Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[YoursTrue]

That's difficult, and I don't really know. I think that the present idea is that as the universe expands, the contribution of dark energy to the universe's mass-energy content will increase, but I don't know whether the density of dark energy will decrease or remain constant. See Dark energy - Wikipedia for more information.

Yeah I like that. "The present idea." They don't know and possibly never will.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did Hawking have evidence to base his theory that the universe didn't need anything but gravity to start it? I am reading another book by scientists and it's interesting but there is evidence without them realizing it backing up the Bible's take on things.

Hawking was a theoretical physicist. That means that his work was an attempt to explain existing observations. That means that the observed expansion of space was one of the pieces of evidence that he used to support his hypotheses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah I like that. "The present idea." They don't know and possibly never will.

There are some things in the universe that we may never understand. But I would not bet on us not knowing any of the questions that we currently have. Humanity has a way of figuring things out.

The universe is a bit like an onion in the way that it takes knowledge to understand each layer. It is like our understanding of matter. It used to be on the level of what we could see with our eyes. And then with microscopes. And then with finer and finer scales as our understanding improved. Right now quarks appear to be the basis of matter. It may get no simpler than that. And though we cannot see individual quarks there are experiments that confirm their existence.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Big Bang was not likely a "bang" as we would know it but a dramatic expansion of the universe for unknown reason(s). An estimate is that prior to the BB, our universe probably was no larger than a current atom.

Or... according to Dr Hawking, came from gravity plus nothing.

 

[metis]

Or... according to Dr Hawking, came from gravity plus nothing.

As a hypothesis, yes, but he didn't claim it was a slam-dunk.

Sorry for the March Madness reference.

 

[YoursTrue]

As a hypothesis, yes, but he didn't claim it was a slam-dunk.

Sorry for the March Madness reference.

We can all speculate. Some are more credible than others. I was just looking in a book by a rather well known scientist at photos of men landing on the moon. Interesting but I doubt highly, very highly, it was a setup job photo. Can I say I know it was a realtime photo? Yes. Was I there? No. Actually Dr. Hawking's last testimony in print was that it did come from nothing but gravitational force. He thought about it until he died I guess. Some might think he is still thinking, I guess. I do not. One might contact a spirit medium and believe/think he talks to them, hmm?

 

[metis]

No. Actually Dr. Hawking's last testimony in print was that it did come from nothing but gravitational force.

I believe I read his last book, and he said that he felt it would fall in line as being a possibility under the basic laws of physics. I've read two books of his late in his career, but I can't remember if one of them was his last one.

 

[Boris Norris]

Did Hawking have evidence to base his theory that the universe didn't need anything but gravity to start it?

No. What's your point?

I am reading another book by scientists and it's interesting but there is evidence without them realizing it backing up the Bible's take on things.

Not once has science ever supported or contributed to anything the Bible says.
Believers have attempted to link the two for years by quoting the Bible.

Religion is based on faith and that's based on no evidence. Science discovers things, tests it and if it fails, gets thrown out. You have a book 2000 years old that refuses to acknowledge changes because it undermines it's strict rules that everything human kind needs to know is written in it. That is absurd.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. What's your point?

Not once has science ever supported or contributed to anything the Bible says.
Believers have attempted to link the two for years by quoting the Bible.

Religion is based on faith and that's based on no evidence. Science discovers things, tests it and if it fails, gets thrown out. You have a book 2000 years old that refuses to acknowledge changes because it undermines it's strict rules that everything human kind needs to know is written in it. That is absurd.

I disagree but that's what makes up the world.

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe I read his last book, and he said that he felt it would fall in line as being a possibility under the basic laws of physics. I've read two books of his late in his career, but I can't remember if one of them was his last one.

Let me put it this way.. there is no way whatsoever he could have proved that and I doubt anyone else will.

 

[Boris Norris]

I disagree but that's what makes up the world.

I'm assuming from your reply you have evidence science has supported religion. Can you be specific please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me put it this way.. there is no way whatsoever he could have proved that and I doubt anyone else will.

He ccould not have "proved It" because we do not have the full ability to test it. We can get rather close. Will we never be able to test it? Perhaps, perhaps not. Betting against science has never been a good idea historically.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm assuming from your reply you have evidence science has supported religion. Can you be specific please.

At this time I am pretty sure whatever I provide is something you would disagree with. So, with that in mind ... enjoy the rest of the day.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not sure why you think that extending our knowledge base is 'so stupid', but to each his own. Personally I find it all very fascinating.

Extending knowledge base? We have enough problems here on the earth to work with learning more and effecting the "knowledge base."

 

[YoursTrue]

The key word here is one you just used... MAYBE

That's what science is, exploring the MAYBEs to see which ones are true

Science has been working a while on the origin of life and the origin of the universe. Figure out what is 'true' yet?

 

[YoursTrue]

By the way, for me, science is something like in a lab or a hospital, in part. Like science developing vaccines. There's plenty of work to enhance the human race instead of trying to figure out how the universe began. But then, of course, the nature of greed gets involved, so even when 'science' figures that pesticides are ruinous to one's health, they aren't going to win for the most part.

 

[icehorse]

Science has been working a while on the origin of life and the origin of the universe. Figure out what is 'true' yet?

I'm not sure why you're being snarky here? Science has figured out a lot of stuff. But some questions are much harder than others. The thing about scientists, is that - unlike a lot of religious people - scientists do not pretend to know the answer to questions when they don't know.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not sure why you're being snarky here? Science has figured out a lot of stuff. But some questions are much harder than others. The thing about scientists, is that - unlike a lot of religious people - scientists do not pretend to know the answer to questions when they don't know.

Who's being snarky? Not me, I can assure you of that. Sorry you took it that way. Meantime I acknowledged that science has done some good things. I actually take vaccines and just had an operation. So?

 

[YoursTrue]

@icehorse I appreciated the expertise of my surgeon and the anesthesiologist, with their scientific training and expertise. Maybe (who knows) in their spare time if they have any they are having fun figuring out how the universe came about. Which reminds me -- maybe I'll ask them next time.

 

[Boris Norris]

At this time I am pretty sure whatever I provide is something you would disagree with. So, with that in mind ... enjoy the rest of the day.

It always ends when the evidence is requested.