PDA

View Full Version : Scientist Recreates the Big Bang Live



Bladers
Sep 9th 2008, 11:35 PM
Scientist will recreate the Big Bang Live at http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1026735
You can actually watch them live as they turn the thingy on

Tomorrow - 1:30 a.m. CDT on Wednesday, Sept. 10,2008
"After 40 years of planning and construction, the biggest science experiment in history is ready to be tested. The "Large Hadron Collider" is an experiment created by the greatest minds in physics. It cost $10 billion and its resulting data has the potential to explain why we and the Universe exist. Their idea is to smash protons towards one another at the speed of light, trying to mimic what happened in the milliseconds after The Big Bang

What will you be doing on the time of the second Big Bang?


So what does the scripture say about the first Big Bang


2 Samuel 22:16
And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

carboy
Sep 10th 2008, 01:05 AM
I like viewing Genesis 1-2 in this way. The creation of heaven- space, earth- matter, water and then light- energy. The matter was without form and void then "bang" but bigger.

I view 1-2 in other ways but this, I like.

I hope we don't wake up with a hole in Europe.

faroutinmt
Sep 10th 2008, 01:30 AM
I suppose they are suggesting that there was a huge scientific machine in the beginning which caused the bang to occur.

quiet dove
Sep 10th 2008, 01:31 AM
So that would be 2:30am EDT time?

HisLeast
Sep 10th 2008, 02:14 AM
Making a proton run laps at mind numbing speeds does not a big-bang make.

Bladers
Sep 10th 2008, 02:24 AM
So that would be 2:30am EDT time?

I guess so, I dont want to wake up on mars.

Joe King
Sep 10th 2008, 03:22 AM
If the Rapture was to happen, it would be a perfect cover up for it.

HisLeast
Sep 10th 2008, 04:03 AM
Just so we're clear here... some scientists theorize that the LHC may make "really small" (and I hate to use that term) black holes. What people creating doomsday scenarios miss is that scientists also believe these small black holes exist in nature, but "evaporate" instantaneously. To make even the smallest theorized would take amounts of energy that could dwarf all the energy man and animals have ever generated on earth, in all time, combined.

Joe King
Sep 10th 2008, 07:33 AM
Just so we're clear here... some scientists theorize that the LHC may make "really small" (and I hate to use that term) black holes. What people creating doomsday scenarios miss is that scientists also believe these small black holes exist in nature, but "evaporate" instantaneously. To make even the smallest theorized would take amounts of energy that could dwarf all the energy man and animals have ever generated on earth, in all time, combined.

It sounds like those scientists have tremendous faith, just in the wrong things:(

Cyberseeker
Sep 10th 2008, 09:02 AM
If you hear a big bang tomorrow :huh: from across the water somewhere, you'll know what happened.

HisLeast
Sep 10th 2008, 12:59 PM
It sounds like those scientists have tremendous faith, just in the wrong things:(

Why? Because they're investigating things that the average person has no understanding of?

Joe King
Sep 10th 2008, 01:08 PM
Why? Because they're investigating things that the average person has no understanding of?

I don't really believe they are doing it for investigative purposes. They have something else in mind.

HisLeast
Sep 10th 2008, 01:25 PM
I don't really believe they are doing it for investigative purposes. They have something else in mind.

They built the world's largest experimental apparatus, used to conduct tests on elements of physics we have little understanding of, constructed with the input of over 8000 physicists from 85 different countries, and you say they aren't doing it for investigative purposes?

What exactly is it for then?

Joe King
Sep 10th 2008, 03:32 PM
They built the world's largest experimental apparatus, used to conduct tests on elements of physics we have little understanding of, constructed with the input of over 8000 physicists from 85 different countries, and you say they aren't doing it for investigative purposes?

What exactly is it for then?

Weaponry or Stargate type of experiments.

HisLeast
Sep 10th 2008, 03:42 PM
Weaponry or Stargate type of experiments.

So tens of thousands of people, from physicists & engineers, to construction workers and facility maintenance staff, from 85 different nations, representing a myriad of different cultures, religions, and political affiliations all decided to keep the REAL purpose of the LHC to themselves?

Are all the other colliders the same thing (even though we can verify the experiments that are run in them daily)?

Bethany67
Sep 10th 2008, 03:51 PM
I hope we don't wake up with a hole in Europe.

There's one already; it's called London, where I live ;)

Creator
Sep 10th 2008, 05:35 PM
Scientist will recreate the Big Bang Live at http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1026735




So what does the scripture say about the first Big Bang?



Great question....

Scripture says God SPOKE all things into existence with His Word:

" By the Word of the Lord were the heavens created, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.... For HE SPAKE AND IT WAS DONE; HE COMMANDED AND IT STOOD FAST". (psalm 33:6-9)

Doesn't sound like the "big bang" to me. :D

Creator

Free Indeed
Sep 10th 2008, 06:01 PM
Great question....

Scripture says God SPOKE all things into existence with His Word:

" By the Word of the Lord were the heavens created, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.... For HE SPAKE AND IT WAS DONE; HE COMMANDED AND IT STOOD FAST". (psalm 33:6-9)

Doesn't sound like the "big bang" to me. :D


Actually, Christians have historically supported the Big Bang Theory because it is compatible with the traditional Christian belief of creation.

This is also why Einstein rejected the Big Bang Theory: he thought it sounded too "religious", and too similar to Judeo-Christian tradition.

The Big Bang Theory proves there was a creation. It falsified the hypothesis that the universe was always here, the so-called Steady State Theory.

BrckBrln
Sep 10th 2008, 06:21 PM
Great question....

Scripture says God SPOKE all things into existence with His Word:

" By the Word of the Lord were the heavens created, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.... For HE SPAKE AND IT WAS DONE; HE COMMANDED AND IT STOOD FAST". (psalm 33:6-9)

Doesn't sound like the "big bang" to me. :D

Creator

It sounds exactly like the Big Bang to me.

Creator
Sep 10th 2008, 06:23 PM
Actually, Christians have historically supported the Big Bang Theory because it is compatible with the traditional Christian belief of creation.

.

I wouldn't call a belief that has arisen only within the last 80 or 100 years.. "Historical support" ..... Prior to that time Christians have HISTORICALLY believed the literacy of Scripture.

Thanks fo your comment anyway..... I believe the literacy of Scripture.:D

Today MANY millions of Christians reject BB.....especially since 'belief' in it requires you to invalidate the literal 6 day creation period given in Genesis. That ought to be a clue right there that the BB theory probably is NOT correct and will probaly eventually be show to be false.

Creator

BrckBrln
Sep 10th 2008, 06:31 PM
I wouldn't call a belief that has arisen only within the last 80 or 100 years.. "Historical support" ..... Prior to that time Christians have HISTORICALLY believed the literacy of Scripture.

Thanks fo your comment anyway..... I believe the literacy of Scripture.:D

Today MANY millions of Christians reject BB.....

Creator

Today many millions of Christians also reject Calvinism. Doesn't mean it's not right. :)

Creator
Sep 10th 2008, 06:36 PM
Today many millions of Christians also reject Calvinism. Doesn't mean it's not right. :)


Please read my comments in context, BB....Go back and read the reasons I added to show why BB is not right from a Scriptural point of view.

I beleive the literacy of Scripture.....hope you can accept that.

Creator

third hero
Sep 10th 2008, 06:37 PM
You know, I am a serious Anime fan, and the Japanese have been fantasizing about proton cannons, which are proton atoms that have have been altered to the point that they can be used as beam weapons. Even if the many people from many countries do not have a militariestic motive for these experiments, I would not put it past the governments that are sponsoring these experiments to have hidden agendas here.

Besides, it's impossible to recreate Big Bang, because it never happened.

Nothing spontaneously appears out of nothing,, no matter how much nothing there is in the universe, someone had to figure out how to turn nothing into something, which is exactly what Genesis 1:1 tells us. It tells us the "who" and the "how". That's enough for me. Should be for everyone else, but again, they, including the thousands of scientists, architechs and laborers are tryin to remove t he Vreator from Creation, and thus are trying to usurp His position in order to claim it for themselves. That is why I truly hate the modern applications and teachings of Science. I really wish that we would go back to the science that5 brought about geniuses like Isaac Newton, Ben Franklin, and many others who discovered useful things, like electricity, radio waves, and the like.

third hero
Sep 10th 2008, 06:38 PM
Today many millions of Christians also reject Calvinism. Doesn't mean it's not right. :)

Doesn't mean that Calvanism is right either.

crush
Sep 10th 2008, 06:41 PM
It sounds exactly like the Big Bang to me.


Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

IPet2_9
Sep 10th 2008, 06:41 PM
I really wish that we would go back to the science that5 brought about geniuses like Isaac Newton, Ben Franklin, and many others who discovered useful things, like electricity, radio waves, and the like.

You know what electricity, radio waves, and the like are made of? Sub-atomic particles.

BrckBrln
Sep 10th 2008, 06:41 PM
Please read my comments in context, BB....Go back and read the reasons I added to show why BB is not right from a Scriptural point of view.

I beleive the literacy of Scripture.....hope you can accept that.

Creator

It seems you added that other stuff after I already quoted you. That's why it's not there. Anyway, I don't have all the answers as I'm a recent convert from non big bang to big bang but the big bang sounds so much like the creation account so why reject it?

Joe King
Sep 10th 2008, 06:43 PM
So tens of thousands of people, from physicists & engineers, to construction workers and facility maintenance staff, from 85 different nations, representing a myriad of different cultures, religions, and political affiliations all decided to keep the REAL purpose of the LHC to themselves?

Are all the other colliders the same thing (even though we can verify the experiments that are run in them daily)?

Short answer. Yes.

BrckBrln
Sep 10th 2008, 06:44 PM
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

What's your point? The Big Bang should be enough to show that God did create the universe but the scientists suppress that truth.

Creator
Sep 10th 2008, 06:50 PM
Besides, it's impossible to recreate Big Bang, because it never happened.

Nothing spontaneously appears out of nothing,, no matter how much nothing there is in the universe, someone had to figure out how to turn nothing into something, which is exactly what Genesis 1:1 tells us. It tells us the "who" and the "how". That's enough for me. Should be for everyone else, but again, they, including the thousands of scientists, architechs and laborers are tryin to remove t he Vreator from Creation, and thus are trying to usurp His position in order to claim it for themselves. That is why I truly hate the modern applications and teachings of Science. I really wish that we would go back to the science that5 brought about geniuses like Isaac Newton, Ben Franklin, and many others who discovered useful things, like electricity, radio waves, and the like.


I have a tendency to agree with you 'third hero' . I always try to look at things from a spiritual perspective .... Many of these 'new' theories of origins seem to have a 'design' to remove the Creator from the picture and 'substitute' a naturalistic explanation....which invariable denegates the veracity of Scripture...
Because of its antagonism toward Scripture I think Satan really loves the Big Bang theory.

Many of the earlier great scientists were strict Creationists and Scriptural literalist....and made amazing dsicoveries....and freely admited that it was their relationship with the Creator that led them to such great discoveries...Newton and Kepler are prime examples.

Any theory that tries to call God a liar by attempting to invalidate the literal 6 days of Creation DOESN'T appeal to me.

Thanks for yur post, :D

Creator

IPet2_9
Sep 10th 2008, 06:55 PM
The Big Bang theory is a reasonable attempt to explain the Red-Shift which astronomers see in their infrared telescopes--which in layman's terms, basically means that all the planets, galaxies, etc. are currently moving away from each other. Which is counter-intuitive, considering that gravity does the exact opposite.

The LHC is a reasonable attempt to settle the argument as to whether the Big Bang happened or not.

third hero
Sep 10th 2008, 06:58 PM
IN related news, I believe in a Big Bang, but not the one that scientists are trying to replicate. I believe that a Big Bang will happen, and the end result will be the Advent of the Beast. (hehehe) :(

Oh well, back to the scientific debate.

This corny joke was brought to you by Third Hero, who really is disgusted at the atheistic turn of modern-day science.

Creator
Sep 10th 2008, 07:01 PM
IN related news, I believe in a Big Bang, but not the one that scientists are trying to replicate. I believe that a Big Bang will happen, and the end result will be the Advent of the Beast. (hehehe) :(



He, he....yes, but I believe that will be called the "Big Crunch" :rofl:

Creator

P.S. I added more to my response to you ...see post #30.
Guess I'm not as fast at this typing thing as I used to be when I was a atheistic Big Banger. :D

Willem
Sep 10th 2008, 07:10 PM
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and everything in them, and he took his rest on the seventh day: for this reason the Lord has given his blessing to the seventh day and made it holy.

Not Genesis, but the ten Commandments, He wrote it in stone Himself !

What will scientists eventually find. Six days!:pp

Creator
Sep 10th 2008, 07:18 PM
It seems you added that other stuff after I already quoted you. That's why it's not there. Anyway, I don't have all the answers as I'm a recent convert from non big bang to big bang but the big bang sounds so much like the creation account so why reject it?


Yes, my last addition got trampled over....(I'm too slow a typist..:D).

The last point which was erased was .....

" Many millions of Christians have rejected new theories like Big Bang simply because it requires you to invalidate the literacy of the 6 day Creation period given in God's Word......I for one am definitely NOT willing to do that".

I was an avid former atheistic evolutionist...Big Banger....and God has taught me the reality of the Scripture and the literal 6 Days of Creation.

Creator

moonglow
Sep 10th 2008, 07:20 PM
The Big Bang theory is a reasonable attempt to explain the Red-Shift which astronomers see in their infrared telescopes--which in layman's terms, basically means that all the planets, galaxies, etc. are currently moving away from each other. Which is counter-intuitive, considering that gravity does the exact opposite.

The LHC is a reasonable attempt to settle the argument as to whether the Big Bang happened or not.

