The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
There has been a 'God vs. Science' debate going in the 'Death' topic for some time now. I wish to add to this debate again, but as Mr. Nice Guy has pointed out, it was not why he started the topic, so I am posting this new topic for the debate.
Ant gave a link 'disproving' the Red Shift theory. Well, I read most of it, and it did not disprove that red shift is caused by an object moving fastly away from us, only showed that there are in fact other ways in which red shift can be acheived (such as the light passing though a strong gravitational field). Therefore, the theory that the universe is expanding cannot be proven either way, as we cannot (or not to my knowledge anyway) distinguish what is causing the red shift... It COULD be that the universe is expanding due to the (supposedly non-existent) 'Big Bang' or it could be that the universe is simply not expanding, and the light waves are being altered by gravitational fields of large stars, planets, etc.
so :p right back atcha Ant
:-)
Ant gave a link 'disproving' the Red Shift theory. Well, I read most of it, and it did not disprove that red shift is caused by an object moving fastly away from us, only showed that there are in fact other ways in which red shift can be acheived (such as the light passing though a strong gravitational field). Therefore, the theory that the universe is expanding cannot be proven either way, as we cannot (or not to my knowledge anyway) distinguish what is causing the red shift... It COULD be that the universe is expanding due to the (supposedly non-existent) 'Big Bang' or it could be that the universe is simply not expanding, and the light waves are being altered by gravitational fields of large stars, planets, etc.
so :p right back atcha Ant
:-)
Page:
Cheers.
But I just want to say:
The topic was just something I suggested to Ant at school AIMING at getting into a heated debate. If that was not my reason, I would have written justification in my earlier posts, and written 'Might not have happened' rather than 'Didn't happen'
Its my fault I got abuse, and I sort of planned for it. I hope that my LATER posts made it clear to you that taking such a harsh stand was an act, and really, I can be a lot more discussive, and a lot less dismissive when I want to. :D
anyway, as I say, cheers.
But I just want to say:
The topic was just something I suggested to Ant at school AIMING at getting into a heated debate. If that was not my reason, I would have written justification in my earlier posts, and written 'Might not have happened' rather than 'Didn't happen'
Its my fault I got abuse, and I sort of planned for it. I hope that my LATER posts made it clear to you that taking such a harsh stand was an act, and really, I can be a lot more discussive, and a lot less dismissive when I want to. :D
anyway, as I say, cheers.
Darkness_2K wrote:
I just don't feel I should be called a religious zealot or
> an ignorant fundamentalist because my views differ from yours.
--
Not to carry on with this, but I didn't say that just to annoy you.
A Fundamentalist is a religious person that refuses to accept any other viewpoint other than his own and claims that his version is the only correct one.
Which was in response to your "The Big Bang is impossible".
I took umbrage with that statement, because nobody knows if it was impossible or not.
Not you, nor me.
But in the interest of playing nice, it's forgotten mate.
I just don't feel I should be called a religious zealot or
> an ignorant fundamentalist because my views differ from yours.
--
Not to carry on with this, but I didn't say that just to annoy you.
A Fundamentalist is a religious person that refuses to accept any other viewpoint other than his own and claims that his version is the only correct one.
Which was in response to your "The Big Bang is impossible".
I took umbrage with that statement, because nobody knows if it was impossible or not.
Not you, nor me.
But in the interest of playing nice, it's forgotten mate.
Cheers for the web address Darkness, I've had a read through and, to be honest, some of the 42 reasons are a bunch of a**e.
All the ones that concern the "lumpiness" of the universe, for example. Now, I did some of this a few years ago at A-level, so I might be a bit rusty, but this is what I remember:
All the particles from the Big Bang expanded to 10^50 of the universes initial size in a millisecond, or something like that.
Now, the paritcles are all pretty evenly spread out, that is correct. However, the shock wave from the Big Bang then comes along and disrupts the particles.
The particles are atracted to each other by gravity, but the gravitational force is VERY small, as the particles weight pretty much sod all, but the attraction force IS still there.
The universe was cooling and helium and hydrogen atoms were forming, and in some areas there were slightly denser collections of particles. These slightly denser areas had a slightly higher gravitational field and so attracted more particles from around them until the whole area was collapsing in on itself.
As the weight of the particles increased, so did the pressure, and the temperature in the middle of the area. When the internal temperature hits a certain value (which I can't remember off the top of my head), then the atoms start to do some stuff. Matter gets compressed and collapses into stars. Supersonic jets from the young stars tear into the gas and dust, and intense radiation from the brightest of the stars heats the material to incandescence. In a few million years, which is a relatively brief span of time by astronomical standards, the most massive of the stars explode as supernovae and trigger the formation of yet another generation of stars. The cycle of death and birth continues.
These explosions and the shock waves can cause other areas of particles to fall in on themselves as well, these can form planets and moons and stuff.
Check out http://members.tripod.com/~ssscott/BigBang.html for a real in depth look, but bewarned, it's VERY science-y.
All the ones that concern the "lumpiness" of the universe, for example. Now, I did some of this a few years ago at A-level, so I might be a bit rusty, but this is what I remember:
All the particles from the Big Bang expanded to 10^50 of the universes initial size in a millisecond, or something like that.
Now, the paritcles are all pretty evenly spread out, that is correct. However, the shock wave from the Big Bang then comes along and disrupts the particles.
