Maybe creationism isnt so rediculous.

[short recoil]

Well you wanna know my theory?It's called the Idon'tgiveadamnbecauseitdoesn'treallymakeofadifference theory.

The name explains it all.It doesn't make a damn bit of difference of what created us...why worry about it?Why think of the past when you should be looking to the future.What created the universe is gonna be a never ending question...We won't ever find the answer in our lifetimes so stop arguing over whose religion/belief is right because there isn't a right one...just live your lives guys.If it is possible to find the answer then we will find it one day...or we might not but it doesn't matter, because when/if we do find the answer then hey we found it!YAY!Everyone is gonna continue living their lives and more questions will keep on appearing...and will keep on searching for answers.

None of that probally made a lick of sense.Everything has a reason guys...remember that.

Good thinking, it means you wont end up rocking back and forth in an asylum.
Really a human brain shouldn't think about what we're thinking now, this is why religion used to be good, an awnser to our questioning thoughts.

It's one of the reasons i enjoy doing my survival skills practice, because i have to just think about survival, getting food, wood and building a shelter e.t.c, my mind is completely taken back to how it has evolved or created before humans started thinking too much.
I just have to survive like an animal, and it feels good.

 

[PvtRyan]

I am going to go against the grain and say it is impossible to rule out divine intervention.

So are elephants floating upside down in vanilla icecream. Still, doesn't make it likely.

I watched a documentary, years ago where there was universal agreement on how the universe was created. An accepted picture was put forward, cataloguing a chain of events, starting from one millionth of a second after the big bang.

What was not accepted and continues to be debated was what happened one millionth of a second before the big bang.

It is impossible to say what happened before the creation of the universe, time, and space and within this impossibility lays the possibility that there really was divine intervention.

It also posses the question...Why create one universe, why not two, three, or even thousands, millions?

The possibility that God did create the universe is, in my option as valid as any other opinion.

Physics however does have explanations why the big bang happened and how it behaved. All creationist can come up with is 'magic'. Big bang theory not being perfect does not make divine intervention any more likely. You can never rule out a god, but with every discovery, every bit of knowledge gained, it becomes less likely and starts to lean more towards 'wanting there is a god' than having a reason for it. Whereas he was undisputed creator of everything a few hundred years ago, with knowledge we pushed it back to 'hypothetically could have initiated big bang'. Still possible, not likely.

 

[short recoil]

So are elephants floating upside down in vanilla icecream. Still, doesn't make it likely.

There are elephants floating upside down in vanilla icecream.

If i can run down the street with a "piece of white paper" with a "elephant" and a "donkey" drawn on it then so can the elephants floating upside down in vanilla icecream exist.

 

[Tr0n]

So are elephants floating upside down in vanilla icecream. Still, doesn't make it likely.


Physics however does have explanations why the big bang happened and how it behaved. All creationist can come up with is 'magic'. Big bang theory not being perfect does not make divine intervention any more likely. You can never rule out a god, but with every discovery, every bit of knowledge gained, it becomes less likely and starts to lean more towards 'wanting there is a god' than having a reason for it. Whereas he was undisputed creator of everything a few hundred years ago, with knowledge we pushed it back to 'hypothetically could have initiated big bang'. Still possible, not likely.

...and does it matter?Hell son maybe you don't know this but theories change.We as a race have only begun to see the universe...hell we haven't even gone out of our solar system yet.There is so much we haven't discovered yet.

Again does it matter?Refer to my theory. It just doesn't make a damn bit of difference...stop arguing over such mundane bullshit that won't change your lives.You will find out the day(s) you die if there is a god or heaven or nothing...

 

[Dag]

2001 Space Odessy! Read it everyone, Damnit!

 

[DeusExMachina]

Well not really...deist believe god created the universe and set it on a certain timetable/path I think and that he doesn't interfere with it.I believe he does at times...I believe he sets us on a path that we choose.It's like what I told this girl I loved once...god is always constantly putting us through test...if we pass them or not is up to you.

Actually Deists believe God created the big bang and such and left the universe alone to create itself. A beneficial non intervening God.

 

[Zeus]

Hmm, I guess we're never going to find out the real truth until we die.

 

[Tr0n]

Hmm, I guess we're never going to find out the real truth until we die.

Exactly.

So live your lives guys and don't burden yourself with such mundane questions.

Actually Deists believe God created the big bang and such and left the universe alone to create itself. A beneficial non intervening God.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[GhostBoi]

Hmm, I guess we're never going to find out the real truth until we die.

Generally people that are unconcious don't figure things out, they don't really do much of anything.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Play-by-play of the first ten minutes:

- Trillions of stars, and ours is the only miracle?
- He misunderstands the meaning of theory, it seems.
- What does the observable evidence tell us? You just showed it, dummy!
- "Creation scientists" lol.
- Absolutely NO beneficial mutations exist? Yeah right, Gary.
- "All the mutations we've seen only exist in genes that exist." What?

- We've NEVER seen one thing change into another thing? Maybe because it takes millions of years, you dunderchunce! Also, that's rather blatantly a lie since there are plenty of examples of transitionary forms. The archeopteryx, for one.

- Hey, let's ask random jerks off the street if evoluion is true. Good job on research, documentary. "I've been brainwashed!" *scary music*

- It is impossible for 'order' to exist in randomness and chaos following the big bang? Maybe order occured randomly, or maybe the concept of 'order' is entirely relative. What if you want objects ordered in a a radius around the epicentre of an explosion? What if an exploding packet of chemicals hits a vat of the other chemicals needed to form crystals? Crystals are as 'ordered' as it gets in the natural world.
Without defining their terms here (although the footage implies that "order" means "a building") their argument is wrong right off the bat. Any proper scientist defines their terms to prevent being vague.

- Evolution in this case is based on the idea that random chemical mixtures producing things. These people are basically saying that, in or after an explosion, nothing in the explosion can ever collide with something else. This is inherently wrong.

- "Explosions are destructive, they create spontaneous degeneration, not spontaneous generation." WRONG. See above. This argument is far too vague and superficial to be seen as conclusive of anything. And simple logic problems show that it is incorrect.
An explosion generates on even the most superficial level, dust, debris and smaller chunks of whatever exploded. It might generates piles of debris, tiny caves of debris. A large enough chunk of debris could generate a gravitational field.

- So, entropy proves that evolution is impossible because children age? Then how did a sperm grow up into that kid, hmm? How could a factory build grandpa's glasses if everything is so terribly random?
Entropy proves that perpetual motion machines cannot exist, but evolution has never claimed to be perpetual. It will break down once it inevitably runs out of consumable matter. Which isn't going to happen for trillions of years.
These 'scientists' clearly do not understand the basic scientific concepts they are spouting.

I need to go, but I'll watch more later and try and provide more play-by-play.

 

[Foxtrot]

Play-by-play of the first ten minutes:

- Trillions of stars, and ours is the only miracle?
- He misunderstands the meaning of theory, it seems.
- What does the observable evidence tell us? You just showed it, dummy!
- "Creation scientists" lol.
- Absolutely NO beneficial mutations exist? Yeah right, Gary.
- "All the mutations we've seen only exist in genes that exist." What?

- We've NEVER seen one thing change into another thing? Maybe because it takes millions of years, you dunderchunce! Also, that's rather blatantly a lie since there are plenty of examples of transitionary forms. The archeopteryx, for one.

- Hey, let's ask random jerks off the street if evoluion is true. Good job on research, documentary. "I've been brainwashed!" *scary music*

- It is impossible for 'order' to exist in randomness and chaos following the big bang? Maybe order occured randomly, or maybe the concept of 'order' is entirely relative. What if you want objects ordered in a a radius around the epicentre of an explosion? What if an exploding packet of chemicals hits a vat of the other chemicals needed to form crystals? Crystals are as 'ordered' as it gets in the natural world.
Without defining their terms here (although the footage implies that "order" means "a building") their argument is wrong right off the bat. Any proper scientist defines their terms to prevent being vague.

- Evolution in this case is based on the idea that random chemical mixtures producing things. These people are basically saying that, in or after an explosion, nothing in the explosion can ever collide with something else. This is inherently wrong.

- "Explosions are destructive, they create spontaneous degeneration, not spontaneous generation." WRONG. See above. This argument is far too vague and superficial to be seen as conclusive of anything. And simple logic problems show that it is incorrect.
An explosion generates on even the most superficial level, dust, debris and smaller chunks of whatever exploded. It might generates piles of debris, tiny caves of debris. A large enough chunk of debris could generate a gravitational field.

- So, entropy proves that evolution is impossible because children age? Then how did a sperm grow up into that kid, hmm? How could a factory build grandpa's glasses if everything is so terribly random?
Entropy proves that perpetual motion machines cannot exist, but evolution has never claimed to be perpetual. It will break down once it inevitably runs out of consumable matter. Which isn't going to happen for trillions of years.
These 'scientists' clearly do not understand the basic scientific concepts they are spouting.

I need to go, but I'll watch more later and try and provide more play-by-play.

Thank you for that unbiased summary.


I don't believe in creationism but atleast try to be unbiased when summarizing it.

 

[rpgprog]

i believe that god created the universe and intervened when neccesarry to make life. I just think that there has to be some higher power. I mean there are alot of holes in the evolutionist theories. Although like someone else said, this video is one-sided. I am easily convinced when shown evidence and I was not given both sides to see which is better. Alot of their ideas make sense, the only thing i disagree with them is the lack of transitionary life-forms. I mean they mentioned that because we classified them as either one or the other they are not transitionary. But classifications are human-made and therefore are flawed by nature. So we might have classified it as an ape when it is part-man part-ape.
Although like Zues and Tr0n said. It doesn't matter.

 

[gcomeau]

Dont reply unless you watch the movie for ****s sake.

Watched...

So. Very. Bad. Too many errors, misconceptions and misrepresentations to count without going through it another half dozen times.

I just finished going over the whole evo/creo issue in considerable detail on another board and I really would rather not do it again this soon... maybe I'll get motivated and go into all the horrendous misrepresentations in that video later if this thread survives a couple days...but if anyone's interested in what I've already had to say on the subject of evolution they can have a read through here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418178

Creationism is an intellectually bankrupt position, the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming to an almost ludicrous degree.

(I'm still shaking my head at that "jar of peanut butter" bit. How mind-numbingly stupid do you have to be to watch that and think "Hey! That's sure a good point!" ???)

 

[bliink]

This visually rich, full production reveals conclusive evidence that the universe and all life were created by a Supernatural Being, and that the God of the Bible is that Creator.

The Bible is the only holy book in the world that is scientifically accurate. In addition, scientific foreknowledge demonstrates that the Bible is truly the Word of God.

Come on... They'd get people to stick around longer if they didn't come across as zealots.

 

[jondy]

I don't believe in creationism but atleast try to be unbiased when summarizing it.

Meh, it's not his perogative.

But let's face it, all this evolution/creation stuff is silly anyway

 

[Raziaar]

Hmm, I guess we're never going to find out the real truth until we die.

Who the **** says god is gonna tell YOU the truth when you die? :burp:

 

[Kangy]

""The universe at some point was all wound up." This begs the question... Who wound it up?"

And that just begs the question... why are you hinging an argument on an extended metaphor?

 

[Raziaar]

I find the big bang theory the most difficult to believe theory of them all. Even more difficult than some crackpot opinions.

Okay, you have a big ball of matter in space. Or is it a small ball of matter in space? Some form of fireball, or asteroid, or whatever. What have you. If this thing contains the universe, and within it all the sciences and stuff which are generated 'after' the big bang, then what exactly is the space that this ball thing is flowing/flying through before it explodes? Does it have physical properties like space might, or not, since all that stuff only happens AFTER the big bang? What could possibly cause the 'big bang', making that one very tiny, or is it very gigantic thing explode if everything within that sphere of square of matter defines our entire existence as we know it?

What came first. The chicken or the egg? The big bang theory, is that the egg came first. The egg blew up, and formed a chicken which is our entire existence. What created the egg? How could the egg possibly exist if nothing was technically supposed to exist before the big bang which created everything? And what if there was not 'matter' that exploded. What if it was just a big explosion? Tell me then, what caused, created this explosion, and what was it formed of and where did the stuff that caused/formed it come from?

LOL. Just doesnt make a single damn ounce of sense.'


If you just expect me to believe that out of nowhere, nothingness, a big bang happened that created everything in the entire world, universe etc... and that nothing created this big bang or ball of matter that exploded, that it just 'was'. Then how the hell do you not understand the belief that perhaps there is an omnipotent god that was not created by anything, and just was throughout all of time that isn't even inconcievable to us mortals and created everything by his whim and imigination?

They're the exact same thing... something that just was, and happened... compared to something that just was, and created.

 

[Kangy]

It makes more sense than creationism, which relies on assuming that what cannot currently be explained by science, an art in which our understanding and ability develops in time (unlike religion), can only be explained by something we've never encountered, and will only do so when it is of no use to us. Every creationism argument I hear that claims to be valid just seems to jumping on things that science has yet to find an answer for.

Everybody thought Earth > Solar System and that everything went around us, for an awfully long while. Suddenly, science proves that wrong. The ability to prove that wrong took a long time, but it came eventually. Since when has religion changed? We have "Genericholybook" and that is all.

 

[Raziaar]

It makes more sense than creationism, which relies on assuming that what cannot currently be explained by science, an art in which our understanding and ability develops in time (unlike religion), can only be explained by something we've never encountered, and will only do so when it is of no use to us. Every creationism argument I hear that claims to be valid just seems to jumping on things that science has yet to find an answer for.

Everybody thought Earth > Solar System and that everything went around us, for an awfully long while. Suddenly, science proves that wrong. The ability to prove that wrong took a long time, but it came eventually. Since when has religion changed? We have "Genericholybook" and that is all.

It still doesnt answer any of my questions. If god can't possibly 'just be', how the hell can the big bang embryo thing 'just be'? What created it? What formed it? What formed the area that it floated around in? And don't say 'nothingness', because that just leads to more oddball questions.

 

[Kangy]

It still doesnt answer any of my questions. If god can't possibly 'just be', how the hell can the big bang embryo thing 'just be'? What created it? What formed it? What formed the area that it floated around in? And don't say 'nothingness', because that just leads to more oddball questions.

I wouldn't know, but try Googling it, looking at Wikipedia. If that doesn't answer your questions, chances are some brainiac somewhere is doing the maths, and figuring it out.

 

[Raziaar]

I wouldn't know, but try Googling it, looking at Wikipedia. If that doesn't answer your questions, chances are some brainiac somewhere is doing the maths, and figuring it out.

How can it be mathematical? Please tell me that. If the entire universe is contained within the big bang Embryo... containing all our physics, and every damn thing known to man... then how can some even incredibly smart guy begin to comprehend or calculate the nonexistence that goes on outside of the big bang embryo?

It makes zero sense.

 

[MjM]

Ok.. then explain the variations in size, orbit (backwards, sideways, etc), terrain, atmosphere, and so forth, of the planets. I would recommend not arguing until you see the whole thing, its pointless.

If you somehow think asking questions like that in a forum on game site, where people probably don't know the answers actually proves anything, then you a sorely mistaken.

Either way i ain't gonna take creationism over anything science can dream up, they at least have some physical phenomenon to base ideas on, no matter how different they maybe, plus they are far more open to change than any religion will ever be.

 

[15357]

Ok.. then explain the variations in size, orbit (backwards, sideways, etc), terrain, atmosphere, and so forth, of the planets. I would recommend not arguing until you see the whole thing, its pointless

Time. Physics.

 

[MjM]

Brownian motion, Chaos Theory ...

 

[MjM]

Its not an explosion its a singularity!@!!!

I have Stephan hawking's 'The Universe in a Nutshell' on my lap, frantically reading parts. fascinating read if you ever want to delve into space time, quantum all-sorts etc.


The problem with videos like those, is that the understanding behind the big bang theory as we know it is far more complex. I mean the book i mentioned which is suppose to be, toned down as far as science is concerned, although its still a complex read, is 200 odd pages. I hasten to think they can explain such theories adequately and faithfully in a 60 min propaganda piece.


Plus so much of this creationism science is debunked as psuedo science, supported not by facts and observation, but negative evidence, i.e. evidence that is percieved to be a flaw in widely held theories, rather than evidence that supports their theories.

Also, history shows that in many cases religion is a hinderance to science.

 

[jondy]

How can it be mathematical? Please tell me that. If the entire universe is contained within the big bang Embryo... containing all our physics, and every damn thing known to man... then how can some even incredibly smart guy begin to comprehend or calculate the nonexistence that goes on outside of the big bang embryo?

It makes zero sense.

Science doesn't pretend to have all the answers. But it relies on reasoning to get there. That's what the definition of theory encompasses. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is not based on reason.

To fill the gaps with unreason based upon religion or mythology because of our current lack of knowledge is far from rational.

 

[MjM]

If you're willing to ask questions like what came before the Big bang. Then why are you less willing to ask, then what came before God or a creator?

 

[Raziaar]

Also, history shows that in many cases religion is a hinderance to science.

I would also like to point out in many more cases, religion is a boon to science.

 

[MjM]

I would also like to point out in many more cases, religion is a boon to science.

So far as providing a moral or virtuous direction for science?? Or the luxury of the monk not having to worry about a subsistence living, giving time for one to ponder questions that arnt explicity answer in the good book? Motivation in the face of absurdity?

 

[HunterSeeker]

I like it how they try to disaprove the big bang theory but provide no actual evidence for creation.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Thank you for that unbiased summary.
I don't believe in creationism but atleast try to be unbiased when summarizing it.

Being unbiased here is not my perogative. But even if I were unbiased, the arguments put forward by the video are simply wrong on the basic level.

Maybe I was being a bit jokey at the start, but the entire last half of my post is scientifically correct.

You cannot draw a scientific conclusion without defining the terms behind that conclusion. Without a proper definitions of 'order' or 'generation' their argument fails on the fundamental level.

The men in the video are using intentionally vague words to describe complicated phenomena, and they're throwing out sciency terms like 'chaos', 'entropy' and 'mutation' in ways that are factually wrong.

Entropy does mean that everything eventually breaks down, but not that it must have already broken down.
All entropy proves is that evolution cannot last indefinitely. Which is something that no-one has ever claimed.
However, these 'scientists' present it as 'proof' that complex systems cannot exist naturally. That is a falsehood.

The statement "there are no beneficial genetic mutations" is extremely false, especially since it posits a clear negative, making it easy to disprove:
A mutation in the coagulation factor VII gene was shown to decrease the risk of heart attacks to those who posses it. Another mutation in G protein genes seems to enhance immune function in humans.
More beneficial human mutations, if you'd like the full technical jargon.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
They flew to high to the sun with that one, it seems. If they had just said that 'many' mutations are harmful, instead of 'no', they would have been right.
But the truth wouldn't 'disprove' evolution, would it?

Scientific evidence also indicates that simple mutations can lead to new species.
"An experiment done by a team of researchers at the University of California, San Diego, has demonstrated the how these genes have played a part in evolution. Using a brine shrimp, they showed how simple modifications in the Ubx HOX gene could have allowed the suppression of it hind legs, thus forming a six legged creature without legs on its thoracic region, which is close to the anatomy of present day insects. They also demonstrated, with genetic analysis, that the Ubx gene does in fact repress 100% of the limb development in the thoracic region of fruit flies, while in brine shrimp it only represses 15%. This is key evidence supporting the theory that crustaceans gave rise to insects."

The 'scientists' use chaos theory incorrectly.
(Presumably they are trying to use chaos theory at least, as they only refer to it as 'chaos' which may or may not be meant with the scientific connotation in mind. Define your terms!)
The name "chaos theory" comes from the fact that the systems that the theory describes are apparently disordered, but chaos theory is really about finding the underlying order in apparently random data.
It is the exact opposite of what the people in that video are describing, which is that apparently random things are random. This is the direct opposite of chaos theory.
If anything, the idea inherent to chaos theory that random occurences can quickly lead to large, complex systems (i.e. fractals) supports evolution as described by scientists.
This is a direct contradiction of what the video says (that chaos directly excludes any possibility of order).
For an example of 'impossible' natural order, see your average tree's branches.

If these people are actually scientists, the only explanation for their statements here is either that they are oversimplifying to the point of utterly misrepresenting real (unshown) findings, or they are just making shit up to fool people who don't have a highschool education in the sciences.
Which do you think it is?

The people in the video fail at science, I'm sorry.

 

[theotherguy]

Ok, here are the basics of my theory.
Ever wondered how stuff can be so random?
I mean, look at yourself in a mirror, think about why there is a round earth, with a "liquid" flowing on it.........it's all wierd, how on earth has this all come about?
Most people either think the universe has always been there or it was created by something extra universal.
Now, for obvious reasons the creation idea is just silly (who created god?, why is god there?)
My theory would go above god and still allow for it, whatever it may be.

Now, we do know we exist, if we didn't exist how could we be thinking what we're thinking now?
There HAS to be at least something?
Now imagine it as binary 1 or 0 either there is stuff or their isn't, now that seems pretty straight foward at first but then you have to think is it possible to have nothing?
Not really, if there is nothing there.

Now this will take a bit of thinking about, don't try it if your tired or something.
(It is impossible for our minds to think of nothingness, or infinity so i won't play too much on this.)
To allow for such randomness, what if everything did and didn't exist at the same time?
Cancelling its self out perfectly, there is everything, in every possible way including nothingness. This seems highly likely thinking at the most basic level, while you look around you see only an infinitley small amount of everything.
Your mind cannot proccess infinity so you would never imagine everything and never understand everything.
If space, time, matter just existed, you ask why does it exist?
If nothing existed you could not ask why it does not
If we were not conscious, if we would have not randomly been like this then we could never know.

There might be a god that created us, there might have been a big bang that we evolved from chemicals, this is not the point here.
The point is about existence, now what if it isn't a binary situation?
I.e you cannot say if there is something there or not, because it both isn't and it is at the same time.......impossible to think of, yes.....impossible, no.

Multi universes, a god that created man, evolution...........all of it happens, on an infinite scale.
The only reason we think of our closed universe is because we are conscious of it now.
If we made a mini city with a conscious creature.......what would it think?
Would it be able to think of us, it's creators, or would it think on the level we do, about our creators?
That's what we are doing now.
It stops the stupid russian doll arguments, because there is simply no end, the lack of the end is the awnser.

We happen to be on our earth either due to evolution or creation ( i think most likely evolution from chemicals that have fallen into that position)
This also rules out any arguments about probability.
Probability is useless with infinity, even a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance event will happen infinite times (sorry about the 0's, i'm getting over-excited here to make a point)
With probability being meaningless, we WOULD MOST DEFINITELY exist .....and do we exist, yes we do.
(conclusive evidence of my theory)

Quite simply, anything is possible, because it is.
Otherwise there would be no reason for the moon to weigh anything.
No reason for the sun to give out "energy"
Don't try and think about it mathematically, or "spiritually" because we are held back by what we experience with our existence.
All we experience is in our brains, from our senses.
How could we even begin to detect if there was something more? it would be stupid just taking what we know as everything.

Multi universe theory helps me to understand, try to imagine infinite possibilites you would have infinite occurances, you WOULD end up with what we know, exactly.
Now you see why i think it is highly probable that this is the only theory that works?

Everything exists, cancels its self out perfectly, in an infinitley complex manor.
Everything = nothing.
Now don't go thinking "oh why can't we see it" "oh lets travel to another dimension, space time, big jam doughnut with a cherry on top, whatever" we obviously experience what we know due to our conscious thought, our minds working mechanically governed by the same physics as our planets.
This dosn't mean that everything has to.
And it all boils down to nothing, no one can argue.
Everyones happy, we can go on to find out more about how we got here on our smaller scale.

I now either sound really intelligent or COMPLETELY derranged but i hope i made you think.

I shall call the theory "infinity theory"

most of this is the anthropoligic principle theory. I too developed this exact same theory and thought it was my own until I read stephen hawkings "The universe in a nutshell." and I was quite surprised to find out that I had come up with the same ideas as hawkings himself! (and you too)

 

[theotherguy]

It still doesnt answer any of my questions. If god can't possibly 'just be', how the hell can the big bang embryo thing 'just be'? What created it? What formed it? What formed the area that it floated around in? And don't say 'nothingness', because that just leads to more oddball questions.

