The Universe had a beginning (Atheism Debunked, yet again for the third time)

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments
1 - 20 of 95 Comments Last updated Jul 14, 2012
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Since: Jun 12

London, UK

#1 Jun 27, 2012


Physicist and cosmologist Dr. Alexander Vilenkin refutes some scientific models (like Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Evolution, and Static Seed (Emergent Universe)) that supposedly argue for a universe without a beginning. He then offers his own explanation (via the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem) why the universe did have a beginning.

Skip to 34:15 to see what Alexander says about the universe having a beginning.

Come on atheists, this is getting stupid. Your theory is so easy to debunk. It's amazing how it still has followers.

Predicted replies:

"Doesn't mean God did it. Nothing created something. Quantum fluctuation occurred from the vacuum."

And the vacuum is NOT NOTHING. Particles are created and destroyed within the vacuum but it's not nothing because it contains electromagnetic waves. Every effect must have a cause according to Causality, therefore (since the universe had a beginning) it has a cause.

Whether you want to say that some particle or energy popped out from nowhere or was eternal and created the universe leads to the same result that it was a creator behind the universe just not one with life or a mind. So if you want to believe you're the product of a mindless cause (still a god as it's a creator) be my guest but considering the Laws that govern with the universe, I'm betting that this god was intelligent.

Atheism debunked again.
KJV

United States

#2 Jun 27, 2012
The universe had come about by the explosion of this single point with zero volume. This great explosion that marked the beginning of the universe was named the ‘Big Bang’ and the theory started to be so called. It has to be stated that ‘zero volume’ is a theoretical expression used for descriptive purposes. Science can define the concept of ‘nothingness’, which is beyond the limits of human comprehension, only by expressing it as ‘a point with zero volume’. In truth,‘a point with no volume’ means ‘nothingness’. The universe has come into being from nothingness. In other words, it was created.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#3 Jun 27, 2012
Gabrian wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =NXCQelhKJ7AXX
Physicist and cosmologist Dr. Alexander Vilenkin refutes some scientific models (like Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Evolution, and Static Seed (Emergent Universe)) that supposedly argue for a universe without a beginning. He then offers his own explanation (via the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem) why the universe did have a beginning.
Skip to 34:15 to see what Alexander says about the universe having a beginning.
Come on atheists, this is getting stupid. Your theory is so easy to debunk. It's amazing how it still has followers.
Predicted replies:
"Doesn't mean God did it. Nothing created something. Quantum fluctuation occurred from the vacuum."
And the vacuum is NOT NOTHING. Particles are created and destroyed within the vacuum but it's not nothing because it contains electromagnetic waves. Every effect must have a cause according to Causality, therefore (since the universe had a beginning) it has a cause.
Whether you want to say that some particle or energy popped out from nowhere or was eternal and created the universe leads to the same result that it was a creator behind the universe just not one with life or a mind. So if you want to believe you're the product of a mindless cause (still a god as it's a creator) be my guest but considering the Laws that govern with the universe, I'm betting that this god was intelligent.
Atheism debunked again.
You have yet to debunk Atheism.

Do you even know what Atheism means?

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#4 Jun 27, 2012
Here is some more selective data mining for you:

"I contacted Aguirre and Vilenkin, the latter whom I have known professionally for many years. I greatly admire the work of each, which will be referred to often on these pages. I first asked Vilenkin if Craig's statement is accurate. Vilenkin replied:

'I would say this is basically correct, except the words absolute beginning do raise some red flags. The theorem says that if the universe is everywhere expanding (on average), then the histories of most particles cannot be extended to the infinite past. In other words, if we follow the trajectory of some particle to the past, we inevitably cometo a point where the assumption of the theorem breaks downthat is, where the universe is no longer expanding. This is true for all particles, except perhaps a set of measure zero. In other words, there may be some (infinitely rare) particles whose histories are infinitely long.'

I then asked Vilenkin,Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning? He immediately replied,

'No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.'

