Some Athiests believe the universe always existed.(calling all athiests/theists)

Read what? "The term theoretical" or "scientific law". Scientific laws =/= theories. And while, yes, most theories do become law, that doesnt mean we can jump to conclusions and say that the big bang theory is absolutely true until we are absolutely sure. Given the amount of evidence and how much we understand the universe (which is actually very little), and how much we dont understand dark matter, we cant be sure of the big bang theoryNintendoNite

Wow, that is... Did you read that at all?

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="NintendoNite"] stop what? I have taken an astronomy course and while there is observations that MIGHT suggest that the universe is expanding, we really dont know for sure until we can gather more evidence. That is what science is all about. Being able to find the truth while discarding any OUTDATED ideas. The big bang theory may become a discarded theory in the near future just as many theories in the past have. So sit down SONNintendoNite

That's not science, that's impossible. It is impossible to prove anything to be %100 fact, there will always be doubt.

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] There is more than just "some" evidence to support the Big Bang. It's generally accepted as the model view for the shape, start, and expansion of the universe. HoolaHoopMan

It was also once generally accepted that the Earth was the center of the universe. Just sayin'.

Some people don't believe in the Holocaust, what's your point?

[QUOTE="NintendoNite"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Presumably, then, we can also dismiss germ theory and cell theory as 'just a theory'.redstorm72

[QUOTE="NintendoNite"] Read what? "The term theoretical" or "scientific law". Scientific laws =/= theories. And while, yes, most theories do become law, that doesnt mean we can jump to conclusions and say that the big bang theory is absolutely true until we are absolutely sure. Given the amount of evidence and how much we understand the universe (which is actually very little), and how much we dont understand dark matter, we cant be sure of the big bang theorymetroidfood

Wow, that is... Did you read that at all?

[QUOTE="metroidfood"]

[QUOTE="NintendoNite"] Read what? "The term theoretical" or "scientific law". Scientific laws =/= theories. And while, yes, most theories do become law, that doesnt mean we can jump to conclusions and say that the big bang theory is absolutely true until we are absolutely sure. Given the amount of evidence and how much we understand the universe (which is actually very little), and how much we dont understand dark matter, we cant be sure of the big bang theoryNintendoNite

Wow, that is... Did you read that at all?

Yes i know that. But unless we completely understand the universe, all the dark matter, and other phenomena, we cannot actually know for sure if the big bang is the truth or not. In other words, we should eliminate ALL forms of doubt before arriving at a conclusion. That is science.NintendoNite

No we don't. Dark Matter is irrelevant to the evidence supporting the Big Bang. We don't need to know everything out there to see that the Universe started out in a singularity. The evidence is there. Just like how we don't need to know of every species that ever existed and sort out the tree of life to know that life evolves.

Using "just a theory" isnt misleading. You mislead yourself by assuming i am against the theory. I am not, but it has not fully proven.

NintendoNite

It is misleading since it misuses a word which has two very different definitions. You don't seem to understand the difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

No one cares if you're for or against, they're just trying to explain that you're referring to an incorrect definition of the word theory.

[QUOTE="NintendoNite"]

Using "just a theory" isnt misleading. You mislead yourself by assuming i am against the theory. I am not, but it has not fully proven.

metroidfood

It is misleading since it misuses a word which has two very different definitions. You don't seem to understand the difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="NintendoNite"] im not saying we should dismiss it. All im saying is that it is not substantially backed up by evidence. Therefore, we may not use it until we fully understand it. As of now, we dont so we should not rely much on the big bang theoryNintendoNite

It has been proven, just like the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution and every other theory. There is boat loads of proof to support it. There will always be doubt, because like I said (and you conveniently ignored) there is no possible way to prove it as fact.

What's with these generalizations? Everyone seems to think atheists are a group, when they're just people who don't fill the gap of the unknown with god. Theories are just possible explanations to fill those gaps, but its not like every atheist has the same ideas about everything.

[QUOTE="metroidfood"]

[QUOTE="NintendoNite"]

Using "just a theory" isnt misleading. You mislead yourself by assuming i am against the theory. I am not, but it has not fully proven.

NintendoNite

It is misleading since it misuses a word which has two very different definitions. You don't seem to understand the difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

You know what? Nevermind, I'm outta here.