First you have to understand that this universe is not all there is. We have a four dimensional universe which sits like a bubble within a ten dimensional universe. If you wanted to simplify these ten dimensions, you would end up with a 3d model that looked sort of like water that is boiling.

The substances that make up this "multiverse" are known as strings and branes, strings are 1-dimensional universes which vibrate and produce particles, and branes are thousands of interwoven strings.

naturally through energy and motion, strings get excited in the multiverse and give rise to branes, which often fold in on each other and become spherical objects called universes.

When our universe first began, it was as one of these bubble-like objects, or rather, it was the singularity of the big bang. At this moment of initialization, there was a catastrophic amount of energy goign on inside the brane which made up our universe, because so many strings were compacted into such a small area. Also, our universe may have collided with other universes to increase the amount of energy within this small space.

this is what caused the big bang.

Another thing that you must understand is that there is NOTHING "before" the creation of the universe. Why? Because time, for us, began at the beginning of the universe. Time is not some infinite value assigned to everything as we'd like to beleive. Time is a dimension. Time is a place. It is physical and finite, just like space. The only reason it seems like an extra added parameter to us is because were are so infinitely small in such a wildly curved universe that time appears as a line that goes on infinatley in both directions.

Anyway, within the ten dimensions of the multiverse, there is time, but if you were a ten-dimensional being, time would just seem like another place you could go to, and there would be a point where time would end and you couldn't travel any further.

Some universes, unlike ours, simply collapsed in on themselves and became strings again almost instantly. Others continued to expand until they snuffed themselves out (or popped), but ours continues to expand very slowly, and at some point it willl either collide in on itself, or expand into nothingness within the multiverse. If by some chance we collide with another universe after that point, the big bang will begin again, and we will continue a cycle of creation and destruction until it can no longer be sustained.

 

[The Monkey]

So it makes more sense that a large beardy man in his late 50s created everything in the universe?

 

[Foxtrot]

So it makes more sense that a large beardy man in his late 50s created everything in the universe?

With that explanation we atleast know what the culprit looks like.

 

[baxter]

Physics however does have explanations why the big bang happened and how it behaved. All creationist can come up with is 'magic'. Big bang theory not being perfect does not make divine intervention any more likely. You can never rule out a god, but with every discovery, every bit of knowledge gained, it becomes less likely and starts to lean more towards 'wanting there is a god' than having a reason for it. Whereas he was undisputed creator of everything a few hundred years ago, with knowledge we pushed it back to 'hypothetically could have initiated big bang'. Still possible, not likely.

.

I don't believe in God par say, heaven and hell or another kind of ridiculous religious believes regarding creation. I am an engineer by trade and fully understand the laws of physics. The corner stone law of physics states it is impossible to create something from nothing. You cannot create energy or matter from nothing. Taking this principle forward, creating the universe from nothing, no time, space, matter is impossible. Yet against all the odds our universe was created.
The laws of physics that are referred to , rather than, defusing divine intervention, actually back up the theory, that some event happened, to trigger the Big bang and that event, possibly initiated by an intelligence was triggered by something we are unable to comprehend.
It is the incompletion of the leading events that give rise to the real possibility that intelligence was behind the creation of the universe.
I would not argue that the same intelligent is still around but certainly won't dismiss the possibly that it did exist.

 

[CptStern]

heheh, love your sig baxter :thumbs:

 

[baxter]

Quote me a price and I'll rent it out to you

 

[Feath]

.

I don't believe in God par say, heaven and hell or another kind of ridiculous religious believes regarding creation. I am an engineer by trade and fully understand the laws of physics. The corner stone law of physics states it is impossible to create something from nothing. You cannot create energy or matter from nothing. Taking this principle forward, creating the universe from nothing, no time, space, matter is impossible. Yet against all the odds our universe was created.
The laws of physics that are referred to , rather than, defusing divine intervention, actually back up the theory, that some event happened, to trigger the Big bang and that event, possibly initiated by an intelligence was triggered by something we are unable to comprehend.
It is the incompletion of the leading events that give rise to the real possibility that intelligence was behind the creation of the universe.
I would not argue that the same intelligent is still around but certainly won't dismiss the possibly that it did exist.

How much do you know about Quantum physics?