Why are you atheists so angry?

Where?

Knock yourself out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

It is a valid scientific model of how the universe was created and existed in the first few moments.

It is a working model. Scientific observations can be made that support it and maths can be done using it which can then be observed to be true.

That doesn’t mean it is exactly what happened of course, but it does make it valid science of the sort that should be taught in science lessons.

How dare you suggest that I’m angry???? 😡

See, the problem with the Big Bang THEORY, Graham, is that it supposes that the observations made by one species on one tiny planet in an allegedly infinite Universe, are in any way, universally accurate.

The arrogance of Humanity to believe that it is anywhere near understanding anything like a billiontrillionth of the reality of the Universe, is incredible.

We know flip all about flip all, in the general scheme of things.

Hence why I find religious theory and belief just as fascinating as Science.

But that’s cos I’ve got an open mind and won’t invent lots of compulcated scientific terms to pretend I understand owt. 😀

everyone is angry

Au contraire Msr. Moe. This thread has proven that folk can actually have a reasonable and sensible debate about stuff that we won’t ever agree on.

I think this thread also proves …………. everyone is angry!

Well….there’s 100 voices on this thread, 918 posts and so if everyone simply responds to the above with a yay or nay we should crack it :-)!

Answer Moe then – are you angry?……I’m a nay!

wow lets debate science with the arts student

There is plenty of objective verifiable evidence for a single point of origin for the universe [ BB]. If you can refute it with the same objective evidence I will shake your hand after the noble prize ceremony.

science has no certainties only faith based approaches have that
Yes it might be wrong now convince me …something a creationist cannot say so we have a difference or them not being the same
ETC
not getting drawn in with you not sure you mean what you say

only angry at elf 😈

and 😉 just to be sure

noble prize ceremony.

NOBEL prize, bloody NOBEL prize, not noble…For Gods Sa…Oh..

There is plenty of objective verifiable evidence for a single point of origin for the universe

No there is not.

If the Universe, as is commonly believed by folk of all sorts or religions and persuasions, is truly infinite, then we could be observing just one teeny tiny infinitesimally minute and relatively insignificant fraction of it.

So how would that make our observations in any way UNIVERSALLY accurate? Hmm? Go on, explain THAYT.

You can’t can you? Therefore I win. Again.

See, the problem with the Big Bang THEORY,

Yep, like the THEORY of gravity which is apparently what holds us to the planet, the THEORY of thermodynamics, the THEORY of, well, just about anything which isn’t maths. Just put the word ‘THEORY’ in capitals in front of it and hey-presto! you can bash it, make up something really soft, oh, say ‘the THEORY of blancmange’ and then pit them together:

Which is true: the THEORY of big bang or the THEORY of blancmange? It must be somewhere between the two! Therefore the universe was made out of an exploding blancmange!

Therefore I win. Again.

This is a thousand post thread, stop being foolish and either join in sensibly or go away.

Yep, like the THEORY of gravity which is apparently what holds us to the planet, the THEORY of thermodynamics

Stuff what we can measure on our planet. Which is supposedly just one of potentially trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions (skip a few trillion trillion trillion lines just like this one) and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions maybe even an infinite amount of other planets in the Universe.

So, I think you’d agree, on that basis, that there’s one or two things, maybe a bit more, what we truly don’t understand. 😉

this is his joining in sensibly 😯

No there is not.

I suggest you read around the subject and test the observations yourself then and present your evidence ..denial without evidence is well stupid dude innit.

Before we get drawn into the “evidence based theory as opposed to conjectural hypothesis” discussion (though it appears that some here don’t know the difference between “theory” and “hypothesis”) , can I point out at this stage that this entire argument from every angle has been repeated many times.

Either the supporters of religion and belief fail to grasp what has been said, or they wilfully ignore it’s obvious illumination.

As it seems to be the bible which is under discussion and being quoted by those seeking an authoritative source on both sides, can I just point out that this tract, written in the bronze age by a society of ignorant sheep-herders who had barely got beyond the invention of the wheel, reads exactly like a fiction. It is inconsistent within itself and contains many obvious impossibilities, many of which have been pointed out in previous discussions, but apparently forgotten by those who find it convenient to aid the repetitive nature of their argument.

I am always puzzled by the desire to accept “ancient wisdoms” and pre-enlightenment myth instead of thoroughly researched and evidence based, rational theory.

But hey, who am I to cast pearls before such. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Science works. Planes fly. Broomsticks and magic carpets don’t.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Very, very true, Woppit.

As it seems to be the bible which is under discussion and being quoted by those seeking an authoritative source on both sides, can I just point out that this tract, written in the bronze age by a society of ignorant sheep-herders who had barely got beyond the invention of the wheel, reads exactly like a fiction.

And if you extend that, it could be argued that in relative terms, Humanity is not even up to ‘ignorant goat-herder’ standard, as you put it (love the way you assume yourself in the 21st century to in any way have a superior imagination to people of bygone times), but in fact could be even less ‘evolved’ or ‘advanced’ in universal terms than a single-celled amoeba. 😐

If you live in a valley, and never venture beyond the valley walls, then how can you know what lies beyond?

See, the problem with the Big Bang THEORY

Model is probably a better description.

it supposes that the observations made by one species on one tiny planet in an allegedly infinite Universe, are in any way, universally accurate.

Well except it’s not based on the observations we make on Earth though is it? It’s based on the observations we can make on every part of the universe that we can see or detect.

Granted it could well be that beyond the reaches of what we can observe, everything works completely differently and is made of cheese.

But the Big Bang Model fits what we can observe and therefore is currently a workable scientific model of how our observable universe was created.

Likewise, we’re not 100% sure how gravity exactly works, but we have a workable scientific model of it which we can use to mathematically predict its effect on objects.

Maybe gravity works differently in a part of the universe we can’t see – but we have no evidence of that and science likes evidence.

Fred. I have no idea what your second paragraph is supposed to mean as it doesn’t seem to make any sense.

One knows what is “beyond the valley” by leaving it (seems obvious).

Currently, I understand that we are able to observe something to the order of a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang, be planning a trip to Mars and are also finding new cures and evolutionary information from investigating the Human Genome.

In my view, that’s quite a distance over the valley walls from the goat pasture.

Although god hasn’t turned up yet, of course. Perhaps it’s hiding, the scamp…

No doubt you will differ.

There are none so blind as those who will not see

or “always beware of listening to the sound of one hand clapping”

This is why it’s important to have debate such as this here.

Big Bang Bollocks. 🙂

It’s based on the observations we can make on every part of the universe that we can see or detect.

Which, I’m sure you’ll agree, if you follow the idea that the Universe is infinite (where did that idea come from originally, btw?), that what we can see could be an incredibly tiny fraction of it all.

And you’re going to base a theory of the origins of the Universe, as a whole, on that alone?

Bit short-sighted, is not it? Maybe, even, (whispers) a bit un-scientific?

Hmm?

If you live in a valley, and never venture beyond the valley walls, then how can you know what lies beyond?

One knows what is “beyond the valley” by leaving it

We’ve not even ourselves visited our closest neighbouring planet, yet alone the nearest star. In a universe with potentially (I’m not doing all those trillions again I think you get the idea) lots of stars?

Sop how can we truly even begin to pretend we understand owt?

Humanity is not even up to ‘ignorant goat-herder’ standard, as you put it (love the way you assume yourself in the 21st century to in any way have a superior imagination to people of bygone times), but in fact could be even less ‘evolved’ or ‘advanced’ in universal terms than a single-celled amoeba.

I am pretty sure we have at least discovered some universal laws and know just a tad more than someone form 3000 years ago as a quick glance around you should easily convince you of this fact.
Whoppit said we have more knowledge not imagination
Amoeba are unicellular and therefore a poor choice for evolved or advanced argument in relation to complex multi celled mammals [ with mammals evolving last obviously].

what we truly don’t understand.

I think, in your haste to boost your own ego, that you missed off the word …………….YET……………..

But thanks for your contribution anyway.

So where in the new testament does it say to disregard the old testament hmmmmmm?

That is all old testament, there was supposed to be a new covenant after Christ.
It’s a good line – shame the New Testament and big J appears to disagree:

The new Covenant is about god saying he’s not going to be all bang crash kapow anymore, really honest. Instead of putting your effort into finding a bit which might be in conflict with this, which incidentally the bit about the law isn’t. you could just google New covenant and New Testament or something, depending on whether you want to argue about stuff or find out about stuff. Even if finding out about stuff means you are better prepared for future arguments. It’s quite good really. There’s this website called Wikipedia or something wjich is quite good for stuff like that. I’m no sure what the address is, but you can probably google for it.

The new Covenant is about god saying he’s not going to be all bang crash kapow anymore, really honest. Instead of putting your effort into finding a bit which might be in conflict with this, which incidentally the bit about the law isn’t. you could just google New covenant and New Testament or something, depending on whether you want to argue about stuff or find out about stuff. Even if finding out about stuff means you are better prepared for future arguments. It’s quite good really.

