View Poll Results: Where did the Universe come from?

Voters
102. You may not vote on this poll
  • From the Big Bang, not sure what was before. God does not exist and was not involved.

    39 38.24%
  • Not the Big Bang, but some other physical event. God does not exist and was not involved.

    2 1.96%
  • God created the Universe without a Big Bang. Earth was especially created.

    2 1.96%
  • God created the Universe with a Big Bang and then the universe evolved.

    37 36.27%
  • Some other mechanism created the Universe, without God...

    13 12.75%
  • God created the Universe in some other fashion...

    9 8.82%
Page 36 of 39 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 385

Thread: Where did the Universe come from?

  1. #351
    Lurker
    iangb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,927
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Where did the Universe come from?

    Also, being able to see stars billions of light years away also poses a problem for the big bang. Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang
    It's worth reading the contents of the blue box in that article, Digsbe. To paraphrase/re-spin it here:
    "Scientists have been coming up with solutions to this problem since at least 1981 - but some of their possible solutions have since been proven incorrect, and no-one can agree on which of the remaining solutions is the correct one".

    If the problem has lots of possible solutions and our biggest worry is working out which one actually happened, I wouldn't say that the problem itself is that much of a threat.

    ***************

    I'll give you a quick tour through our sense of scale of the universe, as measured by the speed of light. Light travels ~300,000,000 meters every second, which is phenomenally fast - but only on our human scale. It takes over 8 minutes from light to get to the Earth from the Sun - that is, if the sun went out right now, we wouldn't notice for another 499 seconds. The speed of light is one of the reasons that we find exploring other planets a hardship - if we sent a remote-controlled buggy to Mars, for example, then it would take anywhere between 3 and 22 minutes (depending on where the planets are in their orbits) for it to send us a radio transmission; if you take into account that we'd then have to send instructions back the same distance then simple calculations say that it can be up to 44 minutes from the buggy telling Earth "there's a crater up ahead" to the buggy receiving instructions from Earth saying "stop!".

    That's just Mars. It takes light (on average) over 4 hours to get to Neptune, and over 6.5 hours to get to Pluto at it's furthest. The Voyager 1 probe - the furthest thing we've sent out of the solar system - sees sunlight 14.6 hours after it was first emitted by the sun - if you were on Voyager looking back at Earth right now, you'd see us as we were over half a day ago, looking back through time.

    Expand outwards from the solar system, and the distances get a little larger. The closest star to Earth is Proxima Centauri, which is a mere 4.2 light-years away. Just to hammer that home - any aliens currently looking at us from near Proxima Centauri would see Earth in early 2006. They'd never have heard of Barack Obama.

    Let's scale out again. We live, as I'm sure you're aware, in a galaxy called the Milky Way. The size of the milky way might be bigger than you were expecting, though; it's certainly a little bigger than what we've been talking about so far - to be honest, it was bigger than I thought it was before I just looked it up. The Milky Way is discus-shaped. At it's thickest, it's 1000 light-years from top to bottom. The big distance, though, is it's diameter; it's ~100,000 light-years wide. As a point of reference, YECers generally claim that the universe was created spontaneously about 6000 years ago - according to YEC, we should be able to see only ~10% of our own galaxy, and those furthest stars would be brand-new, completely newly created. Instead, we can see stars that are 10 times further away than that within our own galaxy - and that's even ignoring other galaxies. If you look deeper and deeper into the sky, the furthest object we have seen is calculated to be ~13 billion lightyears away.

    The universe is big. While there is the occasional contention about the extremely far objects we can image, we can see objects over 2 million light-years away with the naked eye - and most of our galaxy is further from us than the 6000 light-years which YEC claims should be the limit of our vision.
    The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head. ~Terry Pratchett

  2. #352
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Where did the Universe come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by iangb View Post
    It's worth reading the contents of the blue box in that article, Digsbe. To paraphrase/re-spin it here:
    "Scientists have been coming up with solutions to this problem since at least 1981 - but some of their possible solutions have since been proven incorrect, and no-one can agree on which of the remaining solutions is the correct one".

    If the problem has lots of possible solutions and our biggest worry is working out which one actually happened, I wouldn't say that the problem itself is that much of a threat.

    ***************

    I'll give you a quick tour through our sense of scale of the universe, as measured by the speed of light. Light travels ~300,000,000 meters every second, which is phenomenally fast - but only on our human scale. It takes over 8 minutes from light to get to the Earth from the Sun - that is, if the sun went out right now, we wouldn't notice for another 499 seconds. The speed of light is one of the reasons that we find exploring other planets a hardship - if we sent a remote-controlled buggy to Mars, for example, then it would take anywhere between 3 and 22 minutes (depending on where the planets are in their orbits) for it to send us a radio transmission; if you take into account that we'd then have to send instructions back the same distance then simple calculations say that it can be up to 44 minutes from the buggy telling Earth "there's a crater up ahead" to the buggy receiving instructions from Earth saying "stop!".