Vilenkin further explained,

'For example, Anthony in his work with Gratton, and Carroll and Chen, proposed that the universe could be contracting before it started expanding. The boundary then corresponds to the moment (that Anthony referred to as t = 0) between the contraction and expansion phases, when the universe was momentarily static. They postulated in addition that the arrow of time in the contracting part of space-time runs in the opposite way, so that entropy grows in both time directions from t = 0.'

I also checked with Caltech cosmologist Sean Carroll, whose recent book From Eternity to Here provides an excellent discussion of many of the problems associated with early universe cosmology. Here was his response:

'I think my answer would be fairly concise: no result derived on the basis of classical spacetime can be used to derive anything truly fundamental, since classical general relativity isn't right. You need to quantize gravity. The BGV [Borde, Guth, Vilenkin] singularity theorem is certainly interesting and important, because it helps us understand where classical GR breaks down, but it doesn't help us decide what to do when it breaks down. Surely there's no need to throw up our hands and declare that this puzzle can't be resolved within a materialist framework. Invoking God to fill this particular gap is just as premature and unwarranted as all the other gaps.'

(Stenger, Victor J. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is not Designed for Us. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2011. pp. 127-30)

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#5 Jun 27, 2012
"All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning." Alexander Vilenkin

"[The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem] has been used by William Lane Craig to argue that the universe itself had to have a beginning. We saw that cosmologists I contacted, including Vilenkin, Carroll, and Aguirre, all of whom have published works on the subject, agreed that no such conclusion is warranted."

(Stenger, Victor J. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is not Designed for Us. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2011. p. 145)
KJV

United States

#6 Jul 4, 2012
Atheist believe nothing exploded to create everything. If though laws of physic debunk the big bang.

"According to the Big Bang, the whole universe started out as a tiny spinning object. This object would have been in a frictionless environment. The Conservation of Angular Momentum tells us that in a frictionless environment, if pieces fly off a spinning object they tend to spin in the same direction. This is due to the fact that the outer part is spinning faster than the inner part. If this whole universe began from the big bang, everything should be spinning the same way. However, everything is not spinning in the same direction. Two of the planets, Venus and Uranus, rotate backwards. Six of the moons in the solar system also rotate backwards...that pretty tough on the big bang theory"

There are also major galaxy spinning the wrong way.

In addition if a spinning signular exploded then all things should be flying away from each other and away from the point of explosion. Our Galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy are on a collision course that shouldn't be!
Especial after 13.6 billion years things should be far away from each other and getting further apart not closer. And why is the speed of everything flying apart increasing? If it was a big explosion than things should be slowing down just by the pull of gravity. "
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#7 Jul 4, 2012
KJV wrote:
Atheist believe nothing exploded to create everything. "
No they don't. Atheists lack belief in gods. Only morons think "nothing explodes and creates everything"
KJV wrote:
"According to the Big Bang, the whole universe started out as a tiny spinning object. This object would have been in a frictionless environment. The Conservation of Angular Momentum tells us that in a frictionless environment, if pieces fly off a spinning object they tend to spin in the same direction. This is due to the fact that the outer part is spinning faster than the inner part. If this whole universe began from the big bang, everything should be spinning the same way. However, everything is not spinning in the same direction. Two of the planets, Venus and Uranus, rotate backwards. Six of the moons in the solar system also rotate backwards...that pretty tough on the big bang theory"
The real question is why you repeat this crap after having it explained why you are wrong.

If the solar system planets were formed by the coalescing of planetesimals, then the early stages would have to be characterized by catastrophic collisions of proto planets. For example, the moon is thought to have been formed from debris ejected when a Mars-sized object collided with the earth. Collisions of this magnitude could result in some planets rotating in an opposite direction. There is no evidence whatever that this could not have happened.
At least 6 moons revolve backwards around the larger planets. More than likely they are captured asteroids, and the direction of revolution would depend on which side of the planet was approached by the asteroid when it was captured into orbit. Three planets rotate backwards: Venus, Uranus, and Pluto. The rotation period of Venus is almost the same as its period of revolution around the sun. The axis of Uranus is tilted 98 degrees; if it were not tilted to more than 90 degrees, it would not be rotating backwards. Pluto's axis is tilted 120 degrees! It is possible that Pluto may have once been a moon of Neptune.
KJV wrote:
In addition if a spinning signular exploded then all things should be flying away from each other and away from the point of explosion. Our Galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy are on a collision course that shouldn't be!
Especial after 13.6 billion years things should be far away from each other and getting further apart not closer. And why is the speed of everything flying apart increasing? If it was a big explosion than things should be slowing down just by the pull of gravity. "
Seriously, you aren't this dense are you? This is so well explained in the current model that only halfwits and godbots deny it.
Benjamin Frankly

Long Eaton, UK

#8 Jul 4, 2012
Gabrian you failed big time, you start with a straw man, then you dont define what the universe is, do you mean in the universe as in how we see it now, the laws of nature or just the natural world in any form, because if you mean my last example then I can do what Carl Sagan did, save a step why state the natural world had a supernatural origin that always existed, when one need only state that the natural world always existed but merely changes forms, this is to me a basic use of Occams razor.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#9 Jul 4, 2012
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>Seriously, you aren't this dense are you? This is so well explained in the current model that only halfwits and godbots deny it.
Yes, they are that dense.

Creationism = Willful Ignorance

What causes a Creationist to be a Creationist?

The answer is: Fear!

There are five primary fear sources that explain the behavior of Creationists. They are:

1) Fear of evolution.
2) Fear and hatred toward gays/lesbians.
3) Fear of women.
4) Fear of death.
5) Fear of losing their all powerful father who will protect them from their fears.

The Three Top Questions to Ask a Creationist

1) If Creationism really represented honesty, why do the Creationists resort to dishonesty and deception?(Please see Arguments against Creationism and Evolution, Creation, and Lies for details and documentation.)

2) If you are so proud to be a Creationist, why don't you include this information in your rsum?

3)(Why) Are you afraid of the truth?

Summary for (Un) Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design is religious mythology. If you are not capable of distinguishing between reality and mythology, you have an unresolved problem in your educational background.

http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#10 Jul 4, 2012
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>No they don't. Atheists lack belief in gods. Only morons think "nothing explodes and creates everything"

KJV wrote, "
"According to the Big Bang, the whole universe started out as a tiny spinning object. This object would have been in a frictionless environment. The Conservation of Angular Momentum tells us that in a frictionless environment, if pieces fly off a spinning object they tend to spin in the same direction. This is due to the fact that the outer part is spinning faster than the inner part. If this whole universe began from the big bang, everything should be spinning the same way. However, everything is not spinning in the same direction. Two of the planets, Venus and Uranus, rotate backwards. Six of the moons in the solar system also rotate backwards...that pretty tough on the big bang theory"
"

The real question is why you repeat this crap after having it explained why you are wrong.

If the solar system planets were formed by the coalescing of planetesimals, then the early stages would have to be characterized by catastrophic collisions of proto planets. For example, the moon is thought to have been formed from debris ejected when a Mars-sized object collided with the earth. Collisions of this magnitude could result in some planets rotating in an opposite direction. There is no evidence whatever that this could not have happened.
At least 6 moons revolve backwards around the larger planets. More than likely they are captured asteroids, and the direction of revolution would depend on which side of the planet was approached by the asteroid when it was captured into orbit. Three planets rotate backwards: Venus, Uranus, and Pluto. The rotation period of Venus is almost the same as its period of revolution around the sun. The axis of Uranus is tilted 98 degrees; if it were not tilted to more than 90 degrees, it would not be rotating backwards. Pluto's axis is tilted 120 degrees! It is possible that Pluto may have once been a moon of Neptune.

