The Myth of the Big Bang
Monkey's Paw

United States

#1179 Aug 28, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
"Actually the laws that govern this universe did not come into existence until between 10^-34th of a second and 10^-19th of a second after the event. "
Ok let's pretend this is true.
You are still needing to over come gravity of the whole universe.
And yet people claim it was not a bang just much slower expanding singularity.
With the laws of phyics in place and no Big Bang just an expanding singularity.
The energy and matter contained in that pin head is well impossible.
This is unproveable,ridicules, and just magical as the claims of the bible. Therefore should not be taught in schools.
Now back to this:
"Actually the laws that govern this universe did not come into existence until between 10^-34th of a second and 10^-19th of a second after the event"
You're kidding right? Your claiming proof of this? This is nothing more then someone's dream. It's not real.
Anouther ridicules claim by science.
Oh what was I thinking! This is "ChristineM" I'm talking to. Never mind.
(ChristineM is always right and knows everything)
"

No need to pretend, it’s fact

Go to the cern website and look it up

Yes and…? it’s still expending at a faster and faster rate, this is proven scientifically and is observable, explain…? Oh wait a minute, you can’t, OK never mind

Why are you so fixated on a singularity? I have twice now stated there are 27 other options, most having more merit than a singularity

Yes I am claiming proof I have even told you where to look to read the proof but of course you ignored that part of my post. That’s your deliberate ignorance creeping in

Honey you are welcome to restrict the education of you own children but if you start interfering in the education of my children you better have a f*cking better reason then “I don’t understand it so it should not be taught”

Thank you for putting me on a pedestal like that but I can assure you that I am not worthy. However just because you refuse to understand a subject or it seems in your case are fixated by one particular old hat aspect of the subject is not my problem.
"No need to pretend, it’s fact"

You would believe anything that science
Put out.

Fact, my asz

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1180 Aug 28, 2012
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
"No need to pretend, it’s fact"
You would believe anything that science
Put out.
Fact, my asz
[/QUOTE]

Prove otherwise or butt out

Not only have I mentioned it but so has Polymath, you do however seem to ignore the mathematician and try taking the piss out of the amateur

So you are not willing to actually look it up, you would prefer to go on your gut instinct rather than face facts. Moron...
Monkey's Paw

United States

#1181 Aug 28, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
"No need to pretend, it’s fact"
You would believe anything that science
Put out.
Fact, my asz
"

Prove otherwise or butt out

Not only have I mentioned it but so has Polymath, you do however seem to ignore the mathematician and try taking the piss out of the amateur

So you are not willing to actually look it up, you would prefer to go on your gut instinct rather than face facts. Moron...
"Actually the laws that govern this universe did not come into existence until between 10^-34th of a second and 10^-19th of a second after the event"

You claim this as Fact, and you say it with a straight face.

Do you really believe that is fact?

Do you really believe science can tell to that degree what happened 13.7 billion years ago?
The .7 of that is rounded off, they rounded off to the nearest hundred thousand years because that's as close as they felt they could pin it down that's the nearest 100,000 YEARS and you post this incredible statement of an amount of time that is well for all practicable purpose is so small that it makes a split second look like eons. and even if this was true which there is no way in hell you can prove that, it wouldn't change a damn thing about the FACT that the singularitys gravity could not be over come even if it didn't take hold until
10^-34 of a second after the Big Bang.
By the way it's been posted like 50 times that the Big Bang was not an explosion but rather the much slower expansion of a singularity.

Gravity would slam that singularity right back together.

Your Myths are ridicules.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1182 Aug 28, 2012
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
"Actually the laws that govern this universe did not come into existence until between 10^-34th of a second and 10^-19th of a second after the event"
You claim this as Fact, and you say it with a straight face.
Do you really believe that is fact?
Do you really believe science can tell to that degree what happened 13.7 billion years ago?
The .7 of that is rounded off, they rounded off to the nearest hundred thousand years because that's as close as they felt they could pin it down that's the nearest 100,000 YEARS[/QUOTE]
Actually, that .7 is 700 *million* years.
and you post this incredible statement of an amount of time that is well for all practicable purpose is so small that it makes a split second look like eons.
yes, it is easier to time events in the very early universe because they have to happen at particular temperatures, which directly relates to time passed because of the expansion.
and even if this was true which there is no way in hell you can prove that, it wouldn't change a damn thing about the FACT that the singularitys gravity could not be over come even if it didn't take hold until
10^-34 of a second after the Big Bang.
By the way it's been posted like 50 times that the Big Bang was not an explosion but rather the much slower expansion of a singularity.
Gravity would slam that singularity right back together.
Not necessarily. if the mass was in the form of scalar particles, there would have been a tremendous *outward pressure* and that would have countered the gravity. This is what happened during the inflationary stages of the expansion.
Your Myths are ridicules.
You don't understand enough about what the science says to declare it sensible or 'ridicules'(sic!)