I thought they called that the Big Rip? The reason everything is moving away from each other is from the initial explosion of the Big Bang. Like blowing up then popping a balloon...everything explodes outwards...and still is and they think eventually will result is the Big Rip...the universe ripping away from each other...totally losing any gravity pull at all. Gravity doesn't keep us from throwing something up in the air...if it goes far enough, gravity loses its pull all together.

God Bless

Creator
Sep 10th 2008, 07:20 PM
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and everything in them, and he took his rest on the seventh day: for this reason the Lord has given his blessing to the seventh day and made it holy.

Not Genesis, but the ten Commandments, He wrote it in stone Himself !

What will scientists eventually find. Six days!:pp



Good one Willem!; couldn't have said it better myself...:D

Creator

IPet2_9
Sep 10th 2008, 07:21 PM
He, he....yes, but I believe that will be called the "Big Crunch"

Actually, there already is such a theory. It says that everything started with a Big Bang. Celestial bodies are still moving away from one another; but one day, gravity will prevail, and at some point billions of years from now, they will reverse course and converge again. Eventually, they will all converge into one, single, big black hole again, thereby repeating the Big Bang.

IPet2_9
Sep 10th 2008, 07:28 PM
.if it goes far enough, gravity loses its pull all together.

Gravity never loses all of its pull altogether. Its strength is a function of mass/distance^2. It's the same with magnetic fields. There is, however, a point at which we say that gravity is infinitesimal, because the distance is too large. But when we're talking about the universe, you have infinite distance, but also infinite mass. That yields the equation (gravity = infinity/infinity), which is undefined.

But yeah, there's also the Big Rip theory, which is essentially the opposite of the Big Crunch. It says the universe will always continue to rip apart, and gravity will never reverse that course. I think it's based on the idea that as you reduce velocity (near light-speed), you also reduce mass, so gravity will never be able to reverse the universe's course.

moonglow
Sep 10th 2008, 07:31 PM
I have a tendency to agree with you 'third hero' . I always try to look at things from a spiritual perspective .... Many of these 'new' theories of origins seem to have a 'design' to remove the Creator from the picture and 'substitute' a naturalistic explanation....which invariable denegates the veracity of Scripture...
Because of its antagonism toward Scripture I think Satan really loves the Big Bang theory.

Many of the earlier great scientists were strict Creationists and Scriptural literalist....and made amazing dsicoveries....and freely admited that it was their relationship with the Creator that led them to such great discoveries...Newton and Kepler are prime examples.

Any theory that tries to call God a liar by attempting to invalidate the literal 6 days of Creation DOESN'T appeal to me.

Thanks for yur post, :D

Creator

I have to agree with some of the other comments on here..the Big Bang only possibly proves the first verse

Genesis
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

...it has nothing to with the creation of the other things...the animals, plants, Adam and Eve...no one ever said the Big Bang could prove all six days.

For years and years we have heard how it probably took billion of years for the universe to be created...that it was impossible for it to have happened in a day's time and here we have evidence it could have happened in a split second. I happen to strongly believe this among many others things, show there is a God...and helps prove the bible is true. :)

God bless

moonglow
Sep 10th 2008, 07:37 PM
Actually, there already is such a theory. It says that everything started with a Big Bang. Celestial bodies are still moving away from one another; but one day, gravity will prevail, and at some point billions of years from now, they will reverse course and converge again. Eventually, they will all converge into one, single, big black hole again, thereby repeating the Big Bang.

What would the point be on having another big Bang? Is this your own ideas or something you read about...just wondering.


God bless

HisLeast
Sep 10th 2008, 07:38 PM
Short answer. Yes.

What's the long answer? I'm really interested to see what evidence you have.

Creator
Sep 10th 2008, 07:43 PM
The Big Bang theory is a reasonable attempt to explain the Red-Shift ....
.

Yes, it is , but that explanation is being made with unregenerated minds....
and which usually takes the form of ignoring Scripture....or at least, degrading it to the point of allegory and in effect, making God a liar.

Believe me I know...i have a astrophysics background from prior to being born again in Christ.

Scripture says, "The natural mind receives NOT the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned".

I don't fault those who are TRYING to expalin the universe with mechanistic expanations....but nevertheless, I realize the ORIGIN of such theories.... and I think all true Chrstains ought to be able to discern the fallacy of such.....or at least not jump so rashly and without reservation into such a hedonistically apealing theory without any thought as to its obviuos anti-Scriptural bias.

Thanks for your post..
Creator

Creator
Sep 10th 2008, 07:53 PM
I have to agree with some of the other comments on here..the Big Bang only possibly proves the first verse

Genesis
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

...it has nothing to with the creation of the other things...the animals, plants, Adam and Eve...no one ever said the Big Bang could prove all six days.

For years and years we have heard how it probably took billion of years for the universe to be created...that it was impossible for it to have happened in a day's time and here we have evidence it could have happened in a split second. I happen to strongly believe this among many others things, show there is a God...and helps prove the bible is true. :)

God bless


You obvoiusly mis-understand what the Big Bang theory is all about......yours is a common mis-conception.

It does NOT teach that it all happened in one day...

It teaches that the universe formed over billions of years...that the planets and stars EVOLVED over billions of years after the initial explosion, and continued to expand and after the initail explosion and COALESTED over billions of years to form the planets etc.

Thus it directly contradicts Ex 20: 11 (as posted by Weillem)...." For in SIX days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, ..."


Now you know why it is so important to LEARN the Scripture.:D


Creator

moonglow
Sep 10th 2008, 07:55 PM
Yes, it is , but that explanation is being made with unregenerated minds....
and which usually takes the form of ignoring Scripture....or at least, degrading it to the point of allegory and in effect, making God a liar.

Believe me I know...i have a astrophysics background from prior to being born again in Christ.

Scripture says, "The natural mind receives NOT the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned".

I don't fault those who are TRYING to expalin the universe with mechanistic expanations....but nevertheless, I realize the ORIGIN of such theories.... and I think all true Chrstains ought to be able to discern the fallacy of such.....or at least not jump so rashly without reservation into such a hedonistically apealling theory without any thought as to its obviuos antiScriptural bias.

Thanks for your post..
Creator

How do you know many of these people aren't Christians though? Have you researched each one involved to see what their beliefs are? I believe all people are seeking God as the bible clearly says He has put the knowledge of Him in all of us...also many scientist have come to know God through their studies. The point is God IS in control of everything...including this. I am all for it because atheist want to believe there was no Big Bang...with the proof of it...something started it...it didn't just happen by some accident...they would be forced to face this fact. A flower cannot spring from no seed...

God bless

moonglow
Sep 10th 2008, 07:56 PM
You obvoiusly mis-understand what the Big Bang theory is all about......

It does NOT teach that it all happened in one day...

It teaches that the universe formed over billions of years...that the planets and stars EVOLVED over billions of years after the initial explosion, and continued to expand and after the initail explosion and COALESTED over billions of years to form the planets etc.

Thus it directly contradicts Ex 20: 11 (as posted by Weillem)...." For in SIX days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, ..."


Now you know why it is so important to LEARN the Scripture.:D


Creator

I think I understand it better then you do...please do not shout at me in large bold letters..thanks.

Creator
Sep 10th 2008, 08:01 PM
How do you know many of these people aren't Christians though? Have you researched each one involved to see what their beliefs are? I believe all people are seeking God as the bible clearly says He has put the knowledge of Him in all of us...also many scientist have come to know God through their studies. The point is God IS in control of everything...including this. I am all for it because atheist want to believe there was no Big Bang...with the proof of it...something started it...it didn't just happen by some accident...they would be forced to face this fact. A flower cannot spring from no seed...

God bless

I never said many aren't Christians...did I ?

In fact, it is obvious that even from the posts here...that there are Christians who wants to believe BB theory....

But do you think Christians cannot be deceived?/

Now you know why we must put God's Word first...and undertsand what it says,.......I re-direct your attention to my post just before yours (post #44to moonglow)as an example how Believers can easily be led to believe something is true when in reality it directly contradicts the Word of God.

Creator

Creator
Sep 10th 2008, 08:03 PM
I think I understand it better then you do...please do not shout at me in large bold letters..thanks.

Sorry moonglow....my apologies...:kiss:.I wasn't intentionally 'shoutin' ...The Large letters got stuck in that position when I copied Ex. 20 from Willem"s post.:blush:

Creator:blush:

Free Indeed
Sep 10th 2008, 08:10 PM
I wouldn't call a belief that has arisen only within the last 80 or 100 years.. "Historical support" ..... Prior to that time Christians have HISTORICALLY believed the literacy of Scripture.

The Big Bang Theory was originally supported by Christian scientists and opposed by atheistic scientists because, if a Big Bang happened, it would prove there had been a literal creation, which is what Christians have said all along.



Today MANY millions of Christians reject BB.....especially since 'belief' in it requires you to invalidate the literal 6 day creation period given in Genesis.

No, it doesn't. The Big Bang Theory states that the universe came into being at a finite point in the past via a mass explosion. This is compatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

What came after the Big Bang is an entirely separate question.

Creator
Sep 10th 2008, 08:17 PM
The Big Bang Theory was originally supported by Christian scientists and opposed by atheistic scientists because, if a Big Bang happened, it would prove there had been a literal creation, which is what Christians have said all along.




No, it doesn't. The Big Bang Theory states that the universe came into being at a finite point in the past via a mass explosion. This is compatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

What came after the Big Bang is an entirely separate question.

Not!....Big Bang theory does not say that ....You have the same mis-conception about the Big Bang as Moonglow did...please go back beginning at post # 40 and begin reading there and you will see why Big Bang directly contradicts Scripture.... ...you obviously missed those posts...I don;'t want to have to re-do it.Thx, Creator.</p>

IPet2_9
Sep 10th 2008, 08:21 PM
IMHO, the Big Bang theory should be evaluated and tested on its own merits, free of any presuppositions theology-wise. History repeated that mistake before, with Galileo and Copernicus. In fact, I would go on to say that all of the alleged "blasphemous" theories, such as evolution, deserve their fair shake. But once their own scientific method discredits it, then it needs to be binned, and for the same reason. (P.S. that's the issue I have with evolution--honest scientific method has long since discredited it)

Creator
Sep 10th 2008, 08:22 PM
P.S. Scripture exhorts us to;PROVE (test) all things ... IOW, compare it to God's word...Do NOT takes thiings at face value on its 'own merits'.......Believe NOT every spirit, but test the spirits whether they are of God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.(I John 4:1)...Remember.... Now the Spirit speaks expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy...(1Tim.4: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the principles of the world, and not after Christ - (Col. 2:8):DGotta go...sorry I don't have any more time today...Catch up with you guys later..Nice talking to you all.in Christ, God Bless, :D Creator

Bladers
Sep 10th 2008, 08:44 PM
Creator, Just the word "Big Bang" proves that there is a God. No one in here supports the big bang theory, but we support the fact there was a big bang which was stated in the scriptures. Not the big bang the scientists said and theorized, not the big bang that the muslims brought up. But the big bang that God caused.


He said "Let the be light"

BAM, there was light. Don't you think there would be big explosions in the creation of the universe? Do you not know that God converns all the principles of this Universe. The whole gravity and atoms, He made them.

Bladers
Sep 10th 2008, 08:53 PM
Yes, it appears that despite the doomsayers predictions, the universe remains intact and scientists have hailed the switch on a success, or was it?.

Live BBC-Video from earlier today - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7608639.stm

1730pm (BST) FROM Andrew Caspari, Radio 4, in central control room

So things have begun to calm here and the head honchos have gone to ponder their success or do a few more media interviews. The remaining staff in the control room are enjoying ruminating on a remarkable day.

Still not much alcohol being consumed. The sobriety is impressive but perhaps a trip to the right bar in Geneva will tell a different story. And who would blame them if it did?

There are still people intently studying the screens and there isn't a facebook page or an msn message in sight.
The CERN bosses took a big risk when they agreed to launch the first beam in the full glare of publicity and it has paid off. One was honest enough to say it didn't feel such a smart idea when the cooling was not working so well. Fortune favours the brave though and all who have been enthralled today will watch this project with interest in the weeks , months and indeed years to come.

As the Director General of CERN told his team 'C'est la fin du debut'. It was from Churchill of course 'This is the end of the begining'. Apt that the phrase was from world war 2 where science and indeed physics played such a big role. Now and here at CERN it is a symbol of international co operation and constructive progress from which all are sure to benefit.

Just spoken to Lyn Evans who has been running things here at CERN. He confirms no collisions for the time being. The next phase is really to start to control the beams or in the language here, 'capture them'. The first collisions which will be at relatively low energy will be in a week or so they think. These are unlikely immediately to offer new physics but the word from Lyn Evans is there is a lot of excitement even over whay they have so far.

IPet2_9
Sep 10th 2008, 11:10 PM
Scripture exhorts us to;PROVE (test) all things ... IOW, compare it to God's word

People told us the exact same thing, to hold the round Earth theory up to God's Word. Clearly, the OT says the Earth is flat. Copernicus was jailed.

Joe King
Sep 10th 2008, 11:35 PM
People told us the exact same thing, to hold the round Earth theory up to God's Word. Clearly, the OT says the Earth is flat. Copernicus was jailed.


In what passage? Are you sure about the context?

moonglow
Sep 10th 2008, 11:57 PM
I never said many aren't Christians...did I ?

In fact, it is obvious that even from the posts here...that there are Christians who wants to believe BB theory....

But do you think Christians cannot be deceived?/

Now you know why we must put God's Word first...and undertsand what it says,.......I re-direct your attention to my post just before yours (post #44to moonglow)as an example how Believers can easily be led to believe something is true when in reality it directly contradicts the Word of God.

Creator

Ok look I think there has been alot of misunderstandings on this thread to start with. First I know this will probably be a shock to you but there are alot of Christians that believe evolution is true and still believe in God...they just think that is how God did it. In being deceived...what we have to watch out for is being lead away from God...correct? There are people on here that think getting sprinkled to be bapisted is ok...others don't...they think it has to be a full dunking. there are people on here that believe the Sabbath is on Saturday...some on Sunday and so on....we debate this kind of stuff on here all the time but I promise you ever single person on here all share the same core belief...that Jesus IS the Son of God and did die for our sins and rose on the third day and now sits on the right hand side of God and one day will return...

And of course some of us know the bible better then others...some of us have been Christians for years and years and some are new...

When we talk about the Big Bang we are talking about the SECOND it all began. No one is talking about believing it still took millions of years for everything to actually forum (at least not on this thread though there could be some Christians that have no problems with that time frame at all) I personally think they have their time frame in the science world on this all wrong! And I think one day..maybe in using this machine...they will discover that...

(what's in red is what I inserted)
THE BIG BANG (http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm)

One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created?(God) Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning. (In the beginning! Genesis 1:1)

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. (disagree with this time frame)This explosion is known as the Big Bang.(Psalm 33:6
The Lord merely spoke,and the heavens were created.He breathed the word,and all the stars were born. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe. (...created the heavens...Genesis 1:1)

We know from the bible there are three heavens...the first heaven means the sky...the second heaven means space and the third Heaven is where God is at...

At this point, time was also created...for us. Before that God did not need time as He is timeless...

(reference the bible on the seasons, the cycle of the moon, the separation of light and day to make the first day)

At this point this is ALL the Big Bang proves, which is quite alot! As the article says for centuries people thought the universe had just always been there...they also thought the stars could be counted (both of those going against what the bible says...the bible says the stars cannot be counted and the universe has a beginning). More and more science is catching up with the bible! This is all we are saying we agree with in the Big Bang idea...

Hopefully that will clear up some of the misunderstanding on here about this whole subject.


Sorry moonglow....my apologies....I wasn't intentionally 'shoutin' ...The Large letters got stuck in that position when I copied Ex. 20 from Willem"s post.

Creator

Ok thank you for that. Please do realize those posting on here do know their bible well and I think from the ones I know posting...they would never put science over the bible at all...and that includes me too.

God bless

moonglow
Sep 11th 2008, 12:01 AM
People told us the exact same thing, to hold the round Earth theory up to God's Word. Clearly, the OT says the Earth is flat. Copernicus was jailed.

Actually it was the Catholic church that decided the earth was flat taking those passage far too literally!

Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html)

No, this false idea is not taught in Scripture!

Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the “four corners” of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the “language of appearance,” just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. [DD]

In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. [DD]

A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the earth."

Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]

(read the rest at the link)

There is a group called the Flat Earth society though that still insists the earth is flat!

you have to remember back in the dark ages the Catholic church had a terrible grip on the common people who were not allowed to read the bible for themselves and told what to believe! What the Church then said was true was true and if you went against what they said you were taking your life in your hands! That is how that whole thing got started...:rolleyes:

God bless

apothanein kerdos
Sep 11th 2008, 12:08 AM
People told us the exact same thing, to hold the round Earth theory up to God's Word. Clearly, the OT says the Earth is flat. Copernicus was jailed.


Um, not it doesn't. This is one of the worst attempts at interpretation I've seen in a while. ;)

As for the Big Bang...

Prior to the BB the scientific consensus was that the universe was eternal. Matter and energy had simply always existed. Christianity, on the other hand, had always taught in the concept of a temporal universe, or one that had a beginning. Philosophically Christianity was validated by Aristotle's principle of the "unmoved mover," but that's about all it had going for it.

The Big Bang, simply put, states that all material had a beginning point. Now, this is detrimental to non-theistic explanations of the universe. The reason is the Big Bang - by definition - is antithetical to naturalistic explanations (that's why I don't know where Creator is getting this nonsense about it being naturalistic). This is why we have theories such as string theory, alternate universes, multiple dimensions, and so on - the naturalists are seeking an explanation for where the material came from.

What the Big Bang does is provide us evidence that the universe isn't an infinite regress and at some point something came from nothing. This can only be explained by a theistic explanation, which Genesis 1:1 is.

Saved7
Sep 11th 2008, 12:21 AM
Scientist will recreate the Big Bang Live at http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1026735
You can actually watch them live as they turn the thingy on

Tomorrow - 1:30 a.m. CDT on Wednesday, Sept. 10,2008
"After 40 years of planning and construction, the biggest science experiment in history is ready to be tested. The "Large Hadron Collider" is an experiment created by the greatest minds in physics. It cost $10 billion and its resulting data has the potential to explain why we and the Universe exist. Their idea is to smash protons towards one another at the speed of light, trying to mimic what happened in the milliseconds after The Big Bang

What will you be doing on the time of the second Big Bang?


So what does the scripture say about the first Big Bang


2 Samuel 22:16
And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.


It likely won't work like they think, but end up being used for one of two things....a weapon, or the other, medicine, and if that doesn't work out, I bet they use it to sweeten our soda's with for those who drink diet cola's!!!:lol:

IPet2_9
Sep 11th 2008, 12:29 AM
Um, not it doesn't. This is one of the worst attempts at interpretation I've seen in a while. ;)

How closely do you read stuff before you reply to it? Do you realize I was being sarcastic?

danield
Sep 11th 2008, 12:35 AM
My take on all this big bang theory is that God was the one that light the fuse!:pp I will never loose faith in him no matter what people say about creation.

God Bless!

moonglow
Sep 11th 2008, 12:46 AM
How closely do you read stuff before you reply to it? Do you realize I was being sarcastic?

We can't hear sarcasm on here...;) :lol:

Actually I thought you were serious too! That is why I posted the link to a site showing the bible never says the earth is flat...:hmm:


God bless

apothanein kerdos
Sep 11th 2008, 12:58 AM
How closely do you read stuff before you reply to it? Do you realize I was being sarcastic?

I know, hence the *wink* at the end. I was simply following the sarcasm.

The joys of internet (non)communication.

moonglow
Sep 11th 2008, 01:00 AM
I know, hence the *wink* at the end. I was simply following the sarcasm.

The joys of internet (non)communication.

Well uhm....I guess I missed the wink...cause I still thought he was serious! :cool::lol:


:P

Free Indeed
Sep 11th 2008, 12:39 PM
Not!....Big Bang theory does not say that ....You have the same mis-conception about the Big Bang as Moonglow did...please go back beginning at post # 40 and begin reading there and you will see why Big Bang directly contradicts Scripture.... ...you obviously missed those posts...I don;'t want to have to re-do it.Thx, Creator.</p>

I didn't miss them, I just don't agree with them. The discovery of the exapnding universe by Hubble validated the Big Bang Theory, and so far, the observations match the theory.

TravisJ
Sep 11th 2008, 07:09 PM
Whats going to happen is they are going to suck themselves in there own black hole.... that reminds me of something happen in the bible.. hnmmm .. what happen to those people... someone has to remind me ;) lol.. i seem to forget what happened...