The particles are atracted to each other by gravity, but the gravitational force is VERY small, as the particles weight pretty much sod all, but the attraction force IS still there.
The universe was cooling and helium and hydrogen atoms were forming, and in some areas there were slightly denser collections of particles. These slightly denser areas had a slightly higher gravitational field and so attracted more particles from around them until the whole area was collapsing in on itself.
As the weight of the particles increased, so did the pressure, and the temperature in the middle of the area. When the internal temperature hits a certain value (which I can't remember off the top of my head), then the atoms start to do some stuff. Matter gets compressed and collapses into stars. Supersonic jets from the young stars tear into the gas and dust, and intense radiation from the brightest of the stars heats the material to incandescence. In a few million years, which is a relatively brief span of time by astronomical standards, the most massive of the stars explode as supernovae and trigger the formation of yet another generation of stars. The cycle of death and birth continues.
These explosions and the shock waves can cause other areas of particles to fall in on themselves as well, these can form planets and moons and stuff.
Check out http://members.tripod.com/~ssscott/BigBang.html for a real in depth look, but bewarned, it's VERY science-y.
Thats fine by me too. I just don't feel I should be called a religious zealot or an ignorant fundamentalist because my views differ from yours.
Forget it?
Forget it?
I'm not fighting at all, I just have a stronger discussional style is all.
At the end of the day this is a forum on a computer and not worth getting angry about.
As for my beliefs, I go for neither science or religion.
I simply cannot say, one way or the other, which is true.
However, I can hold and see science, so my attitude leans towards that side of things.
I don't believe in a god, yet I am unable to hold any evidence to suggest otherwise.
That's where faith comes into play, and I have none.
So whilst I believe in neither to any great extent, the option that provides data and real-world solutions is the one that has greater meaning to me.
At the end of the day this is a forum on a computer and not worth getting angry about.
As for my beliefs, I go for neither science or religion.
I simply cannot say, one way or the other, which is true.
However, I can hold and see science, so my attitude leans towards that side of things.
I don't believe in a god, yet I am unable to hold any evidence to suggest otherwise.
That's where faith comes into play, and I have none.
So whilst I believe in neither to any great extent, the option that provides data and real-world solutions is the one that has greater meaning to me.
Goatboy wrote:
> Actually Darkness, reading this stuff has raised a point that I'd like you to
> clarify.
Which of the following options is the one you're taking:
(a) Using
> Science to disprove Science
(b) Using Science to prove the existence of
> God.
It's one of those, but I can't figure out which one.
Some clarification
> would be much appreciated.
Neither one - I am trying to use my knowledge and beliefs to start a sensible discussion about the creation of the universe. I said that I believe that God is the answer, that I belive the Big Bang is a load of crap with no definate facts to support it. I wanted to find the opinions of others, have a debate. I am not saying science is bull. Just this theory. Who knows, I could be wrong, (and often am :)) I'm not saying science has NO answers. Sure, it gives pretty accurate accounts of the formation of new stars, nebulas, and how the planets were originally made. But there is no evidence past the first millisecond of existence. It is that EXACT moment of creation I am talking about. Science has no answers for that little bit of spacial history.
I said that I believe in God, but in no way said so should you. I didn't say if you don't you will go to hell. Others respected my opinions and posted theres, you insulted me for not believing.
In this aspect, science is a religion - you believe it or you don't, same as the Christian version of creation. So in a way, we are both 'Ignorant Fundamentalists'. Drop it there? Mates?
> Actually Darkness, reading this stuff has raised a point that I'd like you to
> clarify.
Which of the following options is the one you're taking:
(a) Using
> Science to disprove Science
(b) Using Science to prove the existence of
> God.
It's one of those, but I can't figure out which one.
Some clarification
> would be much appreciated.
Neither one - I am trying to use my knowledge and beliefs to start a sensible discussion about the creation of the universe. I said that I believe that God is the answer, that I belive the Big Bang is a load of crap with no definate facts to support it. I wanted to find the opinions of others, have a debate. I am not saying science is bull. Just this theory. Who knows, I could be wrong, (and often am :)) I'm not saying science has NO answers. Sure, it gives pretty accurate accounts of the formation of new stars, nebulas, and how the planets were originally made. But there is no evidence past the first millisecond of existence. It is that EXACT moment of creation I am talking about. Science has no answers for that little bit of spacial history.
I said that I believe in God, but in no way said so should you. I didn't say if you don't you will go to hell. Others respected my opinions and posted theres, you insulted me for not believing.
In this aspect, science is a religion - you believe it or you don't, same as the Christian version of creation. So in a way, we are both 'Ignorant Fundamentalists'. Drop it there? Mates?
Actually Darkness, reading this stuff has raised a point that I'd like you to clarify.
Which of the following options is the one you're taking:
(a) Using Science to disprove Science
(b) Using Science to prove the existence of God.
It's one of those, but I can't figure out which one.
Some clarification would be much appreciated.
Which of the following options is the one you're taking:
(a) Using Science to disprove Science
(b) Using Science to prove the existence of God.
It's one of those, but I can't figure out which one.
Some clarification would be much appreciated.
physicsformorons.com
or if that doesn't work, try this one:
religiouszealot.com
or if that doesn't work, try this one:
religiouszealot.com
Ahem, sorry about that...
WHERE IS THIS BLOODY WEBSITE?!?!
Page: