DrP

Neither are perpetual motion engines.

That is prediction not prophesy. Prediction based on extrapolation of evidence. If I 'predict' the lottery numbers... that is a guess. If I watch a black bird come to the garden at the same time each day for 3 weeks I could then 'predict' that he comes tomorrow. If an angel of the Lord appears before me in a dream and say ' go speak my word on the hill that punishment will befall all sinners if they do not repent by tomorrow at 3.35pm"... and, after preaching the word on the hill the next day at 3.35 pm 48 lightning strikes kill 48 sinners in town that refused to repent then that's prophesy.

Don't mess with Ghandi! Not in any Sid Myers games anyway! lol. I though a prophet was someone who foretold the future by divine revelation.

Seriously - answer my question - I am interested as to what you think about JJ Thompson and his plumb pudding model of the atom. Genius or idiot? I think he was a genius... he was as right as he could be with the information available to him. What do you think? What do you think about how his theory has evolved from that point through Bohr and on to today's more modern theories? I call it something else - but the mods give me a bollocking if I use the word.

So what evidence do you have against it? - anytime I have seen it discussed here in the past the 'evidence' presented is usually laughed out of court or is purely speculative or just confused. I must admit it isn't my field though. I would imagine once we have further evidence the theory will change a little - I can't see it changing much though and it won't involve an imagined super being creating it with a thought.

yep - and in the future they wont look to the 20th century and say 'they thought the universe came out of nothing' I forgot to add earlier also - popular science book titles do not make a scientific theory. I do not think we have a theory that says the universe came out of nothing. The big bang THEORY does not claim it and I don't think any other theories do. People speculate about all sorts of things. Which theory says that the universe came from nothing? ...and don't quote book titles and poster misquotes - who's THEROY say it?

What did you make of J.J. Thompson's plumb pudding theory of the atom? Would you say he was right or wrong? The whole 'History of the Atom' is a story of people being correct about their postulations and building the best model available to them at the time. These models evolve over the centuries as our knowledge increases. JJ Thompson was correct in his model for the atom.... but that theory was enhanced and bought on by many other scientists throughout the decades since he postulated it. You clearly do not understand science.... did you study it anywhere?

No you didn't. The Hawkin quote seemed too - but it was a quote presented on a poster like some inspiration quote that is trying to push an agenda and, probably taken out of context. Can you explain the physics behind what he was saying when he said that 'the universe could have created itself'? or whatever it was in that quote. What about the particles that pop into existence in a quantum vacuum that we have evidence for? Did they come from nothing? Who cares anyway - it came from somewhere, nowhere or was always here - how could anyone know what happened? They can't. The big bang though has a lot of supporting evidence from what I have read - Don't ask me to explain it though as it isn't my field.... and clearly not yours! lol. He clearly isn't.

You showed nothing of the sort. You showed some out of context quotes which you clearly did not understand. Regarding the book - that is the title only - what does it claim within the book? You have read it yea? Of course you have else you wouldn't put it forwards as evidence - that would be really stupid. I haven't read it - can you quote sections from the book that claim the universe 'came from nothing'? Even if it does it is probably speculative philosophising - it might be beyond your comprehension if you are going to conclude that 'scientists' claim that the universe came from nothing.

I think you might confuse him - he isn't even grasping that energy isn't a physical thing yet. It is a property. Once/if he gets that then maybe take it a bit further.

It isn't anything. It is the measure of how much potential something has to be able to do work, move, heat something etc..

The Holy Ghost - you pray to the Holy Ghost for wisdom and guidance before reading the bible. It guides you and you get the meaning from it what god wants you to take from it for that time. That's the idea anyway.

Virgin birth, risen from the dead, speaking in tongues (Which I have done and have seen many do.... they never get a reply from a foreigner though like they did in Acts), healing miracles, Angels from heaven, creatures with the head of a bear, feet of a lion and penis of a eagle (something like that), futuristic prophesy.. none of that problematic? You know my favourite verse in the bible? It is from James in the new testament and simply says: " God is Love".

I very much doubt he would if he lived in todays times. No. But if you have to re-write the bible every few hundred years then it is clearly not the infailable word of god. Has god evolved in the last 2000 years? The book says he is unchanging - and most believers would say he is unchanging..

Is that not what they do? Change the definition of god when it suits them - it's all true and the unfailable word of god when they are preaching, but you can pick and choose bits when they run into trouble with contradictions with reality. Sorry - I need to look up what the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy actually is in more detail before I can answer. It is just my opinion also - I don't think they are being true to them selves if they are constantly moving the goal posts every time their belief is shown to be wrong. They claim it isn't wrong until you point out a contradiction and then it is claimed that that part can be ignored.