TravisJ
Sep 11th 2008, 07:18 PM
And that is what I don't get with these scientist... in order to have these 2 atoms to push against each other, they has to be something pushing it together... and thats what those machines are doing is pushing them 2 atoms together... well they got to understand that there had to be a machine to push those 2 atoms together in the beginning.. lol... they are just about as dumb as they are smart... lol..

You want to show how impossible the big bang theory is... If you throw a watch in the air, and it come to many different pieces and fail back down into the one watch again is just about how stupid and impossible the big bang theory is...

These 2 atoms just imaginably appeared and they touched each other and boom they got all excited and exploded with these gases making all these planets, and putting them in Laws! orbiting around the Sun.. that has the same pattern every year... around the same path every year... And suddenly the earth was formed by gases and it made the earth with all the animals and plants and everything....

HisLeast
Sep 11th 2008, 07:27 PM
And that is what I don't get with these scientist... in order to have these 2 atoms to push against each other, they has to be something pushing it together... and thats what those machines are doing is pushing them 2 atoms together... well they got to understand that there had to be a machine to push those 2 atoms together in the beginning.. lol... they are just about as dumb as they are smart... lol..
WOW! Why did they spend 8Billion dollars when they could have just consulted you? Oh... because you don't understand the reason or methodology of the experiment.


You want to show how impossible the big bang theory is... If you throw a watch in the air, and it come to many different pieces and fail back down into the one watch again is just about how stupid and impossible the big bang theory is...
When God spoke the universe into existence, what PRECISELY happened?


These 2 atoms just imaginably appeared and they touched each other and boom they got all excited and exploded with these gases making all these planets, and putting them in Laws!
Nobody, and I mean nobody, suggests it happens like that.

Is it possible that before we lay the disdain on thick and start slamming down "LOL" with impunity... can we just take an hour out of our day and try to understand what's actually going on?

IPet2_9
Sep 11th 2008, 07:48 PM
Ecclesiastes 1:2 "Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless."

I think I'm going to go along with your .sig at this point. This is just unbelievable how history repeats itself. Scientists are all just evil atheists who are out to disprove God by proving some astronomical phenomenon. Yep.

TravisJ
Sep 11th 2008, 08:14 PM
WOW! Why did they spend 8Billion dollars when they could have just consulted you? Oh... because you don't understand the reason or methodology of the experiment.


When God spoke the universe into existence, what PRECISELY happened?


Nobody, and I mean nobody, suggests it happens like that.

Is it possible that before we lay the disdain on thick and start slamming down "LOL" with impunity... can we just take an hour out of our day and try to understand what's actually going on?


So i can't defend Christianity, knowing the truth... they use our tax money for stupid things like this... why waste 8 billion dollars when people like us well most of us.. know that there is a God... and he spoke the world into existence.... If you know God spoke this world into existence then you know that there wasn't 2 atoms touching each other to create the universe...

HisLeast
Sep 11th 2008, 08:48 PM
So i can't defend Christianity,
Not if you're going to mischaracterize the people at the LHC, and show zero understanding of what they're actually doing there. Hint: They aren't attacking Christianity.


why waste 8 billion dollars when people like us well most of us.. know that there is a God...
They aren't trying to prove or disprove anything about God.


and he spoke the world into existence....
What precisely happened when God spoke it into existence? Did matter, gravity, energy, etc just *BANG* spontaneously come into being? At some primal beginning our reality spilled into existence at God's word. Seems scientists have this idea that at some primal beginning our reality spilled into existence. See the similarity? Anyway... what does any of this have to do with the LHC again?


If you know God spoke this world into existence then you know that there wasn't 2 atoms touching each other to create the universe...
And if you knew what they're doing at the LHC, or what the scientists actually say about the big bang, you'll know that "2 atoms touching" is not the basis of their theories. Neither does it have anything to do with the experiments occurring at the collider.

IPet2_9
Sep 11th 2008, 09:00 PM
they use our tax money for stupid things like this...

Are you SURE they are using _our_ tax money to build the Hadron Collider, located on the Swiss/French border?

Athanasius
Sep 11th 2008, 09:12 PM
And that is what I don't get with these scientist... in order to have these 2 atoms to push against each other, they has to be something pushing it together... and thats what those machines are doing is pushing them 2 atoms together... well they got to understand that there had to be a machine to push those 2 atoms together in the beginning.. lol... they are just about as dumb as they are smart... lol..

I don't mean to be rude, but you do realize part of the experiment is finding the graviton, right? The graviton is a hypothetical [elementary] particle that mediates gravity (quantum physics)... In other words. That 'machine' you're talking about is one of the things they are looking for.



You want to show how impossible the big bang theory is... If you throw a watch in the air, and it come to many different pieces and fail back down into the one watch again is just about how stupid and impossible the big bang theory is...

I fail to see how this compares?



These 2 atoms just imaginably appeared and they touched each other and boom they got all excited and exploded with these gases making all these planets, and putting them in Laws! orbiting around the Sun.. that has the same pattern every year... around the same path every year... And suddenly the earth was formed by gases and it made the earth with all the animals and plants and everything....

You don't think when God created the universe there wasn't just a teeny tiny bang? Maybe a pop? I just really hate entering conversations and every Christian on the board is trivializing the work of scientists, calling them twats, pinheads, donuts, idiots, imbeciles... Implying that they [the Christian] are infinitely wiser than the scientist.

It just sickens me.

IPet2_9
Sep 11th 2008, 09:15 PM
You don't think when God created the universe there wasn't just a teeny tiny bang?

Hey, wait a minute. I performed that experiment back in grade school: you put a clanking bell inside of a glass jar, and then suck all the air out of it. It stops ringing. So there can't be a bang. Space is a vacuum, and sound cannot travel through a vacuum. I proved it. :P :D

TravisJ
Sep 11th 2008, 11:19 PM
LoL i'm sorry i did not know what was going on... I don't even watch TV takes too much time up for me... so i apologize for being thoughtless and how you say it.. oh ignorant.. ;) so carry on

apothanein kerdos
Sep 11th 2008, 11:25 PM
And that is what I don't get with these scientist... in order to have these 2 atoms to push against each other, they has to be something pushing it together... and thats what those machines are doing is pushing them 2 atoms together... well they got to understand that there had to be a machine to push those 2 atoms together in the beginning.. lol... they are just about as dumb as they are smart... lol..

You want to show how impossible the big bang theory is... If you throw a watch in the air, and it come to many different pieces and fail back down into the one watch again is just about how stupid and impossible the big bang theory is...

These 2 atoms just imaginably appeared and they touched each other and boom they got all excited and exploded with these gases making all these planets, and putting them in Laws! orbiting around the Sun.. that has the same pattern every year... around the same path every year... And suddenly the earth was formed by gases and it made the earth with all the animals and plants and everything....


That's not the Big Bang theory, even from an atheistic viewpoint. No one teaches that the Big Bang created the physical laws. Rather, they believe there was something existing prior to the Big Bang that caused it.

