The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Ant wrote:
> And the webiste completely disproves the
> Big Bang anyway,
No it doesn't, it uses equally unproven theories. Just another way of looking at it. Another set of possibilities. No proof.
> And the webiste completely disproves the
> Big Bang anyway,
No it doesn't, it uses equally unproven theories. Just another way of looking at it. Another set of possibilities. No proof.
Can someone put this link up that you're all talking about? I'd like to have a look at the site myself.
Cheers.
Cheers.
cooldogs wrote:
> the main thing that makes me not believe in the big bang theory is that I would
> prefer to believe that my life has meaning and that im here for a purpose, not
> that im a big accident, it doesnt really make me feel that good about myself to
> think nobody wanted me her on earth.
--
Then what is our meaning? If you believe we've been gifted this planet by god then we've ruined it. We were nature's natural course, and we'll be extinct eventually. The planet will recover, and humans might evolve again. Hell, we could have already evolved several times and been extinct,
lus Im doing AS Level Chemistry and
> Biology, and there is absolutley no chance that these mechanisms could just
> accidently come together and start working. They have to have a designer.
--
I am also taking AS Biology and Chemistry, and you are talking bollix. Go on, admit it, you know you are. Anyway, we don't cover evolution in the AS modules, fool.
> the main thing that makes me not believe in the big bang theory is that I would
> prefer to believe that my life has meaning and that im here for a purpose, not
> that im a big accident, it doesnt really make me feel that good about myself to
> think nobody wanted me her on earth.
--
Then what is our meaning? If you believe we've been gifted this planet by god then we've ruined it. We were nature's natural course, and we'll be extinct eventually. The planet will recover, and humans might evolve again. Hell, we could have already evolved several times and been extinct,
lus Im doing AS Level Chemistry and
> Biology, and there is absolutley no chance that these mechanisms could just
> accidently come together and start working. They have to have a designer.
--
I am also taking AS Biology and Chemistry, and you are talking bollix. Go on, admit it, you know you are. Anyway, we don't cover evolution in the AS modules, fool.
Seeing as infinity is an imaginary conecpt that cannot exist, and seeing as time appears to be linear, my belief (or theory..) is that the universe is in an ever repeating loop. Big bang, big crunch, big bang, etc...
I can't imagine time ever 'starting' or 'ending', so I guess it has to loop.
Does that make sense?
I can't imagine time ever 'starting' or 'ending', so I guess it has to loop.
Does that make sense?
the main thing that makes me not believe in the big bang theory is that I would prefer to believe that my life has meaning and that im here for a purpose, not that im a big accident, it doesnt really make me feel that good about myself to think nobody wanted me her on earth.
lus Im doing AS Level Chemistry and Biology, and there is absolutley no chance that these mechanisms could just accidently come together and start working. They have to have a designer.
lus Im doing AS Level Chemistry and Biology, and there is absolutley no chance that these mechanisms could just accidently come together and start working. They have to have a designer.
It's all a matter of belief. We live in a world now which is surronded by things of beauty, things that are unexplainable and things that science and man has made. Science is a massive thing in our lives. Without it, we wouldn't be on this computer right now, we wouldn't be able to get to our friends house in a matter of minutes or take trips to our relatives in America and be there in a matter of hours.
Now, it seems that people believe more in what they can see rather then belief. We all look for something to tell us, how wonderful we are, how after we've gone so many people will remembered us. Some people have belief. Others look at science for the answers and science responds with the theory of the big bang.
If that big bang happened, then where did those particles come from? What was there before the big bang? Imagine nothing, for just a moment. You can't do it. I don't believe in God, I don't feel someone else controls me and all that. I believe in Science, but perhaps it just doesn't have the answers yet and people are unwilling to accept that.
Science has been wrong before. It will be wrong again. Could this be a mistake? Or is there too many people who have already put their belief into this theory?
Now, it seems that people believe more in what they can see rather then belief. We all look for something to tell us, how wonderful we are, how after we've gone so many people will remembered us. Some people have belief. Others look at science for the answers and science responds with the theory of the big bang.
If that big bang happened, then where did those particles come from? What was there before the big bang? Imagine nothing, for just a moment. You can't do it. I don't believe in God, I don't feel someone else controls me and all that. I believe in Science, but perhaps it just doesn't have the answers yet and people are unwilling to accept that.