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1183 Aug 29, 2012
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
"Actually the laws that govern this universe did not come into existence until between 10^-34th of a second and 10^-19th of a second after the event"
You claim this as Fact, and you say it with a straight face.
Do you really believe that is fact?
Do you really believe science can tell to that degree what happened 13.7 billion years ago?
The .7 of that is rounded off, they rounded off to the nearest hundred thousand years because that's as close as they felt they could pin it down that's the nearest 100,000 YEARS and you post this incredible statement of an amount of time that is well for all practicable purpose is so small that it makes a split second look like eons. and even if this was true which there is no way in hell you can prove that, it wouldn't change a damn thing about the FACT that the singularitys gravity could not be over come even if it didn't take hold until
10^-34 of a second after the Big Bang.
By the way it's been posted like 50 times that the Big Bang was not an explosion but rather the much slower expansion of a singularity.
Gravity would slam that singularity right back together.
Your Myths are ridicules.[/QUOTE]

Ahh so no we get to the nub of the problem. You personally do not believe some science so you do not want anyone else to believe either. Do you realise that progress cannot be made that way?

Nearest 100,000 in 13.7 billion is quote accurate enough for most people, that’s 100.000/1,000,000,000 approximately 0.01% pretty good considering that the NASA WMAP mission only measures it to 1% but of course the Lambda CDM model does estimate to 13.75 +/- 0.11 billion years.

Your confusion of the precision of 10^-34 (or 10^-19) of a second is just that, confusion born of misunderstanding. It does not actually need time as we understand time for it have come about, what was needed was temperature.

In all possibility time itself did not exist before that minute fraction of a second and it is not known if gravity existed or not. The conditions before 10^-19 of a second are hazy and the conditions before 10^-34 are totally unknown and given current knowledge are unknowable. So how do you know that “Gravity would slam that singularity right back together”. Let me guess, oh yes it’s a guess based on a little knowledge and no comprehension.

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word myth while you are doing some actual research as opposed to your usual guesswork

So the fact the “big bang” was not an explosion has been posted on a public forum makes it scientific fact - right? Well that’s what you implied.

10^-34 and 10^-19 have been posted hundreds of times, by your logic they too must be scientific fact so why are you arguing?

The fact that scientific calculation of the currently observable red shift allowed the “big bang” theory and it’s related theories to be formulated and peer reviewed makes it scientific. From that same observation we can see that the universe is now expanding faster than ever before meaning that there is some as yet unobserved force that is pushing it apart. If that force can do that to a universe that is in some quarters estimated to be 156 billion light years across then just imagine what it could do when it was smaller.

Just because you are fixated in one possible theory means you are being narrow minded and ridiculous

You are obviously not going to get of your butt and do some research so I will save you the bother

Try NASA

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.htm...

And CERN

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/science/S...

And in particular

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/science/S...

Now tell me it’s a myth

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1184 Aug 29, 2012
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
"Actually the laws that govern this universe did not come into existence until between 10^-34th of a second and 10^-19th of a second after the event"
You claim this as Fact, and you say it with a straight face.
Do you really believe that is fact?
Do you really believe science can tell to that degree what happened 13.7 billion years ago?
The .7 of that is rounded off, they rounded off to the nearest hundred thousand years because that's as close as they felt they could pin it down that's the nearest 100,000 YEARS and you post this incredible statement of an amount of time that is well for all practicable purpose is so small that it makes a split second look like eons. and even if this was true which there is no way in hell you can prove that, it wouldn't change a damn thing about the FACT that the singularitys gravity could not be over come even if it didn't take hold until
10^-34 of a second after the Big Bang.
By the way it's been posted like 50 times that the Big Bang was not an explosion but rather the much slower expansion of a singularity.
Gravity would slam that singularity right back together.
Your Myths are ridicules.[/QUOTE]

Prove your god or f*ck off ans stop lying about science. Its that simple.
Monkey's Paw

United States

#1185 Aug 29, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
"Actually the laws that govern this universe did not come into existence until between 10^-34th of a second and 10^-19th of a second after the event"
You claim this as Fact, and you say it with a straight face.
Do you really believe that is fact?
Do you really believe science can tell to that degree what happened 13.7 billion years ago?
The .7 of that is rounded off, they rounded off to the nearest hundred thousand years because that's as close as they felt they could pin it down that's the nearest 100,000 YEARS"

Actually, that .7 is 700 *million* years.

[QUOTE] and you post this incredible statement of an amount of time that is well for all practicable purpose is so small that it makes a split second look like eons."

yes, it is easier to time events in the very early universe because they have to happen at particular temperatures, which directly relates to time passed because of the expansion.

[QUOTE] and even if this was true which there is no way in hell you can prove that, it wouldn't change a damn thing about the FACT that the singularitys gravity could not be over come even if it didn't take hold until
10^-34 of a second after the Big Bang.
By the way it's been posted like 50 times that the Big Bang was not an explosion but rather the much slower expansion of a singularity.
Gravity would slam that singularity right back together."

Not necessarily. if the mass was in the form of scalar particles, there would have been a tremendous *outward pressure* and that would have countered the gravity. This is what happened during the inflationary stages of the expansion.

[QUOTE]Your Myths are ridicules. "

You don't understand enough about what the science says to declare it sensible or 'ridicules'(sic!)
Well after total blowing the .7 thing
I better just shut up. "Red Faced"
Monkey's Paw

United States

#1186 Aug 29, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
"Actually the laws that govern this universe did not come into existence until between 10^-34th of a second and 10^-19th of a second after the event"
You claim this as Fact, and you say it with a straight face.
Do you really believe that is fact?
Do you really believe science can tell to that degree what happened 13.7 billion years ago?
The .7 of that is rounded off, they rounded off to the nearest hundred thousand years because that's as close as they felt they could pin it down that's the nearest 100,000 YEARS and you post this incredible statement of an amount of time that is well for all practicable purpose is so small that it makes a split second look like eons. and even if this was true which there is no way in hell you can prove that, it wouldn't change a damn thing about the FACT that the singularitys gravity could not be over come even if it didn't take hold until
10^-34 of a second after the Big Bang.
By the way it's been posted like 50 times that the Big Bang was not an explosion but rather the much slower expansion of a singularity.
Gravity would slam that singularity right back together.
Your Myths are ridicules. "
Wow

"In all possibility time itself did not exist before that minute fraction of a second and it is not known if gravity existed or not."

Once the universes existed the laws of physics existed, that also includes the scientific theory's that are of course correct.

You can't change the laws or theory's based on the age of the universe to help keep your ridicules claims alive.

Gravity was there, Mass was there.

Einstein, his theories, Matter per say, in our knowledge, cannot be created or destroyed. Matter can be converted to energy, and energy into matter, but the total amount of matter and energy in the universe remains the same.
Monkey's Paw

United States

#1187 Aug 29, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
"Actually the laws that govern this universe did not come into existence until between 10^-34th of a second and 10^-19th of a second after the event"
You claim this as Fact, and you say it with a straight face.
Do you really believe that is fact?
Do you really believe science can tell to that degree what happened 13.7 billion years ago?
The .7 of that is rounded off, they rounded off to the nearest hundred thousand years because that's as close as they felt they could pin it down that's the nearest 100,000 YEARS and you post this incredible statement of an amount of time that is well for all practicable purpose is so small that it makes a split second look like eons. and even if this was true which there is no way in hell you can prove that, it wouldn't change a damn thing about the FACT that the singularitys gravity could not be over come even if it didn't take hold until
10^-34 of a second after the Big Bang.
By the way it's been posted like 50 times that the Big Bang was not an explosion but rather the much slower expansion of a singularity.
Gravity would slam that singularity right back together.
Your Myths are ridicules. "

Prove your god or f*ck off ans stop lying about science. Its that simple.
Or what?