    That's just Mars. It takes light (on average) over 4 hours to get to Neptune, and over 6.5 hours to get to Pluto at it's furthest. The Voyager 1 probe - the furthest thing we've sent out of the solar system - sees sunlight 14.6 hours after it was first emitted by the sun - if you were on Voyager looking back at Earth right now, you'd see us as we were over half a day ago, looking back through time.

    Expand outwards from the solar system, and the distances get a little larger. The closest star to Earth is Proxima Centauri, which is a mere 4.2 light-years away. Just to hammer that home - any aliens currently looking at us from near Proxima Centauri would see Earth in early 2006. They'd never have heard of Barack Obama.

    Let's scale out again. We live, as I'm sure you're aware, in a galaxy called the Milky Way. The size of the milky way might be bigger than you were expecting, though; it's certainly a little bigger than what we've been talking about so far - to be honest, it was bigger than I thought it was before I just looked it up. The Milky Way is discus-shaped. At it's thickest, it's 1000 light-years from top to bottom. The big distance, though, is it's diameter; it's ~100,000 light-years wide. As a point of reference, YECers generally claim that the universe was created spontaneously about 6000 years ago - according to YEC, we should be able to see only ~10% of our own galaxy, and those furthest stars would be brand-new, completely newly created. Instead, we can see stars that are 10 times further away than that within our own galaxy - and that's even ignoring other galaxies. If you look deeper and deeper into the sky, the furthest object we have seen is calculated to be ~13 billion lightyears away.

    The universe is big. While there is the occasional contention about the extremely far objects we can image, we can see objects over 2 million light-years away with the naked eye - and most of our galaxy is further from us than the 6000 light-years which YEC claims should be the limit of our vision.
    Typical creationist responses:
    1) Science is wrong: physicsts are wrong. Geologists are wrong, biologists are wrong, astronomers and astro physcists are wrong. Scientists are biased. Scientists are part of a conspiracy. Only a preferred biblical interpretation is correct.

    2) God is "tricking/testing" us: god created the light in transit. God put dinsosaur bones and other fossils in the earth. God has placed all this corroborating evidence to "test" our faith. God made all DNA appear as though its related. God put fossils in distinct layers that trick geolgists. Radio carbon dating and other forms of dating only report what God wants people to believe.

    3) Some combination of #1 and #2
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  3. #353
    Lurker
    iangb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,927
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Where did the Universe come from?

    When talking about the speed of light, it's fairly easy to prove that it's remained constant for at least a few ten thousand years - and for far, far longer if you can get someone to understand the fine-structure constant.

    One of these days I'll post my mini-essay on Omphalos and it's consequences, which is my common response to #2. In short, though - the only way for #2 to be the case and for god to not be a deciever is for the unverse to have been created old.
    The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head. ~Terry Pratchett

  4. #354
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

    Re: Where did the Universe come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    the universe came from the big bang, and as i got told by an astrophysicist, what was before is irrelevant as there was nothing, no space or time
    We are told by the same astrophysicists that the universe is still moving away from us in all directions, meaning, I suppose that we were the epicenter of the big bang.

    But an explosion throws things away from it in straight lines in all directions (especially in a vacuum) and our solar system is not straight lines, so how does that explain orbits around the sun?

    ricksfolly

  5. #355
    Educator
    Anarcho-fascist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    T E X A S !
    Last Seen
    09-26-14 @ 11:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,069
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Where did the Universe come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    We are told by the same astrophysicists that the universe is still moving away from us in all directions, meaning, I suppose that we were the epicenter of the big bang.
    No. The space between things is expanding. This expansion is only noticeable over huge distances. It doesn't play a significant role within the Milky Way or it's interactions with nearby galaxies.

    Imagine a balloon with dots representing galaxy clusters. As you blow up the balloon every dot gets further away from every other dot.
    Code:
    * * * * *
    * * * * *
    * * * * *
    * * * * *
    Code:
    *  *  *  *  *
    
    *  *  *  *  *
    
    *  *  *  *  *
    
    *  *  *  *  *
    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    But an explosion throws things away from it in straight lines in all directions (especially in a vacuum) and our solar system is not straight lines, so how does that explain orbits around the sun?
    The planets orbit because of the sun's gravity.
    Edit: Better answer. [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System[/ame]
    Last edited by Anarcho-fascist; 04-10-10 at 05:21 PM. Reason: was lazy on second part of response

  6. #356
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Where did the Universe come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    We are told by the same astrophysicists that the universe is still moving away from us
    I don't understand what it would mean to say the universe is moving away from us since we are a part of the universe.

    We are told that most galaxies in all directions are moving away from us.

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    I suppose that we were the epicenter of the big bang.
    I don't believe this is correct. Why do you assume we are at the epicenter as oppossed to one of those pieces moving away from the center?

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    But an explosion throws things away from it in straight lines in all directions (especially in a vacuum) and our solar system is not straight lines, so how does that explain orbits around the sun?
    anarcho fascist explained. Gravity. Its effects diminish significantly as the distance between two objects increase. Gravity is one of the weaker forces in the universe.
    Our galaxy's gravity is enough to keep the milky way "together" but our galaxy is too far away to have any significant effect on other galaxies. Likewise our sun has gravitational effects on things locally, within our solar system, but those effects diminish significantly the further away the object is from sources of significant gravity such as the sun.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  7. #357
    Finite and Precious
    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    7,874
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Where did the Universe come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    No problem. I've been particularly busy lately so I haven't had the time to respond.



    The flaws of arguments from design are well known:

    Argument from design - Iron Chariots Wiki
    The idea that aspects of nature are too complex to have happened by chance (or more aptly natural processes if we wish to avoid straw men) is a fallacy of argument from ignorance, or even wilful ignorance in the case where the theist also has to reject what we already know about the facts of Darwinian evolution. It is essentially paramount to the statement “I can't think how it could have happened, therefore God done it!

    This has led to the formulation of such theories as Michael Behe's theory of irreducible complexity, which was laughed out of court during the Kitzmiller v. Dover court case, who when presented with counterpoints, "Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies. (23:73 (Behe))”.


    You may also want to look into the Argument from Poor Design:
    Argument from poor design - Iron Chariots Wiki


    Even if we are the ONLY life forms in the entire universe, I don't see how that supports the argument for a intelligent creator being, let alone the god of the bible. perhaps you can connect the dots where no theists has done so before?

    We don't know how everything came into existence or whether its always been there. Not knowing does not mean you get to make up any answer to fill in the gaps of knowledge, I.E., God of the gaps argument: God of the gaps - Iron Chariots Wiki

    Theories, including God theories, must stand on their own merit. No theory is de facto truth because other theories are eliminated or seen as unlikely.

    We don't know how the big bang was caused or what caused it or even if discussing causality "before" the Big bang is sensible. We simply don't know at this time. Theoretical Physicists have some great theories that work out mathematically but they are working on supporting them with evidence and experiments to CONFIRM and VERIFY them.

    Do you have anything to provide to CONFIRM and VERIFY your God claims?

    I'm not very familiar with why scientists believe the earth and universe is as old as it is. its not really a major concern of mine except for the instances it comes up debating religion creation stories. In such cases I often refer to a site that heavily references scientific papers and is often focused on countering Creationist claims. This site is very well known and has been for quite sometime. Its talkorigins.org.
    I'm neither an astrophysicist, a physicist, biologists, geologist, astronomer, or the like so I'll have to defer criticism of the details to those with much grater understanding of the subjects.
    CH200: Age of the Universe
    CH210: Age of the Earth

    I'd like you to note that these pages cite their sources.
    "NO, I do not consider ANY source to be unbiased because humans tend to be biased – including bible writers, scientists, senators, presidents, etc.

    HOWEVER, when information comes from a wide variety of sources representing different viewpoints, the effect of bias is at least somewhat neutralized. For instance, if a physicist or small group of researchers claim to have achieved “cold fusion”, I would reserve judgment (not accept what they say as truthful and accurate without verification) because they could well be biased (or downright dishonest).

    However, if a large number of researchers from different organizations – perhaps worldwide (including some who are competitors or doubters) duplicate the experiment and report similar results, I regard that as much more credible and probably worthy of acceptance. "


    Once again, I'm not qualified to dispute these issues and I would guess that neither are you.

    I can however ask if you believe humans lived alongside dinosaurs. Do you believe what this Ph.D and other creationists do Digsbe? Do you believe man lived with dinosaurs?

    Do any of these theories have evidence and support? Have they been peer reviewed and accepted by scientists in their respective fields? have their claims been reproduced and tested by other independently?

    The truth has nothing to hide from investigation.

    Science is theories that best explain the evidence. When new evidence contradicts or discredits previous theories then those theories must be revised or discarded.


    What evidence do we have that is scientific and logical to conclude that there is a higher power ?

    "I do NOT accept bible stories as evidence that bible stories are true. I have considered the topic at some length, asked for evidence... invited “gods” to contact me directly – and NOTHING – no evidence, no word from “gods”, no reason to accept the tales as true.

    I ask that bible believers show something IN ADDITION to the stories to show that the stories are true.

    For instance, a major Christian claim (and foundation of the religion) is that Jesus came back from the dead. I AGREE that there are stories in the bible (religious promotional material) that make that claim. I ASK what evidence (besides the story itself) can be presented to show that the story of “resurrection” is true.

    “faith and assumption” is what religion offers as reason to believe its tales and claims. Some may be swayed by the emotionalism and by threats and promises; however, others are not.

    If a single source, the bible, reports a “resurrection” and NO other sources can be cited to verify the claim, I reserve judgment and ask for further evidence. When claims have been challenged for a thousand years with no evidence provided, I am inclined to think the source is biased (only reported by religious believers / followers / proponents) and possibly dishonest)."



    Science has never supported such a claim. To my knowledge there is no theory that states "everything can be and will be explained by science". Do you know of such a theory?

    Once again, you are wrong. Science has not claimed that supernaturalism cannot exist. There simply hasn't been any evidence or support for claims of the supernatural. If you have evidence or ANY means to verify and support supernaturalism then please contact the James Randi foundation and collect your $1,000,000 prize.
    Challenge Info
    JREF Challenge FAQ

    The evidence points to the fact that life evolves through natural processes and that that natural processes continuously work throughout the universe without any divine intervention.

    Where "everything" came from "in the beginning" (if there is a beginning) has not yet been resolved by scientists and may never be. Only the religious claim to know such things.

    This is backwards. You believe science is wrong because you think science presumes naturalism in order to support evolution and the big bang. In fact its the other way around. The evolution and the big bang are supported by evidence and have natural causes. Thus these theories that are independently confirmed and verified, collectively point toward naturalism. But that doesn't mean science must be naturalistic. it merely means that so far all the theories appear to support naturalism.

    Scientists usually state things as fact when their is so much evidence for them it seems highly unlikely that they would be wrong. But scientists have been wrong in the past and probably will be in the future. SCIENCE IS ALWAYS TENTATIVE. A theory is only as strong as the evidence. When new evidence is presented that contradicts or discredits previous theories then they must be discarded or revised.


    Of course not. But evidence doesn't lie, or make mistakes, or become delusional. People do.
    NO, I do not consider ANY source to be unbiased because humans tend to be biased – including bible writers, scientists, senators, presidents, etc, etc.

    HOWEVER, when information comes from a wide variety of sources representing different viewpoints, the effect of bias is at least somewhat neutralized. For instance, if a physicist or small group of researchers claim to have achieved “cold fusion”, I would reserve judgment (not accept what they say as truthful and accurate without verification) because they could well be biased (or downright dishonest).

    It is beyond the power of science or philosophy, at this time, to prove with absolute certainty ANYTHING. Science can only SUPPORT theories, it does not PROVE any of them. It is very important to remember this.

    If religionists could present evidence or some means of verifying or confirming their claims of a higher power then I would believe it.

    However, we have been waiting since the dawn of man for religions to present evidence for their claims. All we get are excuses, hearsay, and unverifiable, unfalsifiable claims. Why do you suppose that is?
    You just saved me quite a bit of time.
    "Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough."
    -FDR

  8. #358
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Where did the Universe come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Physics is still applicable at the moment of the singularity and it must have the energy that is expressed in the bang. Where does it come from?
    It isn't (at least not as we understand physics) and most physicists will tell you so. Once you're smaller than Plank size nothing holds.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    No, God did not have to come from somewhere as God is everlasting.
    Many string theorists believe the Universe is cyclic, that it expands, then shrinks down to Plank size, then "expands" again - the "other" way. Don't ask me to explain it farther than that because I don't have a PhD in either math or physics and that's what it takes to really understand it. If those theories are true then the Universe would also be "everlasting".


    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    No, God did not have to come from somewhere as God is everlasting.
    Carp! I didn't catch it or I wouldn't have responded. Oh well.
    (I know you weren't saying this to me.)
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 03-17-12 at 01:46 PM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  9. #359
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:02 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Where did the Universe come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jredbaron96 View Post
    You just saved me quite a bit of time.
    Why did you bump a thread that had been dead for 2 years?
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #360
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:48 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Where did the Universe come from?

    None of the above.

Page 36 of 39 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •