my new theory on the universe

[Cornelius]

1) The Big Bang does not assume that the first atom was just "always there."

 

2) Evolution has tons of evidence; creationism has 0 evidence.

 

3) Read up on the early universe and you'll see that we do know how the first atom came into being.

 

4) Everything else is based on the first three' date=' so is pretty much useless speculation.

 

5) The universe isn't "in" space, it is space(and time aka spacetime)![/quote']

 

The "Big Bang" is an assumption, correct? And the formation of the first atom, is an assumption correct? So the "Big Bang theory" is an assumption based on an assumption. True, pure creationism, has no evidence, you are correct, there is only biblical evidence to this day. However, even though evolution has tons of evidence, it all comes down to the beginning of time. Scientists are assuming too much, it is all theory, not evidence, because it's not proven to be true yet (creation of universe and atoms, etc.) Similarly, Christians assume that there is a God and he created life. I guess we're all assuming right?

[ydoaPs]

no, it's math. not an assumption.

 

"Silly creationist, the Bible is for kids"

 

biblical evidence is not evidence.

 

you seem to not know the definition of a theory. a theory is not just a wild guess.

[Moopy]

Imagine time traveling in the past (if this is even possible) and going all the way back to the beginning of time. What happens when you get to that point in time? Since there was no universe and only one atom, what environment would your body be in? Would it just be empty space you're floating in? What would it look like? To me, this is just an impossible situation to envision and is based around faith, much like believing in God.

 

if you go back in time...according to what i think...you would end up in the same universe...but if you go beyond the big bang...then our galaxy isnt there..yet...

there is no point in what time whatsoever to state the beginning of the universe because it simply doesnt have one...

 

Do you have ANY evidence, proof, mathematics, or even logical thought processes that lead to this?

 

Once again, what does this "theory" predict?

 

keep in mind that nothing of the universe has been proven..for all we know...i may be closest to uncovering the secret of the universe...or perhaps not..

as for evidence..i said i need to do more research on this stuff so that i can find more ideas and stuff...fine...sofar this is a thought..i posted it on this site sothat maybe people would talk about it and add some stuff here and there and perhaps an entire watertight new theory will emerge.

 

i am just trying to explain how the universe works using theories like evolution and the big bang...

if you say big bang created the WHOLE universe...then there was a time before it without space...so then you can go to a neverending story of what came first..chicken or egg?

im trying to figure out an explanation that roughly says...the chicken has always been...

(in cases of chickens it doesnt make much sense..but the universe is a difficult subject so it would require a very strange explanation..unless its just mean)

 

no,i have nothing to prove it...plainly cause i cant...im not a scientist and i am hell no computer with all knowledge of everything in my head...

[Cornelius]

no' date=' it's math. not an assumption.

 

"Silly creationist, the Bible is for kids"

 

biblical evidence is not evidence.

 

you seem to not know the definition of a theory. a theory is not just a wild guess.[/quote']

 

They are using their calculations to assume a possibilty, a widely believed truth among scientists, which is also the definition of a "theory." Also, believe it or not, a theory is in fact a guess. It is an assumption, or a conjecture, based on limited evidence. It is an educated guess used to make a principle.

 

Why is biblical evidence not evidence? Ancient tunnels foretold in the bible and also pieces of Noah's Ark and the scriptures have been found, is this not evidence? It seems like you're being a little bias here.

 

As far as I'm concerned, creationism and evolutionism are on-par with each other in terms of the amount of proof each contain...which is very little..

[ydoaPs]

the bible doesn't even count as a reference for high school research papers. it has been changed at will by the catholic church.

 

use the search function and look up "theory"

[Royston]

As far as I'm concerned' date=' creationism and evolutionism are on-par with each other in terms of the amount of proof each contain...which is very little..[/quote']

 

Evolution has little proof ? I knew it carbon-dating is a conspiracy !!!

[ydoaPs]

you should read what sayo said about creationists...pretty much a rule of thumb.

[Ophiolite]

Also, believe it or not, a theory is in fact a guess. It is an assumption, or a conjecture, based on limited evidence. It is an educated guess used to make a principle.

Wrong. A theory is not a guess. It is not even an educated guess. It is not conjecture, though it may begin with conjecture. It is not, most definitely not, based on limited evidence.

If you are going to post definitive statements in a science forum it would be beneficial for your reputation to grasp the terminology first (as yourdadonapogos rightly suggests). In other words, I know you are not stupid. You know you are not stupid. But, s***, you do a great impression of someone who is.

[Cornelius]

the bible doesn't even count as a reference for high school research papers. it has been changed at will by the catholic church.

 

use the search function and look up "theory"

 

I agree, I wouldn't use the Bible either for a research paper because nothing in the books can be proved. Yet, no one has been able to disprove any story in the Bible either. But by this logic, it would be considered an unreliable resource.

 

Here's what I came up with when I looked up the words theory & hypothesis.

 

theory:

 

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

[ydoaPs]

I agree' date=' I wouldn't use the Bible either for a research paper because nothing in the books can be proved. Yet, no one has been able to disprove any story in the Bible either. But by this logic, it would be considered an unreliable resource.

 

Here's what I came up with when I looked up the words theory & hypothesis.

 

theory:

 

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"[/quote']

 

 

did you get those definitions from the dictionary of crackpottery? i especially like number 4. btw, hypothesis comes before a theory

[Cornelius]

Yeah I know I just put hypothesis after because it was one definition and not the main point of my post.

 

Maybe the definitions I've grown up with have been inaccurate, resulting in my arguments that led nowhere.

 

Seems, I may be wrong, although I'm utterly disappointed as I had the wrong set of definitions stored in my brain, which set me at a disadvantage from the start. Forgive me for the time-wasting "debate."

[ydoaPs]

no, look at your definition of a hypothesis. dude, thow away ur dictionary.

[Cornelius]

Actually, I have sinned. I used http://www.dictionary.com because I was too lazy to open up my Oxford or Webster dictionary in my room. If I had only used my physical resources in the beginning...lol

[J.C.MacSwell]

Personally, I prefer Big Bang Model to Big Bang Theory. The evidence is limited not unlimited of course, but more significantly is largely untestable and based on a huge extrapolation. All of which is commendable under the circumstances and it seems it is a "best guess" at this time but the jury should still be out IMHO.