creation verses big bang
EADGBE

United States

#24 Mar 20, 2008
CHARLES ISAAC BROOKS wrote:
Has someone changed the meaning of theory.makes no difference.No one has answered my question yet.what was the so called atom or ion or even anything smaller doing,before it explded and expanded into the whole universe as we behold with our own eyes.There is an answer,IF some one would just give it some real intelligent thought.How about it Darwins child?Can you not think with that closed mind of yours?
The definitions are distinct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Why don't you save some back and forth and just tell us your answer...

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#25 Mar 20, 2008
CHARLES ISAAC BROOKS wrote:
Has someone changed the meaning of theory.makes no difference.No one has answered my question yet.what was the so called atom or ion or even anything smaller doing,before it explded and expanded into the whole universe as we behold with our own eyes.There is an answer,IF some one would just give it some real intelligent thought.How about it Darwins child?Can you not think with that closed mind of yours?
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

the·o·ry

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

I think one must agree that these seven definitions are not the same. The definition to use depends on the context. Definition 1 applies to theory as in theory of evolution. Definition 7 does not.
charles isaac brooks

Charlotte, NC

#26 Mar 21, 2008
To darwinschilds, See all the definitions come down to the last def.Since you cannot answer the question i presented to you.the so called atom or ion or proton,makes no difference the size of the patricle,it was in essence occupying space it self.what kind of space darwinschild?science cannot get past this.these so called membrane universes are just a vain theory,to try to explain the nature of the universe.But you darwinschild,wants to stop at the bigbang theory and let it go at that.lets try to go beyond or in another word back to the origin of the universe.thank you charles i. brooks

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#27 Mar 21, 2008
charles isaac brooks wrote:
To darwinschilds, See all the definitions come down to the last def.Since you cannot answer the question i presented to you.the so called atom or ion or proton,makes no difference the size of the patricle,it was in essence occupying space it self.what kind of space darwinschild?science cannot get past this.these so called membrane universes are just a vain theory,to try to explain the nature of the universe.But you darwinschild,wants to stop at the bigbang theory and let it go at that.lets try to go beyond or in another word back to the origin of the universe.thank you charles i. brooks
How can you possibly think that

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

means anything similar to

7. guess or conjecture.

???

As for the primordial atom (BTW...not a real atom, just a descriptive term), it did not occupy space, it WAS space.

As for branes, they are not a theory in the scientific sense, they are most educated guesswork at this point.

And, no, I do not want to stop at the Big Bang theory. I would love to know more. The thing is, right now we don't have any evidence of anything else. That is the key point...evidence.

You want to fill the gaps with unsubstantiated speculation. You have no evidence what-so-ever to back up your ideas. Yet you want them treated as science. Sorry, dude, they aren't.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#28 Mar 21, 2008
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Second...a gas ball is a very, very bad description of the start of the big bang.
The start of the big bang was an incredibly tiny, smaller than an atom, point of energy...incredibly dense energy. It was not an explosion as one usually thinks of explosions, but rather an very rapid expansion. For a brief time that expansion exceeded the speed of light. It is still expanding at or near the speed of light.
Actually, this is also a bad description of the Big Bang. If the universe is infinite now (which seems likely), then it was *always* infinite. It is only the current observable universe that was compressed into the volume of an atom.

Also, some care is needed when talking about the rate of 'expansion'. A more careful treatment will discuss a 'characteristic length scale', which is usually set to 1 for the present. In the past, that characteristic length scale was less than 1. If you think about this, the expansion rate is a'/a and the units are not those of velocity, so 'expansion faster than light' is rather a misnomer. Certain relative velocities can be more than the speed of light, but even during inflation, not all were.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#29 Mar 21, 2008
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
As for the primordial atom (BTW...not a real atom, just a descriptive term), it did not occupy space, it WAS space.
Actually, the term 'primordial atom' went out with Lemaitre.
ImNoMonkey

Perkasie, PA

#30 Mar 21, 2008
@ CICI;

You speak the truth. Big bang, yeah right? They're going to ask us to believe in that nonsense they call evolution next.

Keep up the good work and spread the word.

God bless you.
charles isaac brooks

Charlotte, NC

#31 Mar 21, 2008
Mr.darwins stepchild YOU just can not get past the theory definition can you?You just in your last comments that the membrane idea was just an educated guess,did you not?a theory is just that,as i pointed out to you in one of our discussions.Of course ,now that the current theory of evolution is being taught in schools as a fact sir.the definition has been upgraded to as many definitions to confuse you as too the very meaning of the word.It still boils down to a educated guess.uneducated guess or what have you.AFTER many years of thinking about the origin of the universe,I sir have come to the conclusion that the universe WAS spoken into existence by GOD.That includes you and i and everything that your eyes beholds.I can not prove it my friend,but that is my conclusion.That you have an inquiring mind is good.GOD wants you to question these great mysteries.It is up to you to find the answers to the mystery of GOD.I hope you do.If you want to find the answers ask GOD.in prayer to help you and i assure you HE will.I suggest you read the bible,GOD says that HE is a mystery.you are looking at an educated guess for an explanation.I assure you will not find it sir in a guess my dear friend.do not be so foolish. GOD BLESS YOU FRIEND