I'm shacking! 8-D
ARGUING with IDIOTS

United States

#1189 Aug 29, 2012
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>Or what?

I'm shacking! 8-D[/QUOTE]

Septic throws a good fit, but doesn't stay gone long.

Watch, just can't help it....

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#1192 Aug 29, 2012
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>Or what?

I'm shacking! 8-D[/QUOTE]

You're shacking?

Up?

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1193 Aug 30, 2012
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
Wow
"In all possibility time itself did not exist before that minute fraction of a second and it is not known if gravity existed or not."
Once the universes existed the laws of physics existed, that also includes the scientific theory's that are of course correct.
You can't change the laws or theory's based on the age of the universe to help keep your ridicules claims alive.
Gravity was there, Mass was there.
Einstein, his theories, Matter per say, in our knowledge, cannot be created or destroyed. Matter can be converted to energy, and energy into matter, but the total amount of matter and energy in the universe remains the same.
[/QUOTE]

Don’t know much about infinities of singularities do you? You rant and rave about it being impossible for the universe to be born of a singularity and you are actually clueless of the mechanisms involved. Typical of incredulous funny-mental christ-insanity.

Honey, the conditions that resolved into this universe from the event did not initially exist at the moment of the event. They did not even begin to exist for 10^-34 of a second and did not fully resolve until 10^-19 of a second after the event. Pressure and temperature were beyond the requirements of those conditions. Science does not know what actually existed and anyone assuming any condition other than immense temperature and pressure is simply assuming because the actual conditions were beyond current human understanding. That is not to say that time and gravity did or did not exists, it says we do not know.

Scientific theories are man made and often based on the natural laws of the universe. Those natural laws are a consequence of the conditions presiding in this universe and are not man made.

I have offered you links to some of the top authorities on the subject in the hope of educating you but as expected you ignored them. This of course backs up your earlier statement “I see nothing wrong with limiting schools to stop teaching the Big Bang”. It defines you as deliberately ignorant.

Wrong way round, you really mean “energy” cannot be created or destroyed. Energy can be converted to matter and vice versa. Energy is the default state.

Speaking of Einstein have you ever considered that his mass energy equivalence equation means there can be no god as described in KJV revelation 19:6 simply because you exist

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#1194 Aug 30, 2012
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
It's not a hidden agenda, it's very obvious what the goal is.[/QUOTE]
--------

Not to me! What's the goal that is so obvious to you?

Ben

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#1195 Aug 30, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Not trinity. Evidence of Hebrew polytheism preceding monotheism.
<quoted text>
Nope.
By the time that they converted from polytheism to monotheism, the word "elohim" was already fixed in tradition and could not be changed. So, a new story for why was invented. It's called mythopoeia.
I'm pretty sure that I explained all of this before you tucked tail. I assume that you were unable to refute it: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
------

There is no such a thing as "They converted from polytheism to monotheism." Jewish Monotheism was established by Abraham, when this left his folks in Ur of the Caldeans and migrated to Canaan.
Jewish Monotheism exists since then. This that one or two individuals, or even a tribe gave a chance to polytheism does not mean that there was a time that the Jews as a People were polytheists.

Ben

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#1196 Aug 30, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
With an allegory, one also has a literal account to allegorize, as with Swift, who allegorized his contemprary political situation with Gulliver's Travels.
The bible writers had zero idea where we came from, and the creation myth was just that - their best guess, not an allegory of their best guess. They had no conception of our origins to allegorize.
Any other questions about the scriptures?
-------

THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY OF CREATION -(Part 1)

There are three stages for the account of Creation in Genesis: Two allegories and the Reality which the allegories point to: Man as the theme of Creation.

The first allegory in the Genesis account of Creation is in the letter of the account, and here abide the masses of religious people for taking the account at its face value. I mean, Adam and Eve in the Garden being provided for by God with all their needs, being told what's allowed and forbidden in the Garden, being misled by the serpent into eating of a forbidden tree, and eventually being punished with different kinds of punishments respectively on all three of them, etc. Just literally as it is written.

The second allegory has still the same elements and God is still figured anthropomorphically, but the meaning of the actions and behaviour depicts a more logical version of what happened in the Garden. And here abide those who can think more logically, abbeit not in the archtype level of Reality. In this phase of the account of Creation in Genesis, after God created Adam and Eve, He granted them with free will and expected to be served and sought after by them, but the thing was not working. God would have to search for them and that was not the right method. They would have to become proficient and leave the Garden in order to seek for God in terms of growing in knowledge out in the greater world.

Then, among the many fruit trees in the Garden, God planted a most beautiful of all the trees with fruits much more alluring, and right in the middle of the Garden, so that it would easily call their attention. It was the tree of knowledge. But it was not working. Then, God told them that the fruit of that tree was forbidden under penalty of death, but just in the hope that the warning would make them curious and go for it. It was not working either.

Next, God doubled in Eve the emotion of curiosity so that she would go for it and entice Adam into eating of that tree. However, God had underestimated Eve's emotion of love. She had fallen in love with her man and she would never risk loosing him for no stupid fruit even if it looked the most appetitizing of all. Obviously, it didn't work.

The next step was to use the services of the serpent to persuade
Eve that she had misunderstood the prohibition. That what would die in them was not themselves but their stupid innocence and naivete. Then, the serpent showed up on the very tree and somehow called for Eve's attention. As she approached, the dialogue started. To instigate the conversation, the serpent started with a question which surely would require an explanation. "Is it that you guys cannot eat from the trees in the Garden?" Bingo! Eve was locked in. The serpent got Eve to talk by explaining that only from the tree of knowledge, they were forbidden. "Why?" the serpent retortted. "Because we would die," she said. "Nonsense!" said the serpent. "You have misunderstood the whole thing. God meant to say that you two will become like gods, knowing good from evil."

(To be continued)- Part 2.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#1197 Aug 30, 2012
THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY OF CREATION (Part 2)

Now, imagine, Eve must have thought, her man like a god! Without much ado, Eve reached for the fruit, ate it and told Adam that it was okay. Adam thought for a second and came to the conclusion that even if it were not okay, he would rather die with her beloved who had just enjoyed half of a fruit. Then he ate the other half and went on eating more. The serpent was right. They did not die. And the first knowledge they acquired was of how much they did not know. I mean, that they were naked, completely destitute of knowledge.

It didn't take too long for God to appear in the Garden to collect the fruit of His enterprise. It had finally happened what He wanted without His having to do anything against man's free will. Then, He formally defined some punishments to everyone according to their nature anyway, and got them out of the Garden into the greater world out there, so that they would grow in knowledge by seeking for God, which would be the right method.

Now, the third phase or Reality, the account of Creation is supposed to point to. I mean, the Humanistic approach, which is the purpose of the double allegory. The riddle points to the three phases in the development of man: Childhood, adulthood, and old age. Here, only the enlightened with Philosophical training dwells. I mean, the Theist who is big enough not to let him or herself be intoxicated by blind faith. In this class we can find also Atheists and Agnostics but under the subclass of sarchasm for not being able to harmonize enlightenment with the conception of God free of anthropomorphism.

Childhood is understood by that phase in the Garden when God would have to provide man with everything. That's the phase when we are dependent on our parents or on others for all our needs. That's the phase of walking on our four legs.

Adulthood is applied to that time when man ate of the tree of knowledge and became conscious of himself. That's when we actually become an adult and responsible for our own actions. I mean, when we can stand on our own two legs, so to speak.

Regarding the phase of old age, the allegory of Creation does not go into details, but it's when we become dependent again on others, especailly our children to take care of us. I mean, the phase of walking on two legs and a cane.

Ben

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#1198 Aug 30, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course your god never did any of this. He's a mythological character.
<quoted text>
Grudge against theists? You said that your god never killed. Your bible is a bloodbath of serial genocides allegedly commanded by your gad, as I listed for you. If there is a perversion here, it is in your mythology and the worship of a psychopath and mass murderer. If there is a distortion, it is you trying to whitewash it all away.
<quoted text>
Who's "them"? I refuted YOU, and your claim that Jehovah or Yahweh or whatever "never committed atrocities or killings in the OT." I listed dozens: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
If you make such a claim, you should expect to be embarrassed by it.
---------

I am going to give you another chance with this issue. I affirm: God did not commint any atrocities. God would not create to destroy His creation. If you are referring to that time when the Israelites entered Canaan, that was the time of migrations. Nomads of several cultures were in the search of a dwelling place to establish themselves and form a State of their own. The Israelites were only one of them. They all would kill in their wars with local folks to replace them with themselves. The policy was to exterminate them in order to prevent further insurrections. Therefore, men were the ones in charge of the atrocities but as part of their policy at the time of migrations. God never had anything to do with their actions. They did claim to be acting in the names of their gods, according to each one's culture. But all human claims. Does that do to understand the acts of man or you prefer to perpetuate your grudge against God?

Ben

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#1199 Aug 30, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Ehh, yes it is, note the ending 2 characters ‘im’
However it is often interpreted as singular by godbots with little understanding
Exodus 20:3 - Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
And Exodus 34:14 - "Do not worship any other god…!”
Both indicate that at the time of writing it was used deliberately as a plural word, but you are free to put your own interpretation on fact as you feel is needed to satisfy your sensibilities
---------

The ending "im" does not necessarily have to mean plurality. Christine, I speak Hebrew. I am not talking nonsense. "Ephraim" ends with "im"; does it mean the plural of Ephra? I don't think so.
"Yerushalaim" is the name for Jerusalem since the time that word exists. Does it mean the plural of Yerushala for ending with "im?" I don't think so. "Tephilim" ends with "im"; does it mean the plural of Tephi? I don't think so. Am I understood now? I don't think you read my post to Nimph to insist with this issue.

Ben
Monkey's Paw

United States

#1200 Aug 30, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
Wow
"In all possibility time itself did not exist before that minute fraction of a second and it is not known if gravity existed or not."
Once the universes existed the laws of physics existed, that also includes the scientific theory's that are of course correct.
You can't change the laws or theory's based on the age of the universe to help keep your ridicules claims alive.
Gravity was there, Mass was there.
Einstein, his theories, Matter per say, in our knowledge, cannot be created or destroyed. Matter can be converted to energy, and energy into matter, but the total amount of matter and energy in the universe remains the same.
"

Don’t know much about infinities of singularities do you? You rant and rave about it being impossible for the universe to be born of a singularity and you are actually clueless of the mechanisms involved. Typical of incredulous funny-mental christ-insanity.

Honey, the conditions that resolved into this universe from the event did not initially exist at the moment of the event. They did not even begin to exist for 10^-34 of a second and did not fully resolve until 10^-19 of a second after the event. Pressure and temperature were beyond the requirements of those conditions. Science does not know what actually existed and anyone assuming any condition other than immense temperature and pressure is simply assuming
. That is not to say that time and gravity did or did not exists, it says we do not know.

Scientific theories are man made and often based on the natural laws of the universe. Those natural laws are a consequence of the conditions presiding in this universe and are not man made.

I have offered you links to some of the top authorities on the subject in the hope of educating you but as expected you ignored them. This of course backs up your earlier statement “I see nothing wrong with limiting schools to stop teaching the Big Bang”. It defines you as deliberately ignorant.

Wrong way round, you really mean “energy” cannot be created or destroyed. Energy can be converted to matter and vice versa. Energy is the default state.

Speaking of Einstein have you ever considered that his mass energy equivalence equation means there can be no god as described in KJV revelation 19:6 simply because you exist
"Science does not know what actually existed and anyone assuming any condition other than immense"

Correct

"because the actual conditions were beyond current human understanding"

And BINGO! We have a WINNER!

"because the actual conditions were beyond current human understanding"

Insert Atheist for the word human.
Monkey's Paw

United States

#1201 Aug 30, 2012
Ben_Masada wrote:
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
It's not a hidden agenda, it's very obvious what the goal is. "

--------

Not to me! What's the goal that is so obvious to you?

Ben
Do you remember what was the post that I responded to?

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr One way or another 61,504
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 7 hr Dogen 2,699
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 hr Dogen 28,323
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Mar 24 IB DaMann 5,970
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) Mar 22 Eagle 12 452
Deconversion Mar 20 Eagle 12 138
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) Mar 18 Eagle 12 2,043
More from around the web