[QUOTE="NintendoNite"]

It is misleading since it misuses a word which has two very different definitions. You don't seem to understand the difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

No one cares if you're for or against, they're just trying to explain that you're referring to an incorrect definition of the word theory.

metroidfood

[QUOTE="NintendoNite"] Yes i know that. But unless we completely understand the universe, all the dark matter, and other phenomena, we cannot actually know for sure if the big bang is the truth or not. In other words, we should eliminate ALL forms of doubt before arriving at a conclusion. That is science.HoolaHoopMan

No we don't. Dark Matter is irrelevant to the evidence supporting the Big Bang. We don't need to know everything out there to see that the Universe started out in a singularity. The evidence is there. Just like how we don't need to know of every species that ever existed and sort out the tree of life to know that life evolves.

really? yes it did. Astronomers measured the distance to stars and globular clusters and arrived at the conclusion that they were at the center of the universe. Although the big bang theory has a lot of evidence, it does not have enough and we do not fully understand the universe. So the theory may be flawed. Ever taken a statistics course? Correlation does not lead to cause.NintendoNite

Yes, really. The Geo centric view of the Universe was never a scientifically accepted view of our Universe. Hell the first real astronomers were the first ones to realize this wasn't true.

The evidence is actually pretty extensive. The Redshift effect as first seen by Edwin Hubble, cosmic background radiation of the universe, the composition of the universe (matter), and galactic evolution/solar evolution. It's pretty extensive, and to this day it keeps packing on the evidence in favor of it.

Trust me I've taken more than a statistic's course, I'm guessing you haven't even taken more than a semester astronomy course at college.

at the end of the day, however, no one knows for sure, and knowing won't really accomplish anything except give one side bragging rights. I am ok with that

mrbojangles25

Yes i know that. But unless we completely understand the universe, all the dark matter, and other phenomena, we cannot actually know for sure if the big bang is the truth or not. In other words, we should eliminate ALL forms of doubt before arriving at a conclusion. That is science.NintendoNite

[QUOTE="NintendoNite"]

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]Then say that. Don't use misleading phrases such as 'just a theory'. It will always be a theory, no matter how much evidence there is for it.redstorm72

It has been proven, just like the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution and every other theory. There is boat loads of proof to support it. There will always be doubt, because like I said (and you conveniently ignored) there is no possible way to prove it as fact.

To my understanding when some people support that they mean the universe in whatever form it may have existed throughout time, either it was as we know it now, or in a form of a singularity or something else, with I guess a common characteristic being its existence being based on what it is based on now: matter and energy.

But anyway that is as far as I know strictly. I dont have any specialised knowledge on the subject.

how do you know dark matter is irrelevant? How do we know its not playing tricks on us? How do you know it only seems the universe is expanding because the mass of the dark matter influences the photons and light's wavelengths? Do you know how astronomers arrive at the conclusion that the universe is expanding? They measure wavelengths of radiation in the universe. If it has a redshift, meaning the wavelengths is getting weaker (because it is moving away from us, ) , the universe seems to expand. Dark matter may be able to affect light because distort images we see in the universe and trick us into believing it is expanding. So as of right now, we fully dont understand the universe nor should we have confidence the big bang theoryNintendoNite

Really you should just stop. The Big Bang theory was conceived far before the notion of Dark matter was even postulated.

And what you're talking about with Dark Matter is gravitational lensing, which is merely evidence to support the existence of Dark Matter. Seriously just stop, Dark Matter isn't needed to see that the Universe is expanding out from a single point.

At the end of the day either something appeared out of nothing, or God did it. Both views are similarly stupid depending on which camp you are in.

Espada12

really? yes it did. Astronomers measured the distance to stars and globular clusters and arrived at the conclusion that they were at the center of the universe. Although the big bang theory has a lot of evidence, it does not have enough and we do not fully understand the universe. So the theory may be flawed. Ever taken a statistics course? Correlation does not lead to cause.NintendoNite

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="NintendoNite"] Using "just a theory" isnt misleading. You mislead yourself by assuming i am against the theory. I am not, but it has not fully proven.

NintendoNite

It has been proven, just like the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution and every other theory. There is boat loads of proof to support it. There will always be doubt, because like I said (and you conveniently ignored) there is no possible way to prove it as fact.

Whatever grammar Nazi, replace "proof" with "evidence". It doesn't change the point I was getting across, which you have once again, conveniently ignored.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] And that notion had no scientific backing what soever, The Big Bang theory has heaps. Ask any cosmologist. thegerg

Yes, it did. Ancient peoples observed a generally consistent movement of objects across the sky. They were able to discern that such a regular pattern must be the result of the revolution and orbiting of celestial bodies and they were actually correct in that assumption, but incorrect with which bodies orbit what. Scientific theory is simply a collection of ideas and concepts which are used to describe observable phenomena. Simply because the earliest scientific theories concerning the structure of the universe were incorrect does not mean that they did not exist.