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#32 Mar 21, 2008
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the term 'primordial atom' went out with Lemaitre.
I know, but I was trying to keep it simple. Hard to do when discussing the Big Bang...about which nothing is all that simple.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#33 Mar 21, 2008
charles isaac brooks wrote:
Mr.darwins stepchild YOU just can not get past the theory definition can you?You just in your last comments that the membrane idea was just an educated guess,did you not?a theory is just that,as i pointed out to you in one of our discussions.Of course ,now that the current theory of evolution is being taught in schools as a fact sir.the definition has been upgraded to as many definitions to confuse you as too the very meaning of the word.It still boils down to a educated guess.uneducated guess or what have you.AFTER many years of thinking about the origin of the universe,I sir have come to the conclusion that the universe WAS spoken into existence by GOD.That includes you and i and everything that your eyes beholds.I can not prove it my friend,but that is my conclusion.That you have an inquiring mind is good.GOD wants you to question these great mysteries.It is up to you to find the answers to the mystery of GOD.I hope you do.If you want to find the answers ask GOD.in prayer to help you and i assure you HE will.I suggest you read the bible,GOD says that HE is a mystery.you are looking at an educated guess for an explanation.I assure you will not find it sir in a guess my dear friend.do not be so foolish. GOD BLESS YOU FRIEND
Mr. Brooks, it is you that insists there is only one definition of the word theory. This is clearly no the case. The word has different meanings depending on context. As do many other words. For example, the word log might mean a large stick of wood, or it might mean the book kept by a ships captain. Or any of several other meanings. The one used would depend on the context.

As for branes, I will point out that it is YOU that called it a theory, not me. I called it a hypothesis, which in science is less than a theory. A hypothesis is an educated guess (a very educated guess) while a theory (in science) has been confirmed by a great many observations.

I do not have a problem with you holding your convictions about the origin of the universe. I do have a problem with anyone wanting to teach such convictions in a science class. There is no observational evidence what-so-ever to support your thesis. The Big Bang does have a great deal of observations supporting it. And it is, in fact, a direct result of Einstein's general theory of relativity. The Big Bang is firmly founded in science.

“God Is Love”

Since: Mar 08

Perkasie, PA

#34 Mar 22, 2008
Evolutionist state that their science nonsense is both "theory" and a "fact". They can't have it both ways now can they? And you can't use a dictionary Darwins Stepchild to prove what "theory" means - that's just an arbitrary definition applied to a random sample of letters. Mr Brooks is speaking the truth - you should all shut up and listen and you might learn something - or are you too closed minded and too far gone to take a dose of the truth?

God bless you

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#35 Mar 22, 2008
ImNoMonkey wrote:
Evolutionist state that their science nonsense is both "theory" and a "fact". They can't have it both ways now can they? And you can't use a dictionary Darwins Stepchild to prove what "theory" means - that's just an arbitrary definition applied to a random sample of letters. Mr Brooks is speaking the truth - you should all shut up and listen and you might learn something - or are you too closed minded and too far gone to take a dose of the truth?
God bless you
Actually...one CAN have it both ways.

Evolution happened...that's a fact.

HOW the process worked...that's a theory.

Is evolution 100% proven?

No...nothing ever is. But the overwhelming evidence all points to an evolutionary process, no matter what the fine points are...

You and Mr. Brooks both might stop talking...and listen...and learn!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#36 Mar 22, 2008
ImNoMonkey wrote:
Evolutionist state that their science nonsense is both "theory" and a "fact". They can't have it both ways now can they? And you can't use a dictionary Darwins Stepchild to prove what "theory" means - that's just an arbitrary definition applied to a random sample of letters. Mr Brooks is speaking the truth - you should all shut up and listen and you might learn something - or are you too closed minded and too far gone to take a dose of the truth?
God bless you
A good analogy is with the heliocentric model of the solar system: that the earth and planets orbit the sun rather than everything orbiting the earth.
It is a *fact* that the planets orbit the sun. The *theory* of gravity explains *how* they do so in a detailed way.

Similarly, it is a *fact* that organisms change over time in response to changes in their environment and that these changes include new species appearing. The *theory* of descent with natural selection explains *how* these changes happen. The confusing happens because both the changes and the theory of natural selection are given the name 'evolution'. So evolution is a fact: species do change over time, and it is a theory: natural selection is the mechanism of these changes.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#37 Mar 22, 2008
ImNoMonkey wrote:
@ CICI;
You speak the truth. Big bang, yeah right? They're going to ask us to believe in that nonsense they call evolution next.
Keep up the good work and spread the word.
God bless you.
OK, how do *you* explain the *fact* that distant galaxies have redshifts and the more distant galaxies have larger redshifts? How do *you* explain the *fact* that there is a 2.73 degree Kelvin background radiation that is an almost perfect Planck distribution? Why do *you* ignore the best theory of gravity we have (the general theory of relativity), which describes an expanding universe? How do *you* explain the density of the smaller elements: hydrogen, deuterium, helium-3, and helium-4? How do *you* explain the *observed* brightness vs redshift relations of type Ia supernova?

These are *all* facts that are explained by the Big Bang model. If you want to claim it is wrong,*you* have to give the evidence and alternative explanations of the above facts. If you can't do so, expect for your *opinions* to be ignored because you aren't doing science.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#38 Mar 22, 2008
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, but I was trying to keep it simple. Hard to do when discussing the Big Bang...about which nothing is all that simple.
The problem is that it leads to questions about what 'caused' that atom to explode. The imagery is too powerful and is incorrect enough to cause more confusion than necessary. JMHO

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#39 Mar 22, 2008
ImNoMonkey wrote:
Evolutionist state that their science nonsense is both "theory" and a "fact".
That is correct. The EVENTS that help to PROVE the THEORY part are the FACTS of evolution.

That plants and animals EVOLVED is FACT.

The METHOD or MECHANISM by which this evolution TAKES PLACE is THEORY.

So, what about these sentences do you NOT UNDERSTAND?

Or, are the words TOO BIG for your tiny brain?
ImNoMonkey wrote:
They can't have it both ways now can they?
*bzzzz* Incorrect. See above.
ImNoMonkey wrote:
And you can't use a dictionary Darwins Stepchild to prove what "theory" means - that's just an arbitrary definition applied to a random sample of letters.
Hmmm. By THIS "astute" "logic" we can see that the BIBLE is just a random sampling of letters, strung onto paper over thousands of years by a random sampling of people.

NO significance whatsoever.

So much for YOUR "logic".
ImNoMonkey wrote:
Mr Brooks is speaking the truth - you should all shut up and listen and you might learn something - or are you too closed minded and too far gone to take a dose of the truth?
Truth? You haven't STATED ANYTHING that is TRUE, so far....
ImNoMonkey wrote:

God bless you
What? You're NOW CLAIMING TO BE GOD, then?

Where is the "MAY" in front of your sentence?

BLASPHEMER!

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#40 Mar 22, 2008
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that it leads to questions about what 'caused' that atom to explode. The imagery is too powerful and is incorrect enough to cause more confusion than necessary. JMHO
Ah, I see your point, though I think the term "big bang" carries that same baggage. People associate "bang" with "explosion" and automatically think of a violent, destructive event like you would see on "Smash Lab".

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#41 Mar 22, 2008
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, I see your point, though I think the term "big bang" carries that same baggage. People associate "bang" with "explosion" and automatically think of a violent, destructive event like you would see on "Smash Lab".
Smash Lab? Wouldn't you have to _watch_ that show to see what it contained?

Boooring, even if they DO blow stuff up....

“God Is Love”

Since: Mar 08

Perkasie, PA

#42 Mar 22, 2008
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, how do *you* explain the *fact* that distant galaxies have redshifts and the more distant galaxies have larger redshifts? How do *you* explain the *fact* that there is a 2.73 degree Kelvin background radiation that is an almost perfect Planck distribution? Why do *you* ignore the best theory of gravity we have (the general theory of relativity), which describes an expanding universe? How do *you* explain the density of the smaller elements: hydrogen, deuterium, helium-3, and helium-4? How do *you* explain the *observed* brightness vs redshift relations of type Ia supernova?
These are *all* facts that are explained by the Big Bang model. If you want to claim it is wrong,*you* have to give the evidence and alternative explanations of the above facts. If you can't do so, expect for your *opinions* to be ignored because you aren't doing science.
Red is red, it doesn't shift. If it did it would be more orange than red and therefore not red. If you are going to quote supposed science at me, please make an attempt to get your facts right.

God bless you

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#43 Mar 22, 2008
ImNoMonkey wrote:
<quoted text>
Red is red, it doesn't shift. If it did it would be more orange than red and therefore not red. If you are going to quote supposed science at me, please make an attempt to get your facts right.
God bless you
Oh, how SAD this comment is!

How ignorant of physics is it, how much it demonstrates a complete lack of comprehension of basic High School physics....

Pathetic.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min Aura Mytha 216,777
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 min It aint necessari... 154,726
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 36 min Chimney1 48,645
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 hr GoTrump 179,717
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr scientia potentia... 23,511
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 10 hr ChristineM 1,034
Richard Dawkins tells the truth Mon Timmee 9
More from around the web