Science

Move Over Big Bang, Now Some Scientists Suggest a ‘Big Chill’ Created Universe

Australian Researchers Suggest Quantum Graphity as an Alternative to the Big Bang Theory

(Image: Shutterstock.com)

Australian scientists are challenging one of the most well-known and widely held theories among physicists about how the universe as we know it formed, saying the Big Bang may have been more like a “Big Chill.”

Theoretical physicists at the University of Melbourne and RMIT University are studying cracks in crystals and ice to support this new theory. ABC News out of Australia explains that the researchers believe that the universe could have arisen from the interaction of tiny particles that cannot be directly observed, but they think there is an indirect way to identify them using the theory of Quantum Graphity.

Here’s more from lead researcher Jason Quach according to the study press release (via Science Daily):

“Ancient Greek philosophers wondered what matter was made of: was it made of a continuous substance or was it made of individual atoms?” he said. “With very powerful microscopes, we now know that matter is made of atoms.”

“Thousands of years later, Albert Einstein assumed that space and time were continuous and flowed smoothly, but we now believe that this assumption may not be valid at very small scales.

“A new theory, known as Quantum Graphity, suggests that space may be made up of indivisible building blocks, like tiny atoms. These indivisible blocks can be thought about as similar to pixels that make up an image on a screen. The challenge has been that these building blocks of space are very small, and so impossible to see directly.”

But Quach and his colleagues believe the particles can be detected indirectly. As the universe cooled, Quach said, structures would form from crystallization into the “three spatial and one time dimension that we see today.” If this is the case, cracks would form as well.

“…similar to the way cracks are formed when water freezes into ice,” Quach said.

RMIT University associate professor Andrew Greentree elaborated on this point saying if this were the case, “light and other particles [bending] or [reflecting] off such defects” would make them visible.

According to the release, the team is calculating some of these effects and, if seen in experiments, “the question as to whether space is smooth or constructed out of tiny indivisible parts will be solved once and for all.”

Paul Wallace in an op-ed for Digital Journal has some thoughts on the theory though. He notes a problem with the theory as to “cooling” given that heat would have had to come from somewhere for a “big chill” to occur. He also writes that this theory supporting that the universe “condensed” is a problem given research that shows it is “now accelerating away from itself at incredible speeds.” Here’s more:

There’s a certain lack of continuity in the article, which starts with Quantum Graphity and cracks in the universe, which form the basis of the condensation theory and its proof, respectively.

[...]

Assuming matter and space evolved from quantum or pre-quantum materials and their properties, light can be bent and reflected by other phenomena, to start with. Are there any criteria which specifically identify a crack?

There’s nothing wrong with the idea of cracks as such- even coherent organisms like trees have cracks created by stresses. The other obvious questions are why there should be cracks, and cracks in what form, specifically?

It may be that the article doesn’t express the argument properly, but following the logic from no space-condensation and heat loss- cracks takes a bit of work.

Wallace notes that it’s gutsy of the physicists to pose a different model of thought compared to their peers. If nothing else, Wallace writes, they’re “asking all the right questions and stirring up a stagnant, unthinking and unquestioning pond in the process.”

Featured image via Shutterstock.com

Comments (186)

1 2 3
  • wouldubelieveit
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:18pm

    Bet there was a big bang, cause the evidence is out there. ABSOLUTELY nothing came light I would think it would cause a big something. But making something from nothing even God knows you CAN’T do that. It take something to make something. So figure out what he use. then you will see the answer

    Report Post »  
    • The_Jerk
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:54pm

      The Big Bang has the same problem. What went Bang?

      Report Post »  
    • stumpy68
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 3:03pm

      They should change the name there was no Bang in the absence of
      atmosphere its more likely the big ——– and if you call it the big breath
      you might even convince more Christians i believe GOD created everything
      im just not going to tell him how he must have done it and as to the matter of time im not certain
      how much it matters to a creator who created everything including time.

      Report Post » stumpy68  
    • Sirfoldallot
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 3:04pm

      oooppppssss , that idea didn’t stick, lets try another 1

      Report Post » Sirfoldallot  
    • THX-1138
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 3:15pm

      As with Quantum physics, normal thinking falls way short here. People are simply not familliar with near light speed effects, not even in your new Mustang GT. Our brains have to be convinced by the math. It still screws with me even though I’ve studied it since I was a teen.

      Nothing can expode, that is to say, you can have nothing and it can explode because nothing is really something. Kind of like not making a decision is a decision…

      (OK, Math majors, have mercy on me. I’m just a simple software guy.)

      Report Post » THX-1138  
    • lukerw
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 5:02pm

      The assumption is… the Source of Energy COULD NOT be from GOD… so, it must be found elsewhere!

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • Hollywood
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 5:35pm

      HUH?? The FIRST sentence in the Bible states the 5 requirements of science. TIME[In the beginning].GOD[force] Created[action] the Heavens[Space] and the Earth[Matter]. THINK about this:THE FIRST cause[God],a;ways was,is,will be. This may take some faith, but the alternative, is something from NOTHING. I KNOW something had to always exist. The Bible is the record given to us. Get the DVD: THE DANIEL PROJECT which shows detailed,factual ,future predictions which came to pass. More than half of 1800 Predictions have comes to pass,333 during the time of Christ on Earth. The rest are coming due SOON.
      Maranatha

      Report Post » Hollywood  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 6:28pm

      @ MAProg

      Your points are well noted, but you are under the delusion that G_d is a person. It would be a poor modifier, because physicality alone creates flaws in the theory of what is G_d. It is a verb, not a noun. It is the force of creation that must be present for things to exist. It is all things, yet not one single thing. Because if it was absolutely one thing, it would not be another.

      Not to mention that when you say “‘someone’ or some naturalistic process”, you are assuming that they are entirely different things. However, G_d would be natural if it was the force (like gravity) that allows matter to condense, attract and expand (much like matter de-accelerating for the speed of light). Does light not exist? Or, is it a barrier between existence. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

      Nor does one theory ultimately cancel another when it comes to what we comprehend as G_d. Sheer words would only create a poor descriptive statement for something that can only perceived in concept. It exists where math succeeds and fails. Please be open to possibility, otherwise you limit yourself and your potential.

      The only difference I see between those you poke at and you, is a simple denial of you to accept a possibility of something you can not prove. Then again, unicorns do not exist (at least that we know of on this Earth and what we have explored – there may be parallel universes according to science in which they do).

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • Gumbercules
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 8:15pm

      I think “The Big Chill Theory” sounds better than “The Big Bang Theory” – at least that is how I feel when I watch it on TV – BAZING!

      Report Post » Gumbercules  
    • Hobbs57
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 8:52pm

      Arrrgggg .. .. It makes my brain hurt every time I ponder upon this topic, and always brings me back to God. The flesh can never possibly understand creation in the sense of eternity. It is just to much to fathom, tryin to consider there is no time before God …. and then simultaneously reflecting upon my own existence … how it all came to be, it is just to much. Go ahead, explain all the mechanisms and workings, but how did they come to be ?? Amazingly, most folks never even try to think that deep, which, for the purpose of their current existence is relevant.

      Report Post » Hobbs57  
    • SgtB
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 11:15pm

      On a serious note, at least his idea doesn’t have the glaring problem associated with the “big bang” theory. That problem being that it assigns a fixed value of matter in the entire infinite universe. If there were a big bang, and I believe there could have very well been, it did not encompass all of everything. The universe is infinite and unending. To think that matter exists only at a point that we see as a vast area, but what is really the eye of a needle compared to all of existence is simply ludicrous. But then again, science doesn’t have to be correct, it only has to let you make a good enough guess to get by.

      Report Post » SgtB  
  • WhatsYerProblem
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:14pm

    So a scientist who believes in the Big Bang as far as the beginning of time has a problem with this theory because “The heat has to come from somewhere”…
    Any comment on where the mass of the universe came from before the big bang?
    sheesh.

    Report Post » WhatsYerProblem  
  • teddrunk
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:13pm

    ROFL, “science”, once again grasping at straws with another idiotic “theory”.

    Report Post »  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:32pm

      Yeah, Ted. After all, what has science ever given us? (note the sarcasm).

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:44pm

      Man made global warming?

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • The Jewish Avenger
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:51pm

      Obama on Science

      “You didn’t make that, someone else did.”

      Ok… guess who did it… come on…..
      Hint: (It sounds just like God)

      This is the only time Obama would be right…

      Report Post » The Jewish Avenger  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 3:08pm

      Avenger: “someone” or some naturalistic process. Don’t really see how quote-mining Obama’s statements on business pertains to cosmology.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • flipper1073
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 3:12pm

      Evolution, Man Made Global Warming, Big Bang
      All unproven Theories.
      Theories are a good thing that’s learning Begins.
      Propaganda on the other hand
      Stops the learning Process.
      Scientist‘s don’t know all the answers.
      They Just Know how to pose the questions so you
      think they have all the answers.
      But Thank GOD they ask the Questions,
      OK, did I Piss everyone off ?

      Report Post » flipper1073  
    • DWilliams08
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 3:29pm

      All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

      Report Post » DWilliams08  
    • atrain
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 4:05pm

      @Jewish Avenger – Regarding Earth’s creation Obama told God, You didn’t build that!

      Report Post »  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 6:31pm

      @ MAProg

      ummm… Your points are well noted, but you are under the delusion that G_d is a person. It would be a poor modifier, because physicality alone creates flaws in the theory of what is G_d. It is a verb, not a noun. It is the force of creation that must be present for things to exist. It is all things, yet not one single thing. Because if it was absolutely one thing, it would not be another.

      Not to mention that when you say “‘someone’ or some naturalistic process”, you are assuming that they are entirely different things. However, G_d would be natural if it was the force (like gravity) that allows matter to condense, attract and expand (much like matter de-accelerating for the speed of light). Does light not exist? Or, is it a barrier between existence. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

      Nor does one theory ultimately cancel another when it comes to what we comprehend as G_d. Sheer words would only create a poor descriptive statement for something that can only perceived in concept. It exists where math succeeds and fails. Please be open to possibility, otherwise you limit yourself and your potential.

      The only difference I see between those you poke at and you, is a simple denial of you to accept a possibility of something you can not prove. Then again, unicorns do not exist (at least that we know of on this Earth and what we have explored – there may be parallel universes according to science in which they do).

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 8:17pm

      @Johnny: thanks for the well stated reply. I would say that your interpretation of God is an interesting one, but it’s still subjective. My statement of “someone” was in response to an earlier post, so I was working off of their statement. As to God being a driving force a la gravity: I’m perfectly willing to accept the possibility. I, however, hold God to the same emperical requirements as observations of gravity. I‘m not mocking you because I know you’re being sincere in this discussion, and I don’t think your position is silly. I’ve always been open to the idea of God. Where I draw the line is that I can’t accept something on faith alone, and unless there is direct evidence to God’s existence (that cannot be explained otherwise), I will remain in the atheist camp. It certainly doesn‘t mean I’m not looking, though.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 8:35pm

      @ MAPROG….Thank you for your sincere and thoughtful replies. If I may be so bold as to jump in on this thread. I would love to offer up evidence, however, this media is a difficult one to cover large areas if information. I am concerned about what you stated, “and unless there is direct evidence to God’s existence (that cannot be explained otherwise),” Anything can have alternate explanations, the question is which one is the best and most logical and reasonable conclusion given the body of evidence, which btw is the same for everyone. The difference is how that evidence is explained. Since no one was present when the universe came into being all of our conclusions must be arrived at by deductive and inductive reasoning. I would simply start by stating their are 3 scholarly rules for examining any literary works of antiquity as to authenticity and credibility. These being bibliographical, external, & internal evidence. Most honest scholars will agree that the bibles bibliographical evidence is mountainous and typically accepted as conclusive. If you agree we can move to the other areas of evidence and build a quick case for the credibility of the bible and therefore the credibility of its creation account. If you wish to debate the bibliographical evidence for the authenticity of the bible we possess today then please make your case. Thank you ahead for your time…..

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 9:11pm

      @Sleazy, what a web you weave, my friend. It‘s clear that you’re trying to draw me into an argument on your terms. I will say that bibliographical evidence for a work do not lend credibility to any claims that the work makes. Sorry, you can cite the Dead Sea Scrolls all you want. It doesn’t mean that anything they say it factual.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 9:43pm

      @ MAPROG….I couldn’t agree more my friend. Bibliographical evidence does not seek to even answer the question of credibility, that is the job of external and internal evidence. Bibliographical is the logical starting place because it seeks to address the issue of authenticity. If that is not present then internal and external evidence is a moot point. I assure you have no hiddne agenda or tactic. If we possess truth we should never shrink from arguing that truth against all questions and inquiries………Now if you do agree that the bibliographical evidence is strong enough to support the authenticity then we may build a case of credibility based on external and internal evidence. Thank you…

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 10:42pm

      @Sleazy: Not sure if it’s the site or (more likely) my comp, but I’m having a hard time posting responses. I’ll do my best.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 10:49pm

      Sleazy: Since we’re conversing across half a dozen seperate threads, I’ll just focus on this one. In no way am I trying to divert from any other topic you’ve brought up, so please, feel free to mention them here if you care to. Furthermore, I appreciate the discussion, and if I’ve not been entirely civil at moments, please accept my apology for those.

      As for your statements about the bibliographical evidence for the Bible, sure, I’ll take the bait. Yes, bibliographically speaking, the Bible has a strong case. As we’ve

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 10:59pm

      Sleazy: since we’re conversing over half a dozen seperate threads, I’m going to focus on this on. Feel free to bring up topics you brought up elsewhere, as I’m not trying to divert from them. I’ll also go ahead and offer an apology if I have been less than civil elsewhere. I appreciate the spirited discussion. I’ll attempt to keep up my end, in spite of my technological issues.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 11:26pm

      @ MAPROG…..I’m having trouble posting as well…You have no need for apology at all friend. You have been very courteous and civil thorughout. If we move to external evidence then I would point to numerous archeological confirmations of the OT (since this contains the creation account) that once were mocked and have, in modern times been confirmed. For example, the cities of the plains mentioned in genesis discovered on the Ebla tablets in Northern Syria, to Jericho found as described in Joshua, to Sodom and Gomorrah containing sulfur unlike has been found anywhere else in the world, to hebrew potery being discovered in Egypt from the time of the exodus. These are just a beginning and I am sure you have counterpoints and questions so I will stop here and let you reply. Thank you….