Science has been wrong before. It will be wrong again. Could this be a mistake? Or is there too many people who have already put their belief into this theory?
lol, I don't understand it either :D
The only thing I know about antimatter is that it appears in Star Trek a lot - yes I watch it, and i rarely admit it :D
Its just my favourite quote, because, IF what I understand about antimatter is right, this COMPLETELY disproves the theory... ...IF, the dreaded word in these topics :D
The only thing I know about antimatter is that it appears in Star Trek a lot - yes I watch it, and i rarely admit it :D
Its just my favourite quote, because, IF what I understand about antimatter is right, this COMPLETELY disproves the theory... ...IF, the dreaded word in these topics :D
I have heard of this matter-antimatter stuff, but don't really get it...
*runs off*
*leaves note*
*note reads:*
Will carry on the debate once I have completed A level physics and know about all this matter-antimatter stuff...
Sibs
*runs off*
*leaves note*
*note reads:*
Will carry on the debate once I have completed A level physics and know about all this matter-antimatter stuff...
Sibs
Ant wrote:
> Ahh, but you didn't read all of it.
And the webiste completely disproves the
> Big Bang anyway, so surely Red Shift shouldn't even come into the argument.
> After all, if it wasn't for the Big Bang there would be no Red Shift. And that
> would make the Big Bang a long term cause.
Sorry....been doing too much
> History Homework.
ahh, but the Red Shift can exist even though the Big Bang MIGHT (gotta keep YH happy ;p) not have happened. When an object on earth moves away it creates a degree of Red Shift - the same as the doppler effect but in the light spectrum not the audio one.
So, the enourmous amount of material and 'stuff' required to make the Universe could well have caused Red Shift, God or not :D
The Red Shift cannot be disproved - it IS there. For what reason, there is no 100% answer.
Random fact disproving Big Bang - my favourite:
There is not enough antimatter. Any type of initial origin-of-matter theory requires the simultaneous creation of matter and antimatter (neutrinos, etc.). But only a few neutrinos and other antimatter are found in space. In addition, at the Big Bang, the matter and antimatter would immediately have destroyed one another. An equal amount of each would have been made, and then the two would have united, blotting out both. leading on to:
A Big Bang explosion would have destroyed all matter. The evidence is clear that, if matter could initially have created itself, that matter would also instantly have destroyed itself.
> Ahh, but you didn't read all of it.
And the webiste completely disproves the
> Big Bang anyway, so surely Red Shift shouldn't even come into the argument.
> After all, if it wasn't for the Big Bang there would be no Red Shift. And that
> would make the Big Bang a long term cause.
Sorry....been doing too much
> History Homework.
ahh, but the Red Shift can exist even though the Big Bang MIGHT (gotta keep YH happy ;p) not have happened. When an object on earth moves away it creates a degree of Red Shift - the same as the doppler effect but in the light spectrum not the audio one.
So, the enourmous amount of material and 'stuff' required to make the Universe could well have caused Red Shift, God or not :D
The Red Shift cannot be disproved - it IS there. For what reason, there is no 100% answer.
Random fact disproving Big Bang - my favourite:
There is not enough antimatter. Any type of initial origin-of-matter theory requires the simultaneous creation of matter and antimatter (neutrinos, etc.). But only a few neutrinos and other antimatter are found in space. In addition, at the Big Bang, the matter and antimatter would immediately have destroyed one another. An equal amount of each would have been made, and then the two would have united, blotting out both. leading on to:
A Big Bang explosion would have destroyed all matter. The evidence is clear that, if matter could initially have created itself, that matter would also instantly have destroyed itself.
Ahh, but you didn't read all of it.
And the webiste completely disproves the Big Bang anyway, so surely Red Shift shouldn't even come into the argument. After all, if it wasn't for the Big Bang there would be no Red Shift. And that would make the Big Bang a long term cause.
Sorry....been doing too much History Homework.
And the webiste completely disproves the Big Bang anyway, so surely Red Shift shouldn't even come into the argument. After all, if it wasn't for the Big Bang there would be no Red Shift. And that would make the Big Bang a long term cause.
Sorry....been doing too much History Homework.
Page: