serious discussion - obut the theory of evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well it ended pretty fast but I bet he is looking for some science crap to try to prove me wrong.He still here....crap....well raptor if your reading this....BRING IT ON!
 
this entire thread is a "my theory's dick is bigger than ur theory's dick" contest
 
If this is going to continue, I thought I'd provide a little concise reading material.
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html
The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.
The fact that raptor grasped the basics of the theory that he was arguing about is what caused me to call him ignorant. His evolutionary conclusions are also suspect, and the fact that I can barely read his stuff isn't helping my opinion of him either.
 
Yea, despite the whole dominant theory thing I think its more of a result of generalized ignorance. I mean it's sort of funny when you think about what the theory tries to imply. "In the beginning their was nothing, and then it exploded." I mean seriously c'mon cause and effect its sort of lame to believe that it suddenly happened without reason. Unless you do something like say since gravity is a distortion in the space-time continuum then in a reverse effect the lack of any matter or space in general, (realize here that empty space like outer space etc. could not have existed in the first place because that too would have to be created or its just as good as saying the universe has always been here and answers nothing, as in that basic laws of physics etc. that area regardless of whether they were taken advantage of by matter.. things such as dimensions and the set infinite space, and time itself, to begin with are nonetheless ( if you can think abstact enough in that sense ) things in their own right. Also the "existence" of that area to begin with rather than true nothing which could not contain anything without a change) But anyway back on topic being that those two things were lacking it would also not be as if time was passing while this nothing was happening for it would be forever and an instant or in I suppose a sense a just being and thus nothing would 'trigger' the big bang since nothing would change but just be, so rather it would just happen... in a sense since obviously the universe IS and you (I can assume) and I are conscious, (i know people try to roundabout that by saying its just a delusion as a side result of being a organism, which doesn't really make sense when you consider that everyone is an organism with their own consciousness and that doesn't explain why YOU would be aware, ("I think therfore I am" anyone :cheese: )) but aside from the psuedo-intelligent buddhist ramblings I mean evidence is here that somethign occured... but I think the big bang is an inaccurate way to describe any happeneing of that nature anyway.... hrmph just thought of that in the space of two minutes and I sound high, lol.
 
I think you're interpreting the theory a little different than most people. It doesn't claim to know what came before the big bang, what caused the big bang, or any real specifics about what happened.
It's so far just an idea that seems to make sense when we consider the evidence, which is probably as much as we can hope for.
I always find it odd to think that our entire universe may be nothing more than a grain of sand.
 
Raptor, STOP bumping this thread up. It's already been debated to death.
 
Originally posted by raptor
;( ;( ;( omg;( ;( ;( my internet feelings have been hurt;( ;(
im sorry the truth hurts so much.
btw i dont know why, but i feel like bein involved in this flam war.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top