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 22, 2012 at 9:58am

      @ MAPROG…Are you a programmer in Massachusetts?

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
  • qpwillie
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:04pm

    “The big chill” sounds like something you might find on the menu at Dairy Queen. Maybe Dairy Queen created the universe as a commercial venture. ??

    Report Post » qpwillie  
  • TESLA
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:42pm

    @ VOX_POPULI

    You sound like someone who is familiar with Occam’s Razor, which states that with all things being equal, the simplest answer tends to be the right one. Well, when one looks at the laws that are in the Universe, the simplest answer is that the laws must have been made by a Lawmaker. Any law that you look at originated in a mind. Laws cannot exist without a mind thinking them up. To say otherwise is a scientific obsurdity. In this sense, Occam’s Razor lends to the idea of there being a Creator. And if you are to say the laws and the Universe have always been here, then you are saying that you believe in some THING eternal. Isn’t that the same as believing in some ONE eternal? Just some food for thought to ponder.

    Report Post »  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:07pm

      Two things. Occam’s Razor relies on “all things being equal.” This is not necessarily the case. Secondly, you’re equivocating the term “law” in the scientific sence with that of the judicial sense.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • DWilliams08
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 3:34pm

      Though we use the term ‘laws’, we are not referring to laws, we are talking about facts. Gravity is not a law made by a lawmaker, gravity is a fact. Laws can be ignored or negated, facts cannot. Some people get away with murder. Try getting away with jumping out of an airplane sans chute.

      Report Post » DWilliams08  
    • flipper1073
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 4:00pm

      One other thing D Williams
      Theories are neither Law nor Fact.

      Report Post » flipper1073  
    • Predatee
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 6:09pm

      Occam’s Razor favors the solution that introduces the fewest new assumptions. If a mind is open to the assumption that the universe ‘could’ be a creation Occam’s Razor says that it probably is. If a mind is opposed to that possibility it will not be persuaded. If a creator does exist, he exists outside of time and space as we know it. Science is fixated on the notion that causation must be a natural, orderly process, though they have zero answers about the nature or order of what is outside of space and time.

      Here’s a great question for scientists: Is it possible that some day we may be able to spawn a separate time/space inside of some sort of containment field? Scientists generally are not opposed to the concept of playing god, as long as they can maintain that all understanding is theirs, and theirs alone.

      Report Post » Predatee  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 8:22pm

      @Flipper: false. Theories are based on facts. The very concept of what a scientific theory is to tie together emperical evidence.

      @Pre: You and I simply define what an assumption is differently. I would say that positing an all-knowling, all-powerful deity where there is no conclusive evidence for such is a HUGE assumption. You’re right, science sticks with what can be measured emprically; therefore, assumptions from science are backed up by objective evidence. The same cannot be said for God. If anything, assming everything was created by a deity is a grandest of assumptions. Occam‘s Razor doesn’t apply.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 8:41pm

      @ MAPROG…Theories are not based on facts necessarily, they are explanations that attempt to explain observations by using collected evidence. Often theories rely upon other theories to arrive at collective explanations and these foundational theories can be false in their assertions and therefore the more elaborate theories that rest on these are based on error as well. They may or may not be based on facts hence good and bad, strong and weak theories. Also, theories change as the evidence changes or increases and falsehoods old theories were based upon are illuminated. Thank you…

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 8:46pm

      @ MAPROG….Furthermore I would argue quite emphatically that the evidence for God is most defintiely conclusive. As a matter of fact the evidence is quite overwhelming, however, I have found (being an atheist at one time myself) that no amount of evidence is enough for many. Most people have made up there mind in a prejudice way prior to examination and no matter what reasonable evidence is presented they will seek to discredit it or disregard it even if it remains viable.

      There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is condemnation before investigation………..

      Herbert Spencer
      Thank you…..

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
  • elosogrande
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:35pm

    We start with nothing. Nothing freezes and crystalizes and causes universe to form.

    More or less the same theoryas the big bang. Nothing exploded and created the universe…oh! Wait! It was an atom of hydrogen that came from who knows where and exploded, causing the universe to form.

    I think they all have to go back to the lab and talk this through, starting at the begining…when there was NOTHING. Tell us what happened – starting with NOTHING! If you can’t explain it from their, go back to B.S.ing us on global warming, or cooling, or climate change, or something.

    Report Post »  
  • socialism.rocks
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:31pm

    they are both wrong big bang big freeze

    we live in a electric universe
    tesla was right

    Report Post » socialism.rocks  
  • bigpew
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:30pm

    Theoretical physicists already have it right. String theory or “M” theory. Matter or the universe is cause by vibrations. The only thing they miss is, the vibrations are Gods spoken word. Thats all we are God spoken word.

    Report Post »  
    • Copo
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:57pm

      I’ve never believed in string theory, and I find a lot of ideas of theoretical physicists such as Bohr (such as that a particle doesn‘t have a definite spin until we check it and that entangled particles don’t have opposite spins until we check one of them. I believe that a particle always has a definite spin and we just don’t know it until we check it, like a marble in a bag.) to be ridiculous.

      Report Post » Copo  
    • TADTAD
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 4:03pm

      So the Beach Boys were right; Good Vibrations…..

      Report Post » TADTAD  
  • thibx
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:21pm

    lets see how will they make money saying we are going to freeze to death like they did on we are setting the earth on fire. i say pee on the fire or ice. either way it will make a hole.

    Report Post »  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:36pm

      Please, please don’t tell me you think these scientists think they have discovered “global cooling.” Their hypothesis concerns the entire universe, not just our planet, and the process in question is ANALOGOUS to cooling, in that it involves expansion and “cracking” of space somewhat as the formation of ice from liquid water involves expansion and cracking.

      Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
    • hidden_lion
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 3:12pm

      Drako-
      Why aren’t the scientists warning of Universe warming? Maybe the sun is going to blow up soon. All theory, no realty.

      Report Post » hidden_lion  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 5:54pm

      @Hidden-Lion: The scientists aren‘t warning of universe warming because the universe isn’t warming, it’s cooling.

      Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
  • OneTermPresident
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:18pm

    Science goes around the bend… AGAIN. Big Bang.. Big Chill… and when the dust or ice settled we had a perfect solar system orbiting around a perfect Sun and just one of the planets is a perfect blue marble… You betcha.

    Report Post » OneTermPresident  
    • vox_populi
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:01pm

      Perfect solar system? Perfect sun? Why do you define them as “perfect”?

      Report Post » vox_populi  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:11pm

      Yeah, nice subjective term there Pres. Considering our sun is a rather common type of star, and considering that there are quintillions of stars, it seems that there are some decent odds in our favor. Secondly, I’m not sure how one would qualify our solar system as perfect? Is it the arrangement of the planets? Is it the shooting gallery of space debris which poses a potentiall existential crisis to the Earth?

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • FREEDOMoverFEAR
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 4:58pm

      Nope God made the universe. and God was made by….

      Report Post » FREEDOMoverFEAR  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 8:55pm

      @ FREEDOM….The problem isn’t in the answer it was in the illogical question. By definition God has no beginning and has no creator for he is self-sustained and eternal. Therefore, the question is an illogical one because it is a non sequitur. There must be an uncaused cause unless you spiral down the road of infinite causal regression which is an impossibility. Therefore, ALL men must rest on some type of uncaused cause. That is why secular scientists desperately lQQk for an explanation of why everything exists from a natural explanation out of nothing (ex nihlo) because they understand the issue and the difficulties it presents for the atheist. God is by far the most logical explanation for the existence of the universe and there IS much evidence to support this conclusion. Thank you…..

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • JLinc
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 5:57pm

      @Hippo
      “God is by far the most logical explanation for the existence of the universe and there IS much evidence to support this conclusion.”

      Give me a single piece of evidence that supports the idea that God is “by far,” the most logical explanation for the existence of the universe. Notice the word “supports,” here. If you can give me one piece of positive evidence I will bow to your wisdom. This means facts that deal directly with your assertion. Notice that scientists who support the idea of the Big Bang say “I think this is what happened and here are the reasons why.“ They DO NOT say ”I think this is what happened because I think God couldn’t have done it.” Try to make your case WITHOUT pointing out gaps in scientific understanding. “The big bang couldn’t have happened because, ‘How does nothing explode?’” is a valid question, but it is NOT proof that “therefore, God must have done it.” So one piece of evidence Hippo, a single shred will do it. I bet you can’t…

      Report Post »  
    • DLV
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 6:29pm

      Jlinc- I bet he can. He is really good at debating and has shut down plenty of atheists in the past. Generally, atheists turned christians (which he has said he was a former atheist) tend to be the strongest christians because most have a massive revelation to turn away from their lifestyle.

      Report Post » DLV  
  • v15
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:13pm

    Yes, the cat’s out of the bag. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Big Bang…..all fake. The “big chill” is our Messiah, Barack Obama. That’s why his campaign ads give people “the chills”; We’re just insects compared to him.

    Report Post » v15  
  • The-Monk
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:11pm

    I have a theory and I still think it answers everything completely. I’ve discussed it with leading scientists and spiritual leaders around the world including years of debate with a nuclear physicist who not only hates all religions passionately but, does not believe in any God. He still thinks my theory is best. I’ve tried to post it here but, it gets blocked. Too controversial I guess but, I like it and it works for me.

    Report Post » The-Monk  
    • OLDPAINT
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:32pm

      We horses are meant to be ridden, otherwise we get cold. Scientists won’t listen to Great Spirit. What a shame.

      Report Post » OLDPAINT  
    • PATTY HENRY
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:46pm

      Darwin’s theory was never proven. People think it was, but it was not. When we think that almost everything we use, see, live-in etc. was designed. Logic should tell us that something “exploding”
      doesn’t just suddenly stop exploding and never explodes again. Then: whatever “stopped exploding” became a million different ‘living beings’. Evolution can’t explain anything. The reason? It’s totally illogical. Men have spent billions of dollars and thousands of years trying to prove that we somehow created ourselves !! They feel if they can but prove evolution, they can disprove God.

      Most of them have never bothered to get on their knees and simply ask God if He is real, instead they’ve allowed some disappointment(s) and immature ability to figure things out about God to make them try to prove the non-existence of GOD.
      We, people, can use other ways to decide: We know: if there is EVIL…. there has to be GOOD so knowing that there is in fact GOOD and EVIL…where did that come from? We don‘t need either to ’reproduce’. Where does our Conscience come from? We don’t need that either to procreate. YET there is good, there is evil, there is conscience. I believe that GOD is a Creative Being, way above
      our Intelligence capacity now on Earth (knowing that we use just a tiny bit of our brains) and Life on Earth is merely to introduce us to GOD, give us a choice to come to him and build our character. The rest of the information comes “next”.

      Report Post » PATTY HENRY  
    • Leopold
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:03pm

      @Monk

      I like it and it works for me…………….. Excellent.

      I believe the story of creation by a powerful and loving God. I have discussed these things with Him numerous times and every time I go to His word He confirms my theory as being the absolute truth. I like it VERY MUCH and it works for me.

      It is so easy now to defend a theory? All we have to say: it works for me.

      And since I am the only authority (after God, of course) on things that work for me, my theory is correct.

      This is then how we can accept every theory as EQUAL. Thank you.

      Report Post »  
    • Cesium
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:15pm

      @patty Henry You are not a scientist so your use of the word proof is dismissed by them.. Nothing is “proved” in science. No one has ever proved the earth revolves around the son. The Darwinian hypothesis for evolution has been supported extensively with certain facts that support and develop the model of evolution since Darwin’s time. The mechanisms that support evolutionary theory are full of facts! What we do not have a strong theoretical model of is “Origin of Life” You had better get used to the theory of evolution just like you are used to “germ theory” which has never been proved but are you going to refrain from use anti-biotics when you have an infection?

      Report Post »  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:20pm

      @Patty: two things. First, it wasn’t an explosion, but a rapid expansion of space-time. We can still observe its effects today via the dopplar shift of distant celestial objects. Well, there’s that along with the cosmic background radiation that was predicted by the theory, among others. The point is that it wasn’t an explosion.

      Secondly, cosmology and evolutionary biology are completely different phenomenon, as is abiogenesis. The only way cosmology even touches biology is by making the elements for life possible via stellar fusion.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • Leopold
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:42pm

      @Patty Henry
      This is kind of what many people believe.
      And let there be no doubt, “a believe” is all they have.

      Before there was anything there was nothing.
      Then it (nothing) exploded or chilled.
      After that “it” somehow organized itself into planets and stars.
      The genius, that calls itself evolution then had an idea.
      It arranged the planets and stars in an extraordinary way.
      Thank God, oops! I mean thank evolution, that it thought about putting a moon and a sun and all the other heavenly bodies in just the right position to make life on earth possible.
      The miracle of evolution was that somehow a body of water managed to collect itself in different places. That gave evolution more choice from which to start life.
      It stirred the waters of the deep and tried and tried to bring forth LIFE.
      And then – somehow it succeeded. There was a cell!
      Evolution somehow made sure there was enough light and air for this cell to develop.
      This cell somehow divided itself into all kinds of different cells.
      The cell changed itself over and over again until it was able to somehow crawl out of the water.
      As it continued to develop it left some other cells behind which then somehow turned into plants.
      From a blade of grass to a rose. From one original cell. Amazing!

      Report Post »  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:51pm

      @Leopold: and that’s what we call a “straw man.” I would try to explain the actual science to you, but it’s not my job to do your research for you. Try reading.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • Leopold
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:54pm

      @Patty Henry
      I am sure one day evolution will explain all this. After all the fact that we exist is proof of that it happened.

      Why oh why are we Christians so stubborn and don’t think that all this is perfectly reasonable.
      I thank my heavenly Father that he gave me common sense to see the stupidity of evolution.

      It is ABSOLUTELY stunning that atheists, especially those who claim to be so educated, believe this nonsense.

      Now, to deflect from this explanation they probably say this is our (Christians) explanation of what atheists believe. And of course, they are correct. Until they tell us something a little bit more sensical this is all we have to judge their believe system by.
      This is the difference between Christians and Atheists. If scientists have absolute proof that God used evolution for creating everything, we will be much more open to that concept then they are to creation right now.
      Another difference between Christians and Atheists, we have an open mind. To understand the concept of a deity one has to widen ones mind. They are much more militant and arrogant in their outlook.
      We ask questions all the time, and try to find answers. Admittibly, we ask God, but we also seek answers from history, science and other sources. Do they? Ever?
      And guess what, He answers.
      I have hope for you, since you are a conservative, your chance of encountering God is pretty good.

      Report Post »  
    • Leopold
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:54pm

      @Patty
      Now through this process other cells were left behind to become bushes and trees. From one original cell. Amazing!
      We are not exactly sure when this split between bushes and trees happened. But the evidence that it did is all around us.
      Other cells turned into fish, dinosaurs, horses, elephants, mice, birds, fleas, giraffes, dogs, apes, etc. etc.
      And then, I can hardly contain my joy, man and woman came to be. Yep, it did that. All from one original cell. Amazing!
      Now we don’t know exactly how many generations of apes and monkeys were deformed, and then later humans, failed to survive.
      When did evolution figure it out that two legs of the same length and two arms are better then one short leg without a foot.
      How many times did evolution fail to get the eye, or the stomach right.
      Never mind this thing called feelings.
      How many people must have bled to death when injured, because the function that stops bleeding today, was not well developed.
      How many died before the body had the ability to built anti-bodies to certain things.
      Can you even begin to appreciate the time it took for one man and one woman to be able to produce a child?
      I mean really, it is genius.
      Over time the peni$ grew long enough to reach into the woman’s vlgina, deep enough, shoot the semen to mingle with her eggs.
      Only evolution knows how the eggs came to be. All from one original cell. Amazing. What an incredible coincidence.
      Well, There you have it, evolution: The survival of the

      Report Post »  
    • Leopold
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 3:02pm

      Now through this process other cells were left behind to become bushes and trees. From one original cell. Amazing!
      We are not exactly sure when this split between bushes and trees happened. But the evidence that it did is all around us.
      Other cells turned into fish, dinosaurs, horses, elephants, mice, birds, fleas, giraffes, dogs, apes, etc. etc.
      And then, – I can hardly contain my joy, – man and woman came to be. Yep, it did that. All from one original cell. Amazing!
      Now we don’t know exactly how many generations of apes and monkeys were deformed, and then later humans, failed to survive.
      When did evolution figure it out that two legs of the same length and two arms are better then one short leg without a foot.
      How many times did evolution fail to get the eye, or the stomach right.
      Never mind this thing called feelings.
      How many people must have bled to death when injured, because the function that stops bleeding today, was not well developed.
      How many died before the body had the ability to built anti-bodies to certain things.
      Can you even begin to appreciate the time it took for one man and one woman to be able to produce a child?
      I mean really, it is genius.
      Over time the peni$ grew long enough to reach into the woman’s vlgina, deep enough, shoot the semen to mingle with her eggs.
      Only evolution knows how the eggs came to be. All from one original cell. Amazing. What an incredible coincidence.
      Well, There you have it, evolution: The survival of the

      Report Post »  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 3:06pm

      Leopold: first you’re making a grand assumption that most scientists are athiests. While the prevalence of athiesm is higher in scientific circles, they are still a minority amongst their peers. Secondly, most people who believe in evolutionary biology are theists. Even if they invoke some unprovable “intelligent design” they accept the basic premise that organisms change and adapt.

      Second, cosmology and biology are two seperate domains. Evolution (in the biological sense) has nothing to do with big bang cosmology. That being said, there is evidence to support both of these theories. If you choose to willfully ignore said evidence, or simply be incredulous, then it’s not on me or anyone else to do the legwork for you. It’s ironic that you claim that Christians, or at least those like you, have an open mind. The very fact that you adhere to a specific faith and beieve others will burn for eternity for not believing as you do, implies that your mind isn’t open. At least in science, scrutiny is welcome, nay, part of the very mechanism of the scientific method.

      Last, I’m not a conservative. My icon is Thomas Paine. He wasn‘t a conservative by today’s standards either.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • Leopold
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 3:24pm

      @Patty

      I am sure one day evolution will explain all this. After all, the fact that we exist is proof of that it happened.

      Why oh why are we Christians so stubborn and don’t think that all this is perfectly reasonable.
      I thank my heavenly Father that he gave me common sense to see the stupidity of evolution.

      It is ABSOLUTELY stunning that atheists, especially those who claim to be so educated, believe this nonsense.

      Now, they probably say, this is our (Christians) explanation of what atheists believe. And of course, they are correct. Until they tell us something that actually makes some sense, this is all we have to judge their believe system by.
      This is the difference between Christians and Atheists. If scientists have absolute proof that God used evolution for creating everything, we will be much more open to that concept then they are to creation right now.
      Another difference between Christians and Atheists, we have an open mind. To understand the concept of a deity one has to widen ones mind and also have some humility. They are much more militant and arrogant in their outlook.
      We ask questions all the time. Admittedly, we ask God in His word, but we also seek answers from history, science and other sources. I doubt that they would consider the Word of God as a legitimate source.

      Report Post »  
    • Norm D. Plume
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 3:42pm

      As regards evolution:

      Why is it always an either/or?

      My vision of God is one of a scientist.

      I want stuff to turn out this way, so I set the elements in motion thusly. I make the conditions proper for life to evolve. I start a protozoan on Earth which, over a billion years, loads the atmosphere with oxygen. I crash a few dozen comets into the Earth to bring more water, and more organic stew. I see that life on Earth has gone outside the bounds of my desires, so I will prune the garden. Goodbye, dinosaurs.

      Report Post » Norm D. Plume  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 8:42pm

      @Leo – I see your tactic. Shut down dialogue by posting long winded testaments to your poor understanding of a subject:

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • totheRepublic14
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 9:30pm

      @ Maprog. I can look at the evidence for evolution, but if there is just as much evidence or more against it it can not be viewed as all explaining thing it is today. I think there is a big difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. micro evolution can be proved and it shows us that eventually things start to change in little ways (ie a raspberry in Noah’s time might not be the same as we taste today.) Macro evolution cannot be proved and is the assumption that everything came from a cell that evolved and made different spieces. Scientist today try to use micro evolution to prove ALL evolution but that cannot be done. If macro evolution were true why don’t we all look basically the same? sure we might all be mammals but what about insects, arachnids, reptiles, plants,fish. you would have to be insane to say that one little cell could change into all we know today.

      Report Post » totheRepublic14  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on August 22, 2012 at 12:20am

      Hi PATTY HENRY,
      “Darwin’s theory was never proven……etc…”

      Was that post meant for me? I never mentioned Darwin or the Bible. TIA

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on August 22, 2012 at 12:27am

      @Leopold
      “It is so easy now to defend a theory? All we have to say: it works for me.”

      Please read my post again. After discussing and debating my theory with “leading scientists and spiritual leaders around the world including years of debate with a nuclear physicist” no one has said my theory is bad or wrong.

      I really should find a way to post it here.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
  • blackyb
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:11pm

    Scientists are not too bright. They should look in the Holy Bible and they will see who created the world. It is too complex for them to have it broken down for them. They do not need it broken down. If God wanted them to know all of this he would have given them instructions. They are idiots who want peope to think just because they can juggle a few chemicals around and make some type of reaction they know something. Most of these people are fooling the world for they know not one iota more than the average person about what created the world. It is mostly a con to suck money out of tax payers.

    Report Post » blackyb  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:16pm

      Or why not pick up the Holy Koran, or any of the various creation stories of any culture around the world? They all claim to be the right one, after all. If you’re going to approach that topic objectively, you must give all creation stories equal weight, and by extention, all possible gods.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • Cesium
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:18pm

      @blackyB and you are in a position to judge the intellect of scientists? Where is your graduate degree in a science related field? Do you even have a bachelors in science? If you have none of those things you are a layman of science and you have no respectable opinion alleging that you have clarity while scientists are dim wits. what a fool

      Report Post »  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:35pm

      @Cesium: it’s just that same old anti-intellectualism that pervades this site. Clearly eight years of intensive training, and a career spent researching and mastering a topic can be trumped by someone else’s gut intuition.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • flipper1073
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 3:32pm

      @MA PROG & CESIUM
      Why don’t you two get a room an see if you can
      Evolve.
      An eight year Endoctrination Degree doesn’t always
      Prove (there’s that pesky word) You’re Smart.
      Just that you Brainwash Easily.

      Report Post » flipper1073  
    • Leopold
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 3:35pm

      @Cesium

      A degree has nothing to do with intelligence, open mindedness, tolerance, etc.

      A scientist has only studied how to confirm what already exists and how it works.

      That is true science. Everything else is conjecture. Period!!!

      Report Post »  
    • FREEDOMoverFEAR
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 5:15pm

      Scientist, doctors they‘re all stupid that’s why I pray when I‘m sick I don’t trust some pill a scientist made and I know I’m smarter than any doctor. Come to think of it a cut on my finger has become infected I better start praying…

      Report Post » FREEDOMoverFEAR  
    • oldguy77
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 5:17pm

      Look it up on your computer.The last two words Steve Jobs said,three times before he passed away. OH WOW!.

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 9:09pm

      @ MAPROG…I have 12 years of scientific training does that make me smarter than you (not meant to be argumentative or demeaning at all just wanted to demonstrate a point)? Training may or may not necessarliy increase the truthfulness of one’s worldview and therefore their conclusions about the scientific data. In medicine years ago, for instance, a lowly care giver suggested it might cut down on disease tranmission if doctors washed their hands between patinets. He was heavily ridiculed and mocked by the more highly educated medical community until he was proven right. Education does not necessarily reflect intellectual prowess or accuracy of conclusons. Thank you for your time, again not trying to be a smart bu##…….

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 9:35pm

      Hey Sleazy: we‘re going back and forth on a lot of threads so please excuse if I’m not timely in my responses. As for your 12 years of scientific training: yes, I would argue that you are more knowledgable than me in whatever field you study. This isn’t an absolute, of course, but if you have a Ph.D. in a field, as well as years of research experience, odds are you are more knowledgable about that field than laypeople. As for laypeople addins insight: your story is a powerful anecdote, but anecdotabl evidence does not prove that it’s the norm.

      Bearing this in mind, I wouldn’t claim that one is “smarter” than another on account of professional credentials. I’m sure a molecular physicist would likely have a better understanding of mircobiology than someone without formal scientific training, but it doesn’t mean they are an expert in one field because they are in another. My point is that, yes, the credentials DO mean something. If we’re talking cosmology, I’m going to trust a cosmologist over a layperson.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • Cesium
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 9:50pm

      @flipper Taking the bible as truth proves that you are brainwashed easily. The only brainwashing I have in my scientific training to be resistant to brainwashing. What is true is most american’s have faith in god… it is also true most flies like that taste of dung, but I will not be trying dung anytime soon just I will not be trying to believe in fairy tales as true.. both taste bad to me even if the majority likes to eat it.

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 9:57pm

      @ MAPROG…No worries friend its easy to get lost on threads and I will not hold anything against you I assure you. You are a very courteous poster and I really appreciate that in you. While I completely agree that anecdotal evidence may not necessarily reflect the norm it is important to demonstarte the error of universal assumptions. While I agree that studying a particular area should make you more knowledgable, it may not necessarily make your conclusions more accurate. Many give their whole life to scientific study only to have their theories proven wrong by others (they were knowledgable but not accurate). Also, many who have studied more than you or I hold opposing opinions about what the data on any given topic actually means. Therefore, my only point was that years of study can lend to credibility, however, it does not necessarily take into acocunt ones worldview which is how all eveidence ultimately ends up being interpretted. With regard to your cosmologist example, there are many gifted and highly educated men in this field that hold opposing views some hold cosmos ex nihlo and some hold to intelligent design. Who to believe now? Ultimately science can describe technically observations and obviously those who are well studied whould possess more knowledge, but since their interpretation of the evidence is presupposed by all on their worldview the relaity of conclusions do not necessarily reflect level of education. Thank you….

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • Cesium
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 10:05pm

      @leopold, So then you concede that Blacky is right on scientsits when he says ” They are idiots who want peope to think just because they can juggle a few chemicals around and make some type of reaction they know something. Most of these people are fooling the world for they know not one iota more than the average person about what created the world.” I’d say based on work like this, scientists at least have an “iota” more than the average person on clues to origins

      Directed evolution of an RNA enzyme
      AA Beaudry, GF Joyce
      + Author Affiliations

      Department of Chemistry, Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037.
      ABSTRACT

      An in vitro evolution procedure was used to obtain RNA enzymes with a particular catalytic function. A population of 10(13) variants of the Tetrahymena ribozyme, a group I ribozyme that catalyzes sequence-specific cleavage of RNA via a phosphoester transfer mechanism, was generated. This enzyme has a limited ability to cleave DNA under conditions of high temperature or high MgCl2 concentration, or both. A selection constraint was imposed on the population of ribozyme variants such that only those individuals that carried out DNA cleavage under physiologic conditions were amplified to produce “progeny” ribozymes. Mutations were introduced during amplification to maintain heterogeneity in the population. This process was repeated for ten successive generations, resulting in enhanced (100 times) DNA cleavage activity.

      Report Post »  
  • JohnLarson
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:04pm

    You lost 100% of The Blaze audience at Quantum Graphity….

    Actually, you lost them at “science”.

    Report Post »  
    • DimmuBorgir
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:30pm

      Hardy Har Har

      douche

      Report Post » DimmuBorgir  
    • Spyderco
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:41pm

      “Science is the tree of death.” William Blake

      Report Post » Spyderco  
    • gperky
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 3:35pm

      Maybe true but at least we aren’t following the science fiction that the lib-tards are spewing!

      Report Post » gperky  
    • Cesium
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 10:49pm

      @GPERKY and us conservative atheists aren’t following the science fiction that the bible-thumping tards are spewing either.

      Report Post »  
  • vox_populi
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 12:58pm

    Go science.

    Report Post » vox_populi  
    • 00100111
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:20pm

      More like “Go ”Lets throw this at the wall and see if it sticks!”".

      Report Post »  
    • IsThereADifference
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:24pm

      Yea go science! You‘re always wrong about EVERYTHING until you’re finally right about it only to later find out you were wrong again…

      Report Post » IsThereADifference  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:22pm

      @Difference: yes, scientists aren’t right about anything. You’re quality of life, and the computer you are using the display your ignorance are a testament to that.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • IsThereADifference
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 4:17pm

      MAProg

      Wow you really butchered that sentence… You need to spend a little more time learning how to write a grammatically correct sentence rather than pointing out my supposed ignorances.

      Scientific predictions and explanations always end up being changed in the future. Your precious scientists said the earth was suffering from global cooling in the 70′s. Now they say the earth is melting because I have the audacity to take a breath and exhale. Politicians call for scientists to falsify data for political power grabs and more control of the population.

      Science is never wrong it’s just refutable. Isn’t that conveinient. Science is never wrong until someone proves it wrong. Which brings us back to my first comment. We all need to sit back and wait for some other scientist to come along and prove the scientist before him/her wrong. My point is scientific hypothesis are always wrong. It just takes time for another hypothesis or experiment to come along and prove it so.

      The Big Bang. The Big Chill. More like the big guessing game.

      Report Post » IsThereADifference  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 8:40pm

      @Difference: it’s really painful to watch someone butcher the institution of scientific knowledge to completely. Secondly, thanks for the criticism of my grammar. That’s certainly not a weak argument.

      You say that no scientific hypothesis is ever correct: handedly false. Idea’s can be modified or, yes, even thrown out altogether, if evidence favors a new one, but that doesn’t mean that every hypothesis or theory is incorrect. If anything, adaptation and the ability to be scrutinized are a testament to the scientific method. Your criticism is absolutist and is laughable to anyone having any level of scientific understanding beyond grade school.

      Your whole rant about global cooling: I don’t recall a general concensus among climatologists that global cooling was actually happening. What I DO remember was an article about it in a popular magazine that was based on a SINGLE paper.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • RetiredAmericanNavyTaxpayer
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 9:16pm

      Sometimes “science” seems so right but turns out to be so wrong.

      For an amusing example research the substance “phlogistan”.

      Oops.

      Report Post » RetiredAmericanNavyTaxpayer  
    • RetiredAmericanNavyTaxpayer
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 9:18pm

      Oops, my bad.

      The correct spelling is “phlogiston”.

      Report Post » RetiredAmericanNavyTaxpayer  
  • Stelex
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 12:57pm

    42 is the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything.

    Report Post » Stelex  
    • flipper1073
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 3:56pm

      42 ? OK I’ll go with That
      makes as much sense as any of the crap the “Scientists”
      are saying.
      “Question with Boldness even the very existence of GOD”

      Report Post » flipper1073  
    • FREEDOMoverFEAR
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 5:18pm

      The meaning of life is to give life meaning.

      Report Post » FREEDOMoverFEAR  
  • momrules
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 12:56pm

    God had a thought and there it was. Easy, correct, and only answer.

    Report Post »  
    • vox_populi
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 12:59pm

      …and your evidence is?

      Report Post » vox_populi  
    • DimmuBorgir
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:07pm

      The voice of the people wants you to explain how God created the universe while at the same time his answer will be

      uh… science..

      Report Post » DimmuBorgir  
    • john vincent
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:29pm

      vox-
      the evidence is your inability to manufacture a finger from nothing.

      Report Post » john vincent  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:03pm

      @ POX…And your evidence for the beginning of the universe is? Inflation theory does not answer the question of how matter came into existence from nothing (Cosmic ex nihlo is not answered by quantum physics period, those who suggest it does knows nothing of what they claim and have probably only gathered their information by reading sources sympathetic to their presupposition). So essentially if you rely on modern scientific theory for cosmic ex nihlo as espoused by many your position rests on more faith and illogical reasoning than does MOM when she simply states that an eternal Creator outside of creation itself created the known universe. Thank you….

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:26pm

      No, Dimmu: he’d likely point out the evidence for the Big Bang Theory. It’s a bit more nuanced than that. As to Sleazy: Big Bang makes no claims about a universe from nothing. It simply explains what happened after the universe began to expand after the primordial state. As to where that origninal state came from: if you want to posit God, then please do. Be prepared to bring objective evidence to support your claim, however.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 5:16pm

      @ MAPROG…I would posit such a thing and I have plenty of evidence. Where would you like to start? BTW I know big bang does not address cosmic ex nihlo, but that is not what I was addressing nor is it what the other poster was asserting in their response. I was talking quantum theory and inflation theory both of which are so speculative and unfounded yet so many scientist uphold it as fact when indeed it requires such a leap of “blind faith” with little reasonable objective evidence support it. The question still remains what produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question that you, nor science can answer although some quite fanciful attmpts have been made. There is at present no experimental evidence for an asymmetry in the production of matter over antimatter in the universe. The fact that the asymmetrical universe exists, at this point in time, remains unexplained, and is a deep and compelling mystery to scientists. Yet so many scientist hold it up as almost factual. Thank you……

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 8:54pm

      @Sleazy: no, you were talking, at length, about a universe from nothing. In fact, you were the one who brought up the whole universe ex nihlo argument. People generally see that as a flaw with big bang cosmology, but they are incorrect in doing so.

      Your claims that infation and quantum physics having no proof is strange. I’m not even sure hwo to respond, because that’s akin to saying that germ theory is speculative. So you’re claiming that all of quantum physics and bunk? You’re denying the direct observable evidence that the universe is expanding?

      As for where the original primordial state came from: again, make your case. You said “where do I start?” Please start, but understand that I, or any scientist, would require emperical evidence that is falsifiable. Quoting scripture isn’t an argument, unless you’re willing to quote scripture from any of the thousands of other religions.

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 22, 2012 at 9:09am

      @ MAPROG….I was discussing the short comings of inflation theory and quantum physics in explaining the origin or existence of the universe. I am not stating that quantum physics is a bunk science, however, I am stating that it cannot explain why somehting exists rather than nothing, and why this something has led to an asymmetrical (matter over antimatter) universe is present. Where did the energy come from to initiate the original inflation? Where did the initial substances come from? There must be an uncaused cause no matter who you are or what you believe. I take it you haven’t debated this topic much in recent time? These are huge problems for the atheist crowd. That is why secular scientists are desperate to find an explanation because they understand the issue this presents. Of course the universe is expanding, I never stated it wasn’t. “Please start, but understand that I, or any scientist, would require emperical evidence that is falsifiable”…..You do understand this is an impossibility when discussing the origins of the universe? Thank you….

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
  • JUSTANOTHEROPINION
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 12:55pm

    Back to flipping a coin again. It was ice, no, it was an explosion. No, it was neither ice nor an explosion, IT WAS GOD, you bunch of athiests.

    Report Post »  
    • MAProg
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:44pm

      Hmm, I don’t think one small research team necessarily constitutes the scientific community “flipping a coin.” Secondly, since most scientists are theists, your invokation of “atheist” carries little validity. Lastly, if you’re going to say “God did it,” please cite falsifiable evidence for that hypothesis.

      Report Post » MAProg  
  • AJAYW
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 12:53pm

    Here we go again back to the 50′s were all going to freeze to death……….

    Report Post »  
  • oldasdirt
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 12:53pm

    Global greenies are there to sell you a product and make money from it. First they had to spread lies about the globe warming,then make you feel responsible for it.After that they can make up a number of things for you to buy,(electric cars,wind power,solar)to make the guilt they have made you feel go away. Nothing they have done really helps,just makes you feel better,and makes them tons of money.

    Report Post » oldasdirt  
    • DimmuBorgir
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:06pm

      I hope this comment board is still here 20 years from now.

      Because I have a prediction.

      In the year 2032 we will be having a CO2 shortage emergency. Scientists and activists will come together to announce that we as humans have harmed the earth once again and the only way to fix it is to buy CO2 generating devices which burn books in order to replenish the atmosphere with the life giving smoke. Of course only history books and bibles will be suggested on the govt owned website.

      Report Post » DimmuBorgir  
  • john vincent
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 12:51pm

    Big bang, big chill, call it what you will; I’m still going with that iron clad, time tested:

    ‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…’

    and it was no big deal

    Report Post » john vincent  
    • RetiredAmericanNavyTaxpayer
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 9:05pm

      And not only did He not sweat, He didn’t even breathe hard when he got done. (Apologies for using a physical analogy for a being of pure spirit too different in essence for the human mind to comprehend.)

      Report Post » RetiredAmericanNavyTaxpayer  
  • OniKaze
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 12:51pm

    Bottom line:

    Science has yet to truly “know” how the universe came into existence.. Only One thing is certain… It took more than 7 days… Everything else, is just scientific assumptions..

    Report Post » OniKaze  
    • DimmuBorgir
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 12:58pm

      Just curious, but how are you so certain on the length of time it took?

      I mean you sounds like you were going to be scientific in your comment. But then you just dropped off at the end and decided to mock the bible.

      Report Post » DimmuBorgir  
    • vox_populi
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:09pm

      Carbon dating and observation of forming stars and forming galaxies date these things as taking millions of years to form. Many of the stars in the sky we see are so far away it’s taken millions of years just for the light to get here. When we look up at the sky, we see the universe as it was, not as it is.

      Report Post » vox_populi  
    • DimmuBorgir
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:14pm

      Oh that’s funny Vox

      Cause for a second I thought you just told me carbon dating can tell us how long the universe took to create.

      Quick you might need to run to the nearest lab because you just discovered something NO ONE ELSE KNOWS

      And before you use scientific terms you might want to know that Carbon dating only shows how much carbon is left in something to give you a basic age of that item. Doesn’t tell you how long it took to create the item, just how much carbon decay has occurred.

      Report Post » DimmuBorgir  
    • Spyderco
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:49pm

      It only took 6 days. He took the seventh day off.

      Report Post » Spyderco  
    • Capitalist Mama
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 2:05pm

      Problems with carbon dating:
      1. Can only be used on organic material (like fossils), not stars or rocks (no carbon, unless you got diamonds)
      2. Carbon dating only works for thousands of years, not millions. The limit to carbon is generally 3000-3500 years. How can we estimate the universe is millions or billions of years old on an element that is only accurate to 3000 years?
      3. Carbon testing takes a very small number (average atomic size in a sample) and then calculates age. This method of extrapolating leads to very imprecise results, often 50k or more years apart (ex: samples of the same rock can be calculated to be both 5,000 years old and 65,000 years old).

      Report Post »  
  • neiman1
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 12:51pm

    I thought the science was settled? I thought the debate was over? How can these heretics be allowed to speak?

    The worst result in one of the best comedy series will have to change its name….. The Big Chill Theory just doesn’t sound as funny.

    Report Post »  
  • biohazard23
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 12:49pm

    Bazinga.

    Report Post » biohazard23  
  • COFemale
    Posted on August 21, 2012 at 12:49pm

    Let me make this simple for them. It was God who created our universe. There wasn’t that easy. You scientist make me laugh. You are so intent to find something other than God, you come up with some other lame theory.

    Keep trying, you will never find the answer. I have found the answer.

    Report Post » COFemale  
    • DimmuBorgir
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:00pm

      One of these days they’ll discover that the universe was created by an entity that is all powerful and could create matter from nothing… They just won’t call him God.

      Report Post » DimmuBorgir  
    • vox_populi
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:01pm

      If observation, hypotheses, and testing pointed to the answer being God, scientists would report back that the answer is God. They’re not “trying” to discover any specific outcome, other than to determine the truth as best they can through the means available to us.

      Report Post » vox_populi  
    • DimmuBorgir
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:10pm

      @ VOX

      Scientist, adjust data to fit their desired outcome?

      Nah, never happens

      Report Post » DimmuBorgir  
    • blackyb
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:12pm

      No, they will want people to believe they invented the creator. These people are silly.

      Report Post » blackyb  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:12pm

      The headline suggests that the “Big Chill” is in conflict with the “Big Bang,” hence that a whole generation of scientists have been barking up the wrong tree, hence that scientists are but “fools who profess themselves wise.” I think a careful reading will show that this is not the case. The Big Bang Theory itself asserts that the universe has been expanding and cooling from some infinitely hot, dense state for some 14 billion years. The new theory seems to suggest that space is discontinuous at very small scales–also not a new idea–and that the expansion of the universe should produce “cracks” in space that can be detected. You are still perfectly free to see God as responsible for all this, if you like.

      Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
    • totheRepublic14
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:18pm

      @VOX. You want to know why I believe in God.I have seen sufficient proof for the Bible; I have seen sufficient proof for Jesus Christ, therefore, I have seen sufficient proof of God. I do not just say “well this is what a book says I should do it” I made sure that the Bible was reliable. What I do not know I take by faith but God does not expect us to believe without evidence. You can go agree with all of science if you want, but apparantly I do not have as much faith as you do because I try to think reasonably. I see the odds that we evolved from a lower species and I say it must be illogical to believe in that. So before you go trolling everybody else why don’t you try to think logically for a change.

      Report Post » totheRepublic14  
    • 00100111
      Posted on August 21, 2012 at 1:23pm

      It isn’t science if you already have a presupposed result and then doctor your experiments to support your hypothesis while ignoring evidence to the contrary.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love