Sentences with phrase «in big bang theory»

that their religion is flawed somehow... and when questioned why they try to push their ideas on everybody else, they get frustrated and say that it's the Religious ones that push their ideas on people... NOT THEM... That's funny because i have about 1000 comments on this thread that state the opposite... Atheist's i see on this post appear to fall into that category of people that need to try and convince others to believe what they do because they're not sure in their own beliefs... They know that believing in the big bang theory or other similar theories takes as much faith as any religion has to offer... and when pinned down to the facts that By the laws of physics... the big bang couldn't happen....

Foe all who believe in big bang theory — plse advise what was there before the bang — and to those who believe that god created erath 6 - 10 thousand years ago, what was god doing before that — was he on holidays and obe day he decides to create Adam and Eve — guess he was bired with the rest of the universe and created this awful.

How the hell can Atheists believe in nothing yet claim to believe in the big bang theory??? Makes no sense at all!!!!!

Did you not know that the Churches do not believe in the big bang theory.

and I said to the christard, «You don't believe in the big bang theory but you believe your god created the universe out of nothing.

It's not stupid to believe in a God just like it's not stupid to believe in a big bang theory.

However, if there are groups of atheists, and I am not saying there are, with organizing principles like, elevating humanity, belief in evolution, belief in the big bang theory absent God, or other such beliefs consistent with atheism as a belief, AND they organize to promote those beliefs and theories, or educate people regarding their belief that there is no God, then those groups consti tute a religious organization.

There is no evidence to suggest where everything came from in the big bang theory.

Not exact matches

As for numerologists, scientists, and non-believers in general... to explain anything within our universe completely and fully (even the big bang theory or evolution), one must eventually take a leap of faith and believe in something that equations or definitions can't quantify.

There was an article recently about a young boy (12ish) who is the new math genius in the making and he is working on debunking the big bang theory with science.

When we are talking about living beings and the world we live in which is so perfectly designed, there is no possible way this is all random and happened by a «big bang theory» which actually requires something to initiate a big bang to begin with.

You do of course realize that it is reasonable to believe in God and accept the big bang theory, evolution and a 4.5 billion year old earth?

Or i could point out that the big bang is the biggest joke ever told... That even the top physicists can't figure out how their own theory could work, not to mention the fact that for it to work they would need for the Universe to break the fundamental laws we understand as true since the beginning i.e. (No matter in the Universe can be created nor destroyed, you can only change it's state (solid to liquid, liquid to gas etc.).

I'm well versed in the scientific method and that has led me to believe that «big bang theory» is about as supportable as the «flat earth theory» of the 16th century.

We talked about the big bang theory in which life started on earth.

During this short time, we don't have the apparatus to fully understand God, but many of us see the fallacy of believing in things like the «big bang» theory where ordered things come from nothingness.

A student with basic training in the sciences knows not to accept something like the «big bang theory», or other science lore.

I do believe in Evolution and the big bang but can \ t seem to quite believe in the god theory as a default for everything the godly do not understand or who don't have an IMMEDIATE answer for.

how the hell does the big bang theory lend support of a «creator»???? Yes creation occurred in it's literal definition, but how / whom / is unknown.

Even as a Kid I always thought «fine, the big bang theory crated the universe, but it does not explain what caused the BBT itself, or what caused the agent that in turn caused the BBT» I am so glad this being discussed.

In fact, quite the opposite, it shows that natural forces coalesced to create the condition for the big bang and bolsters the theory of multiverses (multiple universes).

In explaining the scientific theory that the universe originated in a big bang, Paul Davies remarked: «The conditions at the big bang imply an infinite distortion of time, so that the very concept of time (and space) can not be extended back beyond the big bang» (24In explaining the scientific theory that the universe originated in a big bang, Paul Davies remarked: «The conditions at the big bang imply an infinite distortion of time, so that the very concept of time (and space) can not be extended back beyond the big bang» (24in a big bang, Paul Davies remarked: «The conditions at the big bang imply an infinite distortion of time, so that the very concept of time (and space) can not be extended back beyond the big bang» (24).

In fact they have come out with additional theories to support the big bang — again not provable / verifiable.

While the old testament and the bible (as in the new testament) refer to the creation of the heavens and earth (as well as the Quran for Muslims), I find it humbling that the Quran went even further to attest to the WAY this creation took place (in other words the Big bang theory is a testament to this verse).

... So all this author was pointing out is that the theory of the big bang in no way refutes or is in conflict with a theological belief of creation, as in, «In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth» or for that matter a Buddhist belief of constant recreatioin no way refutes or is in conflict with a theological belief of creation, as in, «In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth» or for that matter a Buddhist belief of constant recreatioin conflict with a theological belief of creation, as in, «In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth» or for that matter a Buddhist belief of constant recreatioin, «In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth» or for that matter a Buddhist belief of constant recreatioIn the beginning god created the heavens and the earth» or for that matter a Buddhist belief of constant recreation.

Here's another one: An entirely natural wormhole opened in the space - time continuum, and a guy from the present got sent into the past, and told someone about the Big bang theory, and that story made it into the Quran.

He proposed an alternative called «steady state» and engaged in a life long battle against the big bang theory.

How would a person living in a desert know these things without actually someone telling him this?!!! And who is that someone?!!! No one at that time knew anything about big bang theory?!! The actual translation of the arabic word رتقا is it was like a fabric that got torn apart?!!! Isn't that big bang?!! And the other part that was proven too is that everything alive needs water to live?!!! How did they know that then?!!! Islam and science support each other and science only getting to prove things now which was mentioned 1500 years ago in the Quran!!!

Of course nothing you said in that paragraph coincides with anything in the theory of evolution, or with the big bang.

If the theory that the big bang was structured, why didn't it say so in the bible?

I.E. the big bang theory which would require belief in the fact that some kinds of Matter ALWAYS existed and that at some point it all exploded and created a universe, a belief i might add, that in my view takes more faith to believe in than most modern religions.

It's tiring and frustrating trying to convince someone of something like a big bang theory or theory of evolution when they won't believe the evidence staring them in the face (care to tell me why god gave us appendixes?)

Amazed by those that can deny the existence of an intelligent creator in favor of the theory of the «big bang»..

In science and evolutionist theory we hear that the Earth was this blob of molten substance that was floating around after the «big bang».

The scientific method is not used by most of science, otherwise there would be no big bang theory or evolution as a means to species in science, no black holes either.

John P. Tarver said: «The scientific method is not used by most of science, otherwise there would be no big bang theory or evolution as a means to species in science, no black holes either.

That kind of circular argument even goes back to explanations of the origin of the universe — according to the big bang theory (which I don't really have a problem with in the «big picture»).

There is no way to prove or disprove a higher being, and there is no way to prove or disprove the big bang theory (contrasting beliefs in most people's opinions), but what we do know is the Earth is way older than 6,000 - 10,000 years old, and that is FACT.

Far more proof has been presented scientifically about evolution and the big bang theory than by believing in a god.

However, modern science and the big bang theory show that it is not infinite in age.

It is funny that some secular religious scientists have discarded the Big Bang Theory in search of Singularity because they just discovered in their infinite knowledge that they do not know what banged.

Solve for us the question of the reasonableness of athiesm, where you get something (big bang) from nothing — there must be a first cause of everything; explain implications of the anthropic principle and the wildly unprobablistic likelihood that our universe could even form in such a fashion as to be capable of sustaining life (which has, interestingly, your athiest heavy hitters (i.e. Dawkins, Schwartz, etc.) necessarily positing multiple universe theories to get around the near probablistic impossibility of all conditions be present at time of big bang for life to be possible without acknowledgement of a divine designing hand guiding the process); explain The probablistic impossibility of non-irreducibly complex basic cells (life) coming together spontaneously (DNA, cell membrane, etc), even the most basic, simple forms of life allowing for reproduction, metabolism, etc...

Quantum Mechanics is WAY weirder and more complex than, say, evolution (though I like how you threw the big bang in there — separate theories, dude), but you won't really hear any religious nuts complaining about the exact same process that gives us QM because it doesn't conflict with their ancient mythology.

So much so, that any cursory involvement in conversations of evolution and the big bang theory are fueled only because it comes into disagreement with a text supposedly proving god's existence.

People can choose to believe it, but that does not make it science and anything from it can not be legitimately taught as alternative theories of science, whether in astrophysics vs. the «big bang», biology vs. evolution or embryology, etc., or physics and geology in determining the age of the earth and universe.

As he points out, since the Belgian Jesuit George Lemaitre pioneered the big bang theory in the early 1930s, «it's almost as though, with the rise of more secular geniuses... the Church has become discouraged and dropped out of the race, as it were, content to sit on the sidelines and absorb what it can from purely superficial accounts.

If you believe in the big bang [theory] you believe everything came from nothing.

PDX — It doesn't take a Genius to realize from my statements that i have read things other than the Bible you moron i have spent many hours reading and listening to scientists about their theories on the big bang, i have listened to ideas from the most revered scientists including Hawking and others, and they all admit that there are holes in their theories, that nothing fully explains their big bang theory, the physics doesn't add up let alone the concept, there are plenty of scientists hard at work trying to make the numbers fit and the theory hold weight but if you ask any of them they can not give you the answers and the reason being... there are none, the theory doesn't work, If by the observable laws of Physics, Matter in this Universe can not be created or destroyed, you can only change its state, i.e. solid to liquid, to gas... to energy... There is no explanation for how an entire reality full of Matter can be created out of nothing... Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will be judged.

Investigate the evidence yourself, there is nothing at all that truly suggests that the Big Bang happened, the only thing they have used in order to come up with the theory is that in their observances, the Universe appears to be expanding from a central point, it doesn't prove that a Big bang occurred, we know so little about the universe, that we don't even know everything about our own world, and you really believe that our science has figured out the riddle to the beginning of the Universe?

Hoyle was vehemently opposed to the big bang theory (in fact, he had coined the name «big bang» in mockery).