KJV wrote, "
In addition if a spinning signular exploded then all things should be flying away from each other and away from the point of explosion. Our Galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy are on a collision course that shouldn't be!
Especial after 13.6 billion years things should be far away from each other and getting further apart not closer. And why is the speed of everything flying apart increasing? If it was a big explosion than things should be slowing down just by the pull of gravity. "
"

Seriously, you aren't this dense are you? This is so well explained in the current model that only halfwits and godbots deny it.
"Seriously, you aren't this dense are you? This is so well explained in the current model that only halfwits and godbots deny it."

It's a law of physic that you just push aside and claim it does not apply here because then our great big bang theory could not have happened.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good theory.
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#11 Jul 4, 2012
MrDesoto1 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, they are that dense.

Creationism = Willful Ignorance

What causes a Creationist to be a Creationist?

The answer is: Fear!

There are five primary fear sources that explain the behavior of Creationists. They are:

1) Fear of evolution.
2) Fear and hatred toward gays/lesbians.
3) Fear of women.
4) Fear of death.
5) Fear of losing their all powerful father who will protect them from their fears.

The Three Top Questions to Ask a Creationist

1) If Creationism really represented honesty, why do the Creationists resort to dishonesty and deception?(Please see “Arguments against Creationism” and “Evolution, Creation, and Lies” for details and documentation.)

2) If you are so proud to be a Creationist, why don't you include this information in your résumé?

3)(Why) Are you afraid of the truth?

Summary for (Un) Intelligent Design

“Intelligent Design” is religious mythology. If you are not capable of distinguishing between reality and mythology, you have an unresolved problem in your educational background.

http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html
"I have here, 10 questions that evolutionists have never been able to answer with an infallible argument. Or even a good answer for that matter. I want you, and anyone you can find to attempt to answer these questions. "

1. Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?

2.Where did the necessary materials to create the universe come from and

where did they exist if there was no space?

3. Where did life originally come from if it can not appear spontaneously?

4. Which came first? Male or Female?

5. Why do we find petrified trees standing up through supposedly “millions” of years worth of geological layers?

6. What were the first elements to be formed?

7. When and how did the stars come to be?

8. When did the laws of nature(i.e. Gravity) first come into effect?

9. Why is an unproven theory used as fact?

10. How did the universe start(please provide specified details)?

"Those are the ten questions, I hope you find time to attempt to answer them."

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#12 Jul 4, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"I have here, 10 questions that evolutionists have never been able to answer with an infallible argument. Or even a good answer for that matter. I want you, and anyone you can find to attempt to answer these questions. "
Creationists and/or (Un)Intelligent Designers don't like the answers.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#13 Jul 4, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Seriously, you aren't this dense are you? This is so well explained in the current model that only halfwits and godbots deny it."
It's a law of physic that you just push aside and claim it does not apply here because then our great big bang theory could not have happened.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good theory.
]

Actually, it is the laws of physics that explain exactly why the universe is currently expanding instead of contracting and why things are not uniformly moving away from a 'central point'. But I see that you are here to preach and deny anything scientific so it seems pointless to go any further.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Long Eaton, UK

#14 Jul 4, 2012
I can answer them but most don't have anything to do with evolution marked like so (answer)

1.(spacetime and energy were not created all existed before the big bang in a different form, as I define the universe as the natural world that can change forms, I say there are not created because of Occam's Razor in the form of Carl Sagan's step saving, why state that universe and uncreated supernatural origin, when one can just say the universe always existed, this is the simplest explanation.)

2.(When you say mean materials do you mean matter, if so get your definitions right, M equals E squared look it up it is under relativity.)

3.(Life did not appear spontaneously is a straw man by professional creationists, to people who haven't read actual science books, on the subject of science books can you please refer to one piece of literature, that wasn't made by creationists/ID proponent that states life appeared spontaneously. The first life form was probably simpler than even the simplest bacteria today, I say probably because bacteria do not leave fossils, and no we don't know how the first life form came about, abiogenesis is only a recent field it took us a few thousand years just to get Newton's laws)

4.Neither, unicellular organisms don't have sex.

5.Burial can be rapid such as mudslides rising swarm waters. The decomposition isn't always slow though fossilisation is. Local floods or other such erosion methods, Can remove layers of sediment and rebury the (petrified) tree. Some trees can survive partial burial and regrow. Before you say Noah's flood, we can see such processors occurring today, there are alders found off the coast of Japan under 70 feet of water. For more info about how silly that argument is read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/tr... .

6.(Mostly hydrogen and is a little helium, this leads on to your next question.(

7.(Hydrogen gas in a small space attracts the hydrogen gas over a larger space, and more hydrogen gets condensed in a small space and so, this continues into the hydrogen is in such a small space the fraction caused by bumping, forms enough heat to start fusion creating heavy elements.)

8.(The laws of nature are passively active, according to my definition of the universe.)

9.A theory is a predictive explanation of facts, evolution is a fact organisms/species change over time due to random mutations, natural selection is the theory that explains how we have, an absence of bizarre organisms and producers predictions, because its a mechanism, one such prediction is that the 24th chromosome and the 23ed chromosome in primates today, fuse together when we were at the fork (common ancestor between primates today and us) of our Darwinian road, because a whole chromosome is not likely be lost, so we looked for the markers indicating the end of chromosome in the others and found it was in the centre of human chromosome 23.

10.(Well 42, I don't know but I know you got this and similar, studies in this field is is only very recent, one proposed hypothesis (not actual theory) is string/multi-verse theory of the work on it is to see how it can be falsifiable, for falsifiability equals proveability only when it passed the tests would become the theory. Of course though before you jump up and down (if you haven't already) crying,God did it I must warn you of something more predictions can your God hypothesis make, if it cannot make a prediction it cannot be considered a part of science, all so your God can be used to explain anything e.g. we don't know exactly how glucose moves around phloem, we know it works somewhat like water in xylem, but water only go up in xylem, the glucose can go up or down, don't worry God does it, it is not point for your God hypothesis can be used to explain everything, which shows a lack of predictive capability.)
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#15 Jul 4, 2012
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>]

Actually, it is the laws of physics that explain exactly why the universe is currently expanding instead of contracting and why things are not uniformly moving away from a 'central point'. But I see that you are here to preach and deny anything scientific so it seems pointless to go any further.
So what about The Conservation of Momentum law?

What about the law of gravity?

For starters.

"According to the Big Bang, the whole universe started out as a tiny spinning object. This object would have been in a frictionless environment. The Conservation of Momentum tells us that in a frictionless environment, if pieces fly off a spinning object they tend to spin in the same direction. This is due to the fact that the outer part is spinning faster than the inner part. If this whole universe began from the big bang, everything should be spinning the same way. However, everything is not spinning in the same direction. Two of the planets, Venus and Uranus, rotate backwards. Six of the moons in the solar system also rotate backwards...that pretty tough on the big bang theory"

There are also major galaxy spinning the wrong way.

In addition if a spinning signular exploded then all things should be flying away from each other and away from the point of explosion. Our Galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy are on a collision course that shouldn't be!
Especial after 13.6 billion years things should be far away from each other and getting further apart not closer. And why is the speed of everything flying apart increasing? If it was a big explosion than things should be slowing down just by the pull of gravity.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Long Eaton, UK

#16 Jul 4, 2012
I can answer KJV them but most don't have anything to do with evolution marked like so (answer)

1.(spacetime and energy were not created all existed before the big bang in a different form, as I define the universe as the natural world that can change forms, I say there are not created because of Occam's Razor in the form of Carl Sagan's step saving, why state that universe and uncreated supernatural origin, when one can just say the universe always existed, this is the simplest explanation.)

2.(When you say mean materials do you mean matter, if so get your definitions right, M equals E squared look it up it is under relativity.)

3.(Life did not appear spontaneously is a straw man by professional creationists, to people who haven't read actual science books, on the subject of science books can you please refer to one piece of literature, that wasn't made by creationists/ID proponent that states life appeared spontaneously. The first life form was probably simpler than even the simplest bacteria today, I say probably because bacteria do not leave fossils, and no we don't know how the first life form came about, abiogenesis is only a recent field it took us a few thousand years just to get Newton's laws)

4. Neither, unicellular organisms don't have sex.

5. Burial can be rapid such as mudslides rising swarm waters. The decomposition isn't always slow though fossilisation is. Local floods or other such erosion methods, Can remove layers of sediment and rebury the (petrified) tree. Some trees can survive partial burial and regrow. Before you say Noah's flood, we can see such processors occurring today, there are alders found off the coast of Japan under 70 feet of water. For more info about how silly that argument is read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/tr... .

6.(Mostly hydrogen and is a little helium, this leads on to your next question.(

7.(Hydrogen gas in a small space attracts the hydrogen gas over a larger space, and more hydrogen gets condensed in a small space and so, this continues into the hydrogen is in such a small space the fraction caused by bumping, forms enough heat to start fusion creating heavy elements.)

8.(The laws of nature are passively active, according to my definition of the universe.)

9. A theory is a predictive explanation of facts, evolution is a fact organisms/species change over time due to random mutations, natural selection is the theory that explains how we have, an absence of bizarre organisms and producers predictions, because its a mechanism, one such prediction is that the 24th chromosome and the 23ed chromosome in primates today, fuse together when we were at the fork (common ancestor between primates today and us) of our Darwinian road, because a whole chromosome is not likely be lost, so we looked for the markers indicating the end of chromosome in the others and found it was in the centre of human chromosome 23.

10.(Well 42, I don't know but I know you going to do something similar. studies in this field is only very recent, one proposed hypothesis (not actual theory) is string/multi-verse theory of the work on it is to see how it can be falsifiable, for falsifiability equals proveability only when it passed the tests would become the theory. Of course though before you jump up and down (if you haven't already) crying,God did it I must warn you of something more predictions can your God hypothesis make, if it cannot make a prediction it cannot be considered a part of science, all so your God can be used to explain anything e.g. we don't know exactly how glucose moves around phloem, we know it works somewhat like water in xylem, but water only go up in xylem, the glucose can go up or down, don't worry God does it, it is not point for your God hypothesis can be used to explain everything, which shows a lack of predictive capability.)
there it all is.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#17 Jul 4, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"I have here, 10 questions that evolutionists have never been able to answer with an infallible argument. Or even a good answer for that matter. I want you, and anyone you can find to attempt to answer these questions. "
First, none of your questions are for 'evolutionists' since evolution deals with existent life and how it changes. But we will humor you.
KJV wrote:
<
1. Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?"
No one knows. At the basic level, energy is thought to be neither created nor destroyed but instead just changes form. For our universe, matter, clearly came after the start of the big bang and you can think of time and space also being the result of the big bang.. Astro-physicists have a number of robust theories about it if you want detailed information.
KJV wrote:
<2.Where did the necessary materials to create the universe come from and
where did they exist if there was no space?
No one knows. They may have always existed.( If you claim a god always existed you have the same problem of explanation so let's eliminate the god). You concept of space is childish so you wouldn't understand the answer on that one.
KJV wrote:
<
3. Where did life originally come from if it can not appear spontaneously?
The concept of abiogenesis explains how inorganic chemicals naturally turn into organic compounds and then into self-replicating life. There is great research going on right now.
KJV wrote:
<4. Which came first? Male or Female?
Neither; the earliest organisms did not have gender and reproduced asexually. Over time evolution led to separation into male and female in many species.
KJV wrote:
<5. Why do we find petrified trees standing up through supposedly “millions” of years worth of geological layers?
This creationist nonsense has been debunked so many times that you clearly have no interest in accepting the perfectly natural explanation.
KJV wrote:
<6. What were the first elements to be formed?
Hydrogen, helium and lithium.
KJV wrote:
<
7. When and how did the stars come to be?
The accumulation of small particles (every object with mass has gravity) over very long times.
KJV wrote:
<
8. When did the laws of nature(i.e. Gravity) first come into effect?
They appear to be natural properties of matter and energy but we only know of the forces that must have existed since just after the start of the big bang.
KJV wrote:
<9. Why is an unproven theory used as fact?
YOu are obviously referring to evolution but this answer is for all theories. Facts are the little details. When enough facts have been confirmed and used to make testable predictions, and have been successfully repeated many times, a theory is formed to explain the facts and offer an overarching explanation for how things happen. For example, it is a fact that 'things fall down' or that objects with mass exert the force of gravity on each other. But no one actually knows what causes gravity. So we have the theory of gravity that offers a explanation. Evolution is a fact the frequency of alleles in a population changes over time. The theory explains how. We actually know far more about evolution than we do about gravity. Theories contain all the facts about a particular discipline but are subject to falsification themselves as a condition of the scientific method.
KJV wrote:
<
10. How did the universe start(please provide specified details)?
No one knows what 'caused' the big bang to start. There are many lines of hypotheses.

Note that what educated, honest people do when they don't know is they say, "I don't know".
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#18 Jul 4, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
So what about The Conservation of Momentum law?
What about the law of gravity?
For starters.(snip).
If you are going to ignore the answers and mindlessly repeat the questions we will dismiss you as a fundamentalist troll. If that is what you are after, fine. Otherwise, address the answers.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Long Eaton, UK

#20 Jul 4, 2012
Dark matter KJV it was the first observed by Jan Oort in 1932, he noted that the stars in the motorway had more mass than to be observed, there had to be there were moving too fast, of their observed weights. Then came Fritz Zwicky a year later, he observed that Coma galactic cluster was moving too fast for its observe weight, 400 times more mass it would require for its outer galaxies moving about speed, so he proposed dark matter. In fact most will we know about dark matter comes from similar observations.
In the 1970s the invention of more sensitive spectrographs allowed astronomers to measure, velocity curves at higher accuracies than before they found that most stores in galaxies orbited about the same speed, eventually we found that the ratio between known and dark matter in most galaxies is once 10.
Also dark matter is necessary to explain galactic clusters, I actually watched a simulation at a universe of day with dark matter in the simulated universe and found that, for galaxy clusters be formed on time as it were dark matter with necessary, galactic clusters would still be in their early stages without dark matter, so what is it we don't know and there's the annoying part don't even know what we're looking for, all we pretty much know is galaxies move faster than they should be, and galaxy clusters could not have formed as they are now without dark matter.
Oh by the way dark matter is the cause of the acceleration in expansion of the universe to, the force it generates actually overcomes gravity which is fairly weak.
Uranus and the other backward rotating planets are most likely turning that way, due to large meteorites or planetoids, which isn't actually that outside the box our axis of rotation was caused by planetoid, and Uranus and Venus have a large inclination on they rotating axis.
Could you name the galaxy that is going the wrong way? Maybe then you'll stop relying on me to get your science and do your own research.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#21 Jul 4, 2012
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are going to ignore the answers and mindlessly repeat the questions we will dismiss you as a fundamentalist troll. If that is what you are after, fine. Otherwise, address the answers.
That is precisely why I previously said "Creationists and/or (Un)Intelligent Designers don't like the answers." It's really a waste of time answering the same old questions when their purpose is to substitute a "God Did It" fallacy into answers that don't fit into their preconceived, pseudo-scientific, biblical based non-theories.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 min Thinking 226,606
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 36 min Eman 21,541
Becoming a parent changed everything. 1 hr Givemeliberty 1
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr greymouser 5,922
It seems there are more Atheists in the Christi... (Jun '13) 2 hr Mikko 18
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 2 hr Mikko 63
Our world came from nothing? 11 hr Thinking 438
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••