While I see your point I still say “The emperor has no clothes”. Its all a load of made up stuff. I don’t care how many angels can dance on the head of the pin because they haven’t been shown to exist.

Fred. I have no idea what your second paragraph is supposed to mean as it doesn’t seem to make any sense.

To you, it may not make any sense.

That is not to say that it makes no sense at all…

We understand what we have discovered. No doubt there is more to come. So far, the working model matches our discoveries.

No doubt, as Graham S said, we may discover that the rest of the universe is made of cheese, or is a colony for three-headed unicorns, or a god.

But one has to ask – so what?

Although god hasn’t turned up yet, of course…..

I would suggest several million Christians world-wide and several million more over the past 2000 years would disagree, not just Elf!

I’m sure God has turned up in your life too Woppit….

Maybe, even, (whispers) a bit un-scientific?

its unscientific to factor in something we have not observed and cannot demonstrate or test – where do we stop accounting for things we have no evidence of ? Do you decide or is it the Pope?

While I see your point I still say “The emperor has no clothes”. Its all a load of made up stuff. I don’t care how many angels can dance on the head of the pin because they haven’t been shown to exist.

Excellent! Concede a point and then go back to the very beginning again We’ll surely hit 1000 if you keep it up!

where do we stop accounting for things we have no evidence of ?

just after string theory, or maybe electron orbits

Do you decide or is it the Pope?

Why are you picking on Catholics JY? Shame man…shaaaayyyyymmmmme.

I would suggest several million Christians world-wide and several million more over the past 2000 years would disagree, not just Elf!

How many people believe in something is not an indication of it existing. If there were more, say, Hindus than Christians would that mean that the Christians are wrong and the Hindus are right? If an alien race of trillions turned up believing something else would they then be right?

I don’t care how many angels can dance on the head of the pin because they haven’t been shown to exist.

Following the logic of this….how do we know things like Love exists? I assume you believe that Love does exist? If so, how do you know?

As it seems to be the bible which is under discussion and being quoted by those seeking an authoritative source on both sides, can I just point out that this tract, written in the bronze age by a society of ignorant sheep-herders who had barely got beyond the invention of the wheel, reads exactly like a fiction. It is inconsistent within itself and contains many obvious impossibilities, many of which have been pointed out in previous discussions, but apparently forgotten by those who find it convenient to aid the repetitive nature of their argument.

Which was also written (New Testament – the really important bit) at an age and society where some of the most celebrated scientists and philosophers lived; is written in a way that is completely and utterly different to fiction of the time in its detail and mention of seemingly benign facts (minor actions of people, singular mentions of names, colours of objects etc); has a large number of extremely accurate (to each other) manuscripts from close to the written period (oldest is only around 50-70 years after the death of Jesus); was transcribed into different manuscripts in a society where information was passed on verbatim and so a very high degree of accuracy was maintained (no “Chinese whispers”); and where the majority of the authors of the new testament were actually executed or exiled for their writings so certain of their truth were they.

Just to add to the mix.

I would suggest several million Christians world-wide and several million more over the past 2000 years would disagree, not just Elf!

was it not a tad arrogant to ignore all the other religions that cite god and give accounts of “reality” they are as arrogantly certain they are right as christians and have just as much faith

How many people believe in something is not an indication of it existing

Totally agree – that wasn’t my point. I was simply saying that Woppit suggests God hasn’t shown up. Millions would argue otherwise.

Excellent! Concede a point and then go back to the very beginning again We’ll surely hit 1000 if you keep it up!

I didn’t concede, I tried to get back to the original point. We could nit-pick the words inside any holy book for ever disappearing up our own backsides based on translations from aramaic through greek from the original Welsh.

But yes, we *will* get to 1000, dagnabit!

O.K.

Humanity is not even up to ‘ignorant goat-herder’ standard,

In what way? None that I can think of. Even the goats are better cared for.

love the way you assume yourself in the 21st century to in any way have a superior imagination to people of bygone times

Love the way you argue by misquotation. I didn’t say that.

but in fact could be even less ‘evolved’ or ‘advanced’ in universal terms than a single-celled amoeba

You’ll have to explain what you mean by “universal terms” in this context. In what way am I less “evolved” than a single-celled amoeba, exactly?

Following the logic of this….how do we know things like Love exists? I assume you believe that Love does exist? If so, how do you know?

Because of chemical reactions inside my brain which include chemicals which can be measured. Next!

(I think Dawkins and others books discuss this. Haven’t read them.)

close to the written period (oldest is only around 50-70 years after the death of Jesus)

WOW accurate historical hearsay whatever next