[QUOTE="NintendoNite"]Yes i know that. But unless we completely understand the universe, all the dark matter, and other phenomena, we cannot actually know for sure if the big bang is the truth or not. In other words, we should eliminate ALL forms of doubt before arriving at a conclusion. That is science.xaos

Always...existed? Sorry, personally, I'd MUCH rather say that the Big Bang created everything before I even begin to follow the format "Everything was there by default, yo" [QUOTE="Espada12"]

At the end of the day either something appeared out of nothing, or God did it. Both views are similarly stupid depending on which camp you are in.

Symphonycometh

Religious view of the unknown= God

Atheist view of the unknown= variable X (in some people's cases its filled with a theory)

People need to stop making generalizations about atheists.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="NintendoNite"]Yes i know that. But unless we completely understand the universe, all the dark matter, and other phenomena, we cannot actually know for sure if the big bang is the truth or not. In other words, we should eliminate ALL forms of doubt before arriving at a conclusion. That is science.NintendoNite

[QUOTE="NintendoNite"][QUOTE="redstorm72"]

It has been proven, just like the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution and every other theory. There is boat loads of proof to support it. There will always be doubt, because like I said (and you conveniently ignored) there is no possible way to prove it as fact.

redstorm72

Whatever grammar Nazi, replace "proof" with "evidence". It doesn't change the point I was getting across, which you have once again, conveniently ignored.

NintendoNite, I'm going to throw you a bone. The Big Bang Theory has nothing whatsoever to say on cosmogenesis. It is strictly a description of the early, post-singularity evolution of the universe.xaos

Is that singularity also considered to be the universe or is "universe" used for the current state of whatever exists and we know of?

I mean this might be purely semantical (ololol semantics argument) but what do we call "the universe"?

[QUOTE="xaos"]NintendoNite, I'm going to throw you a bone. The Big Bang Theory has nothing whatsoever to say on cosmogenesis. It is strictly a description of the early, post-singularity evolution of the universe.Teenaged

Is that singularity also considered to be the universe or is "universe" used for the current state of whatever exists and we know of?

I mean this might be purely semantical (ololol semantics argument) but what do we call "the universe"?

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"]Always...existed? Sorry, personally, I'd MUCH rather say that the Big Bang created everything before I even begin to follow the format "Everything was there by default, yo" [QUOTE="Espada12"]

At the end of the day either something appeared out of nothing, or God did it. Both views are similarly stupid depending on which camp you are in.

NVIDIATI

Religious view of the unknown= God

Atheist view of the unknown= variable X (in some people's cases its filled with a theory)

People need to stop making generalizations about atheists.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="xaos"]NintendoNite, I'm going to throw you a bone. The Big Bang Theory has nothing whatsoever to say on cosmogenesis. It is strictly a description of the early, post-singularity evolution of the universe.xaos

Is that singularity also considered to be the universe or is "universe" used for the current state of whatever exists and we know of?

I mean this might be purely semantical (ololol semantics argument) but what do we call "the universe"?

I mean his question presupposes that the universe is what followed the Big Bang and what was before it was something... else.

Right? (I really dont know btw. :P)

What's with these generalizations? Everyone seems to think atheists are a group, when they're just people who don't fill the gap of the unknown with god. Theories are just possible explanations to fill those gaps, but its not like every atheist has the same ideas about everything.

NVIDIATI

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]That was merely an observation on their part, it wasn't scientific in any sense. How did they test that model? thegerg

They were able to create models of the known universe which were based off of their hypotheses and past observations. With these models they could predict the movements of stars and plantes. When the actual movements of stars and plantes were as predicted those making the predictions were able to assume that their theories of the structure of the universe were, indeed, inline with their modeled universe.

no one can prove anything yet and we'll be dead before they do, so no point arguing about it. :)

[QUOTE="dragonmaster64"]this shows a begining which disproves the athiestic view of the the universe always existing.BiancaDK

How is that an "atheistic view"?

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"]

[QUOTE="dragonmaster64"]this shows a begining which disproves the athiestic view of the the universe always existing.tocool340

How is that an "atheistic view"?

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] I guess I will concede to that. I do however disagree with the notion of people saying "yeah and at one point people thought the Earth was the center of the universe". We have the instruments to measure these things now, and over the last 50 years it's stood the test of time and garnered more evidence to back it up substantially. thegerg

How can you disagree with that notion? It's fact. People did once believe that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that belief was supported by contemporary science. The point is simply this: Simply because something is "generally accepted" by science does not mean that it is truth and that other theories should be dismissed or ignored.

2 the people tlking about the big bang, it is just a theory that why it isnt called the FACT of big bang ;)Be4tsnRhym3s