Now, of course, due to infinite regress, at some point something had to come from nothing. Naturalism simply cannot explain this. However, I think it is highly interesting to see these particles. They do exist and they have a specific function in keeping this world together. What is infinitely more interesting to me, however, is we're spending millions trying to discover if they exist and what they do - yet God is the one that orchestrated them, created them, and gave them a function. He knows where all of them are, what they do, and everything else. The same God that created the Sun and it's massiveness also created the tiniest particles that we have to spend millions to see.

To me, such experiments are great because they increase the knowledge around us (possibly will help advance space travel at some point...if you know how gravity works that would help), but they help us to appreciate God's creation even more.

My heart's Desire
Sep 12th 2008, 04:11 AM
I thought the machine was supposed to tell them what happened after the supposed Big Bang happened not what made it happen. Maybe that's the same thing? Oh, I know one thing. That machine isn't going to cause earthquakes, tidal waves or problematic black holes that harm anything UNLESS God allowed it. This earth is gonna stay here until God says "It is finished". :)

IPet2_9
Sep 12th 2008, 04:36 AM
It's like this: 99.999% of an atom is actually open air. Only .001% of it is actually a proton or electron. But if you look at a proton, 99% of THAT is open air. It is believed that the subatomic particles comprising the proton are also that way. And that's a large part of the reason why scientists think all matter is actually energy.

Going back to the Big Bang, you have all of the universe compressed down to this little ball. That means all of the atoms & protons are broken down into these little fragments, all mashed together real close.

That's why scientists associate this collider with the Big Bang--because these are the only two times the enormous stresses & energy levels exist for these little particles to exist standalone. It's the only time a boson lives & acts like a boson--not like part of an atom.

th1bill
Sep 12th 2008, 04:45 AM
I didn't miss them, I just don't agree with them. The discovery of the exapnding universe by Hubble validated the Big Bang Theory, and so far, the observations match the theory.
... And I totally disagree with your unsupported observation.

third hero
Sep 12th 2008, 05:51 AM
ANd now, a vit of visdom.

Did anyone pick up a scinece book lately? What all of you have said concerning the Big Bang Theory is NOT what they are teaching in schools. The Atheists have decided to remove the possibility of any force creating the Big Bang. In those text books, they state that out of nothing, a bang happened, and then, after the matter that was produced from the bang evolved, Stars and then planets were formed. They say that this process took over billions of years.

My point? Even if all of you are correct in saying that the original "Big Bang Theory" was created by Theists, the modern version is totally void of a Creator, and thus falls into the naturalistic realm of thinking, otherwise known as Evolution.

Therefore, like Creator and I have previously stated, we can not believe or espouse the idea of the Theroy of Big Bang, especially as it stands right now. Today's children are taught that Big Bang is a naturalistic, evolutionary theory, which explains how all life was produced. Hence, I totally disagree with it.

This is also the reason why I hate science right now. Everything is motivated in the science realm to remove God from the equation, even if their experiments actually prove intellegent design. Take this experiment for example. Why do these scientists need to create a machine that is capable of manipulating protons? According to what they are teaching in the public schools, Big Bang just happened, without any influence or any force manipulating the energy. Why are they, the scienctists, using machinery to recreate what amounted to be one great big accident? Even this experiment proves the existence of God, and it is my belief that everyone in here knows that. However, naturalists are centered on proving Big Bang which disproving the Big Banger. I genuinely hate that, and thus causes me to believe that today's science os nothing more than another version of the Greek myths, only using science to create their religion.

Remove the religious aspects from Big Bang, mainly the unproven timeline and the idea that the Big Bang just happened without someone making it happen, and then we can talk about the actual merits of such a theory. Until then, I'll stick to my "everything evilutionary is blatantly false and blasphemy" group. It's the safer bet.

HisLeast
Sep 12th 2008, 12:35 PM
Did anyone pick up a scinece book lately? What all of you have said concerning the Big Bang Theory is NOT what they are teaching in schools. The Atheists have decided to remove the possibility of any force creating the Big Bang. In those text books, they state that out of nothing, a bang happened, and then, after the matter that was produced from the bang evolved, Stars and then planets were formed. They say that this process took over billions of years.
Yes, they say it took immeasurable amounts of time. No, they haven't "decided to remove the possibly of any force creating". Science stays mute on what CAUSED the big bag or what "was there" before hand because its simply unobservable. Its a subtle but important difference.


My point? Even if all of you are correct in saying that the original "Big Bang Theory" was created by Theists, the modern version is totally void of a Creator, and thus falls into the naturalistic realm of thinking, otherwise known as Evolution.
Is anyone actually saying the Big Bang theory was created by Theists?
And no, trying to make observations about the universe's infancy doesn't necessitate a discussion on evolution. That's a non-sequitur.


Therefore, like Creator and I have previously stated, we can not believe or espouse the idea of the Theroy of Big Bang, especially as it stands right now.
I certainly can. The best scripture tells me is that reality was spoken into existence. That means there was a point in time at which nothing existed. Science, through observing the best data available, has surprisingly come to the same conclusion. We can argue the age data in another thread, but you just can't escape the fact that science and scriptures are united in the idea that the universe was not ever present, and that it all started at a fixed point in time. We call that "Creation", the scientists call it "the big bang". Same event, different names.


This is also the reason why I hate science right now. Everything is motivated in the science realm to remove God from the equation, even if their experiments actually prove intellegent design. Take this experiment for example. Why do these scientists need to create a machine that is capable of manipulating protons? According to what they are teaching in the public schools, Big Bang just happened, without any influence or any force manipulating the energy. Why are they, the scienctists, using machinery to recreate what amounted to be one great big accident? Even this experiment proves the existence of God, and it is my belief that everyone in here knows that. However, naturalists are centered on proving Big Bang which disproving the Big Banger. I genuinely hate that, and thus causes me to believe that today's science os nothing more than another version of the Greek myths, only using science to create their religion.
I don't know how many times we have to say this. Less than an hour of actual research can validate this: the are not trying to recreate the big bang. They are not trying to prove or disprove anything about God. Before you relegate scientific method to "mere myth", perhaps you should take a look at what they're actually trying to figure out, void of preconceived judgment.


Remove the religious aspects from Big Bang, mainly the unproven timeline and the idea that the Big Bang just happened without someone making it happen, and then we can talk about the actual merits of such a theory. Until then, I'll stick to my "everything evilutionary is blatantly false and blasphemy" group. It's the safer bet.
Science stays mute on "how/why" the big bang occurred because prior to it, there is no means of observing. Simply put, "that it happened" is the best science can ever give us. How/why are metaphysical questions that science has never even pretended to be able to answer.

IPet2_9
Sep 12th 2008, 04:04 PM
Why do these scientists need to create a machine that is capable of manipulating protons?

Believe me, high-energy physicists have a VERY hard time explaining this to the public. They know what they are doing, and they know it is justified, but--the general public didn't take senior-level Quantum Physics in college, so it's hard to explain to them why. They have PR people who try to tackle that, but the PR people themselves are not physicists, so you've got a bit of a gap there.

Welcome to why the Supercollider was killed.

third hero
Sep 12th 2008, 04:59 PM
HIs Least,
I am sorry to have to argue with you concerning this, but the atheists are coming out of the woodwork, blasting their view about how Big Bang just happened, and some of them are scientists. They ARE NOT mute concerning the root of Big Bang, and on top of that, they have incorporated Big Bang into their Theory of Evolution.

From your perspective, I totally agree. Big Bang, even as a theory void of the religious overtones that the Atheists injected into it, does prove that there not only has to be a creator, but that the creator had to be more powerful than anything else the universe could handle, either pre-bang or post.

However, we know that science nowadays is more than the original science, or study of the observable. It is a religion, a religion for atheists who are hellbent on disproving the existence of God.

Now to what the LHC is doing. I understand that they are trying to see what makes a proton a proton by smashing them together and see wha comes out of it. The applications of this kind of resaearch will help them understand the process in which Big Bang happened, and thus the discussion on Big Bang to begin with.

The only true applications for such experiments, in my opinion, is the advancement of weaponry. Protons have massive amounts of energy stored within each of them, and if that energy can be released in a controlled environment or even manipulated by our technology, then we could muster the means to convert this energy into weapons. Either that, or we could harness that energy into a new kind of power source that is much greater than the power sources that we have right now, and the advancement of our civilization could be greatly improved, from hte Electricity that we use on a daily basis, to the cars, planes, and other things that we use fossil fuels for. We could be looking right in the face of another revolution, or what some would call the evolution of our civilization.

But of course, since man is full of sin, we can expect new weapons to be produced from these experiments first. This is why 28 countries agreed to have this experiment done. They see the potential for new weaponology using proton ions.

HisLeast
Sep 15th 2008, 04:28 PM
From your perspective, I totally agree. Big Bang, even as a theory void of the religious overtones that the Atheists injected into it, does prove that there not only has to be a creator, but that the creator had to be more powerful than anything else the universe could handle, either pre-bang or post.
"Big bang" doesn't prove anything. Its a hypothesis used to explain all the best observable data we currently have. Its not science's job to say how powerful God is, or how or why he created. Science's only purview is to make sense of what we can observe.


However, we know that science nowadays is more than the original science, or study of the observable. It is a religion, a religion for atheists who are hellbent on disproving the existence of God.
Science is not a religion for atheists. Its not even a religion at all. But I don't know how this part of the conversation relates back to the LHC at all. Unless you propose the purpose of the LHC is to do something unscientific (force a faith based conclusion onto people without supporting observations acquired with good methodology).


The only true applications for such experiments, in my opinion, is the advancement of weaponry. Protons have massive amounts of energy stored within each of them, and if that energy can be released in a controlled environment or even manipulated by our technology, then we could muster the means to convert this energy into weapons. Either that, or we could harness that energy into a new kind of power source that is much greater than the power sources that we have right now, and the advancement of our civilization could be greatly improved, from hte Electricity that we use on a daily basis, to the cars, planes, and other things that we use fossil fuels for. We could be looking right in the face of another revolution, or what some would call the evolution of our civilization.
I think you're letting pseudoscience color your opinion. Protons don't have "massive amounts of energy stored within each of them". They have a positive charge of a fraction of a coulomb. How big a fraction? 0.000000000000000000016 C (19 zeros after the decimal). Even if you could transform its insubstantial mass of 0.(26zeros)16 directly into energy with no investment, you'd be looking at an insubstantial amount of energy. Protons aren't magical sources of free energy. They're just unbelievably small components of matter.


But of course, since man is full of sin, we can expect new weapons to be produced from these experiments first. This is why 28 countries agreed to have this experiment done. They see the potential for new weaponology using proton ions.
Can I ask you if you've honestly read anything (from reputable sources) which actually describes what the scientists at the LHC are researching?

IPet2_9
Sep 15th 2008, 05:44 PM
I think you're letting pseudoscience color your opinion. Protons don't have "massive amounts of energy stored within each of them". They have a positive charge of a fraction of a coulomb. How big a fraction? 0.000000000000000000016 C (19 zeros after the decimal). Even if you could transform its insubstantial mass of 0.(26zeros)16 directly into energy with no investment, you'd be looking at an insubstantial amount of energy. Protons aren't magical sources of free energy. They're just unbelievably small components of matter.

I would argue this is all a matter of perspective. Does an ant have massive strength? I would say yes--they can lift several times their body weight over their head. Also, what is a single proton, really? A hydrogen ion. You take a hydrogeon atom (1 proton + 1 electron), ionize it, you are left with just a proton. What do you get when you release hydrogen ions into the air? Let's just say I don't want to be nearby when you find out.

teddyv
Sep 15th 2008, 06:01 PM
I would argue this is all a matter of perspective. Does an ant have massive strength? I would say yes--they can lift several times their body weight over their head. Also, what is a single proton, really? A hydrogen ion. You take a hydrogeon atom (1 proton + 1 electron), ionize it, you are left with just a proton. What do you get when you release hydrogen ions into the air? Let's just say I don't want to be nearby when you find out.

I know what you are trying to say but I don't think that your examples really follow from HisLeast's post. If you increase and ant's dimensions to human size, it probably couldn't even move (let alone die due to poor oxygen transfer)

Also, releasing H+ into the atmosphere describes a chemical reaction not an inherent energy potential of a proton itself.

IPet2_9
Sep 15th 2008, 06:14 PM
Also, releasing H+ into the atmosphere describes a chemical reaction not an inherent energy potential of a proton itself.Energy comes in different forms (unless you're a quantum physicist who just discovered the Higgs Boson, but anyway...). That chemical energy has to come from somewhere. In this case, it's the electrons jumping into lower orbit, which directly follows from their kinetic/centripetal/magnetic energy. If you break down that proton so that it loses its "+" charge, there is a LOT of energy to be had there. At a lower level, a proton is made of two Tops (+2/3 charge) and a Bottom (-1/3 charge). If you split the protons and get rid of a Top and add a Bottom (i.e. 1 top + 2 bottoms), you get a neutron plus a lot of energy.

Ultimately, it's widely theorized that all matter is just energy anyway. It's just the conversion factor from matter to energy is extremely high. The modern forms of relativity, Mass approaches infinity as the Velocity asymptotically approaches light speed.

HisLeast
Sep 15th 2008, 06:24 PM
Energy comes in different forms (unless you're a quantum physicist who just discovered the Higgs Boson, but anyway...). That chemical energy has to come from somewhere. In this case, it's the electrons jumping into lower orbit, which directly follows from their kinetic/centripetal/magnetic energy. If you break down that proton so that it loses its "+" charge, there is a LOT of energy to be had there. At a lower level, a proton is made of two Tops (+2/3 charge) and a Bottom (-1/3 charge). If you split the protons and get rid of a Top and add a Bottom (i.e. 1 top + 2 bottoms), you get a neutron plus a lot of energy.

The trick is how much energy does it cost do do all that?

IPet2_9
Sep 15th 2008, 07:48 PM
The trick is how much energy does it cost do do all that?

Yeah. That's the problem of fusion.