Have you seen the program - The Big Bang Theory? The song at the start suggests - "the whole universe was in a hot dense state...." Before the big bang the universe was in a hot dense state - this is not nothing and it is not claimed that it was nothing. What was before the hot dense state? I don't know and nobody does - many may 'speculate' that it came from nothing, but that is nothing to do with the big bang theory and is pure speculation. Your question was regarding the big bang theory - not 'the creation of the universe' - which is why people are asking you if you really understand what TBBT says - which clearly you don't. As I said - I am not an expert - I only have a degree in Physics and chemistry - I never covered it at uni so I will let others that are more knowledgeable explain it to you - but if you don't accept what they say then why would they bother taslking to you - you seem hung up on this 'something from nothing' nonsense - it sounds like something your pastor might claim. What about these newly discovered particles that appear and disappear out of 'nowhere' in a vacuum.... I'm sure they don't come from 'nothing'... they must come from somewhere - no-one knows. You are clearly not listening... bye. Just repeating the question isn't going to help you understand it when you have been told you are already barking up the wrong tree. Sorry - your question doesn't prove or disprove anything. God is a myth - get over it.

I don't understand the Hawkins quote - I don't think he's talking about the big bang. "life evolved out of NEARLY nothing" - is not nothing. The Kaku quote says "ONE Theory is the universe came from nothing" - NOT The Big Bang theory. There are experts here that will explain these to you - I am not one. But I can tell you those quotes aren't relating to TBB. No-one knows how the matter was created that the BB used in it's 'bang'. How could they?

Who says this? Give me a list of some 'real scientists' that say that the big bang claims that the matter in this universe came from nothing.

They don't - because it doesn't. That is not the claim of the big bang theory. It is the claim of people that do not understand it.

- yea - like 'temperature' - it is a measure of a number of things that are happening to a substance, not an actual 'thing' by itself.

It isn't ambiguous, it is the absolute energy you can get from a mass. The energy is stored or bound up in the mass. The energy in this equation is what is released if the mass is broken to it's absolute most basics of individual protons and neutrons once their binding energies have been overcome and their stored energy has been released. With this 'ability to do work' as you state, I think you are referring to the potential energy a mass has at a certain height from the ground. The energy from the E=MC^2 equations is released as kinetic energy in the speed of the particles that are released. I guess these released particles 'have the ability to do work' in the classical sense due to the energy they have. Sorry - I thought I was going to be able to explain this better when I started typing but now I read it back I am not sure I have. I am sure someone will explain it to you.

...I hear that - but that isn't 'believing in god' as I see it. It is following some mashed up version of a religion - it sounds like they don't actually believe it (or haven't thought about the contradictions to reality). The church of England does the same - it waters it's Christianity down to fit the modern world and reality - most(some, don't know exact figure) of the priests don't actually believe in god and just want to do good things for people and the world.... which is fine - but it isn't believing in god.

But he was able to change his opinion when presented with evidence that contradicted his beliefs.

That's what we all want isn't it? I see us getting there facing facts a lot quicker than if we continue to ignore evidences. It would require the right mix of socialism and capitalism - don't ask me what the perfect way is, how could I know? You know you are smart enough and I think you know it ;-) - if I can do it then pretty much anyone can. I went to a C of E school too - I scraped into it from my junior school and only got in because one other kid pulled out and moved away otherwise I would have gone to the other school in my area with a rep for being very bad. It was just up the road from the council estate I lived on. I probably would not have gone to uni even if I had attended that school. You don't need a PhD to work out that the bible is fiction. As has been said above - there are many intelligent people that 'believe' still. Do people need to be 'equally educated'? They just need to know what we, as a race of humans, have collectively come to accept as being factual and what we have come to find to be BS. I see many people laughing at religion and saying it is crap for (what I think) are all the wrong reasons. They could do with a dose of church imo - to look for something and be a part of something greater than themselves... to learn about selfless love - I do sympathise with your argument (from other threads) about religion having it's positives... but it got too big and caused too many wars and suffering. I do not know the right way for the human race - we have many options ahead of us. I would like it to be based on fact and what we believe to be reality rather than fiction. Who cares what I think anyway? lol - have a nice day DR.

It (the giraffe) grew tall to reach the food that other animals couldn't I suspect - that would be more to do with a shortage of food. The sauropods probably grew so big because it gave them a better chance of surviving against the big predators as well as the reasons koti listed. I have some sauropod bones - the limb bones were solid for extra strength, where as the vertebrae were honeycombed like other dinosaur bones.