatedvoter88:
Whoa, no... I am a catholic, born, raised, and still practicing. But I am also a huse science buff, especially when it comes to astronomy and cosmology. But I guess that I do kind of fit into the naturalist category, but I am catholic not an atheist.

You believe in the supernatural. That makes you by the definitions Counterpoint was using, not a naturalist.

counterpointing · 12-30-2007, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by educatedvoter88

Its very hard responding sometimes, because you are trying to argue with me on whether or not the Big Bang theory is likey....? IT IS!! I SAID THAT IT WAS! I SAID THAT I TOO BELIEVED IT!

I was merely explaining to you the scientifically published explanation.

IT WAS NOT A KABOOM EXPLOSION!

IT DID NOT GO FROM A FEW mm DIAMETER TO A BILLION LIGHTYEARS ACROSS IN A MERE MINUTE.

The universe just expands, thats how it started and its still going.

How bout this one........ THE UNIVERSE IS STILL EXPANDING (GETTING LARGER)

Does that mean that its another Big Bang"? NO!

Just read everything that I am typing because you are picking and choosing without reading it all

As for the black hole thing........ read what you wrote......

You said that THE GALAXIES FORM BLACK HOLES AND THE PROCESS STARTS ALL OVER AGAIN!

No way. Otherwise there would be BIG BANGS every couple of lightyears.

I NEVER SAID THAT THE NONE OF THE GALAXIES CONTAINED BLACK HOLES BUT YOU STATED THAT THE GALAXIES FORM BLACK HOLES AND THE PROCESS RESTARTS.

THAT IS INSINUATING THAT THE GALAXIES WILL HAVE A BIG BANG AND FORM A WHOLE NEW UNIVERSE?

So yes so galaxies do have black holes, but that is not what causes BIG BANGs, because the Big Bang theory is that of the expanding and cooling of the universe

The name "big bang" was actually coined by the oppositionists who did not believe the theory and twisted it. he went around telling people that the theory tells of a random explosion that created everything!

But that is not the actual theory at all! Go to a credible source, if you are in school (college or high) ask the about the EBSCOhost and is you have kids in college or high school ask them to show you and type in the big bang theory and you will get credible published sources. not just .coms and .orgs or .nets

I am one person who is willing to admit when I am wrong or mistaken or that I just dont know something..... but I am good at this, I love this, I have studied this (FOR FUN, EVEN) This is my thing and if there was anything you said that correctly countered me or showed to me that I was wrong or mistaken or misled I would gladly give you credit.

But when you werent trying to tell me that the universe went from tiny to small in an instant and that its an explosion, and that black holes start the big bang process..... you were arguing that the Big Bang theory is logical and likely...........................which I have not only been NOT denying, I have been saying this entire time.

Please read my entire post before trying to correct me

I always read the full post.

You read into what I was saying too much. All I was establishing was the evidence the Big Bang is based on, and trying to show you that it is not a theory set in stone. What I read into your post is you think there are many facts, but it is mostly in the realm of philosophy. I was not saying you are wrong except in that regard.

Now, about the “process starting anew.” I wasn’t talking about each galaxy starting a new Big Bang. Instead, and this is purely philosophy like much of it, that gravity might bring black holes together until there is a condition where the Big Band could occur again. Now, I know there are numerous other theories concerning this, but I think it is plausible.

Singularity, the one expanding sphere of universe, and the nothing before the Big Band philosophy--- I don’t agree, and this is why:

Think of two thieves that come to a fenced backyard. The tall thief says, “I think there is a dog on the other side.”

The short thief says, “yeah, I think it is a black lab with a half-chewed ear.”

Now, there is a greater chance that the tall thief is right, because there are fewer details. The more details they add to the Big Band the less likely that theory is true. So, I assume there may be more Big Bangs than one, and that there well could have been space-time before the Big Bang, because being open minded and adding fewer details will be more likely true.

This is the point; it is fine to speculate, but the more you think you know as fact the more likely you will be wrong. And some food for thought, when does a four ‘o clock shadow become a beard, a hill become a mountain, an expansion become an explosion?

counterpointing · 12-30-2007, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by educatedvoter88

But that is not the actual theory at all! Go to a credible source, if you are in school (college or high) ask the about the EBSCOhost and is you have kids in college or high school ask them to show you and type in the big bang theory and you will get credible published sources. not just .coms and .orgs or .nets

In my opinion, internet sources are what you use for an internet debate so that others can read the evidence. But trust me, I’ve heard many theories. How about Hawkings’ black holes lead to other dimensions?

zerochill · 12-31-2007, 12:38 AM

who needs god to creat life man can and has created life
get certian chemicals together and run electricity through it and tada life maby only a one cell life but life

Yarn · 12-31-2007, 06:30 PM

Is it more likely that men evolved from bacteria placed on Earth by aliens, than it is that Adam was transformed from mud, and Eve from a rib of Adams, by a perfect being, and that all of mankind is descended from Adam and Eve?

counterpointing · 12-31-2007, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yarn

Is it more likely that Men evolved from bacteria placed on Earth by aliens, than it is that Adam was transformed from mud, and Eve from a Rib of Adams, by a perfect being, and that all of mankind is descended from Adam and Eve?

Why do you thin Scientologists are multiplying? It's because even their wild ideas are more plausible than rib-birth.

Kazikli Bey · 12-31-2007, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterpointing

Why do you thin Scientologists are multiplying? It's because even their wild ideas are more plausible than rib-birth.

Even though it was L. Ron Hubbard who i think said, 'if you want to get rich, start your own religion'.

Yarn · 12-31-2007, 07:26 PM

Well, you didn't return with guns blazing

counterpointing · 12-31-2007, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazikli Bey

Even though it was L. Ron Hubbard who i think said, 'if you want to get rich, start your own religion'.

You know, I've thought about starting my own religion. The idea hit me like a brick. I saw a show about some of these rich, masquerading evangelicals, and I thought that that would be a good way to make a living. I just need a gimmick.

Seer · 12-31-2007, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterpointing

You know, I've thought about starting my own religion. The idea hit me like a brick. I saw a show about some of these rich, masquerading evangelicals, and I thought that that would be a good way to make a living. I just need a gimmick.

Ah, the American dream...