TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Big bang is out!,

Lets look at the big bang from a distance. Outer space!, if you were to explode a large planet or sun, what would the pieces look like? Sharp, jagged pieces of rocks and debris, right??? The planets in our solor system are round and not sharp or jagged. Why? God!! He is the intelligence that magnificantly designed our place of existance. Imagine living on a sharp, jagged rock, you would fall off every edge that you walked over to. Water would run off the edges etc.... I have blown up stuff as a kid and never saw a piece of material perfectly round after detonation. Agree? God, jesus and all we have been taught as a child exsist. I believed as a child in Santa, the Easter bunny, tooth fairy but learned that my parents were all of them. Why is it that so many people still believe in god and visit Rome every year and many religous sites if they did not believe in a supreme being? Life after death....sounds crazy I know, but this cant be the only stop before the end. Why go through life to learn, live, suffer and die just to be eaten by worms and be forgotton unless, " there is more to it!!" Please comment.


Closing Statement from Dave McManus

Well, now that all the college educated scientists put their opinions in, I will say this. Yes, there is science behind every origin or birth of a planet, person, animal or what have you, but behind science, there is god. God allowed the science to take place to start the b.b or any other birth of a gallaxy, person, star, planet etc....but when god meets each of you down the road, you better tell him that you were always believing in him, just trying to figure out how he did it.. He may laugh and he may push the down button, but god is the real scientist that has figured it all out. You college people that have spent years exhausting theories, may never know the real answer when it has been in front of your noses all along!! ;-)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 12 2013: One thing that puzzles me. I understand about the Red Shift seems to indicate that the universe is expanding. So we reverse extrapolate & the universe comes together. Ok so far, but why must it come from a singularity; why not a tighter universe? The early models, memory serving, we're not a singularity but various diameters

    Genesis 1:1 NIV
    [1] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

    Genesis 1:16 NIV
    [16] God made two great lights---the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

    Isaiah 40:22 NIV
    [22] He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

    He made the earth, he made the stars, then he stretched them out. What's wrong with that ?

    The bb is closer than the previous 'Eternal Universe' hypothesis . Close, but no cigar; yet!

    • thumb
      Nov 12 2013: Hey Pete,
      Genesis gets it all wrong.
      1) The universe is about 14 billion years old while the earth is only about 4.5 billion.
      So putting the creation of earth and the heavens as the # 1 step is simply not supported by science
      2) Moon and sun didn't come into existence at the same time. The sun is older than the moon.
      As to the stars, it's a constant coming and going. The starts are not a fixed factor in the universe. So, again, Genesis makes no sense.
      3) as to Isaaiah 40:22: why would god create the vast universe and then just micromanage our tiny spec called earth ? Makes not much sense either.
      The Big Bang theory is not something some guy just came up with. There is science behind this theory and so far that's the best one we have to explain the beginning of the universe.
      Does that mean it's 100 % correct ? Not necessarily, but until somebody can provide a better theory and support it with sufficient evidence, that's what we got.
      Assuming a supernatural being as alternative ha no scientific merit.
      • thumb
        Nov 13 2013: Hi Harald.
        You make bold assertions about ages etc. No doubt you got them from the 2013 copy of Origins Science for Dummies. Of course, if you'd used the 1013 copy your numbers would be entirely different. Then again the 3013 copy may be closer to the mark.
        The hard fact is that there is NO accurate scientific way of assessing such time spans. What you have is faith in scientists. I put my faith in the bible. It has never been revised, & remains reliable. It changes lives. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zHF-aqszO7Y
        If it is what it says it is, then it is the only eyewitness account on the planet.

        • thumb
          Nov 13 2013: Peter, Peter, we already had this discussion so many times. The age of the universe is based on evidence.
          The evidence that make scientists come up with the universe's approx. age is the rate of expansion of galaxies away from us.
          On the other hand, there is ZERO evidence for any supernatural beings, whether one calls them gods or goblins.
          Sticking with books that are thousands of years old is precisely the problem the faithful faces. If science never would revise its concepts we probably would still live in caves, believe in a flat earth and burn witches on the stake.
          Thing is, that our knowledge evolves. No sane person would base his view of physics on a several thousand year old physics book. Why ? I suppose the answer is obvious, isn't it ?
        • Nov 13 2013: Peter,

          You make bold assertion: The hard fact is that there is NO accurate scientific way of assessing such time spans.

          The hard fact is that we just don't know for sure... this or that.
          As you sort of pointed out : What we have is faith in what we believe in.
          Scientists believe in science while generally rejecting this fact while demanding that one prove it to them.
          You claim to put your faith in the Bible claiming it has never been revised ... how do you know that for sure?
          Personally I put my faith in God, while seeking to do what ought to be done according to what God would do.


          Sticking to the truth of the matter is the only way to know the truth of the matter, be it one second be it an eternity the truth remains being the truth. If one needs to revise ones concepts that just means that ones concepts where in fact wrong. What is a bit paradoxical to me is how scientists keep saying 'now we got the truth of the matter','now we got the truth of the matter' ,'now we got the truth of the matter' while constantly changing and revising what they got! I suppose they still have to learn and incorporate some lessons from the past history.
        • thumb
          Nov 14 2013: Esteban, science is a work in progress. Serious scientists will always be open to change in their theories and as our knowledge increases our theories might as well.
          For example, the age of the universe is an estimate based on available evidence. This number might be off to one side or the other, but in the big scheme of things that doesn't really make much of a difference.
          I think a process that allows for corrections is much more credible than rules written in stone (such as holy books). As Pete correctly mentioned, the bible didn't change (unless there were mistakes in the translation which is quite likely) since it was written. How credible can that be ?
          Religions believe they already know the truth, hence the stopped searching for it.
          Science on the other hand knows that there are still a lot of unknowns and keeps searching for the truth, constantly improving on our understanding of nature.
          This is the fundamental difference between science and religion.
          No, Esteban, in our modern society there is no room for superstition and beliefs in the supernatural. Those are relics from the dark ages which, hopefully we can overcome some day.
        • thumb
          Nov 14 2013: You can actually calculate a value for the age of the universe in several different ways. It's one of the most interesting probems in physics that the answers vary. They are however all in the 10+ billion year range.
        • Nov 14 2013: Harald,

          I have found that
          Those who know the truth welcome the inquiry into the truth, the others tend to dismiss the claims with all sort of demeaning statements. At least religion acknowledges that certain truths they know are based on what they believe to be... on the other scientists generally reject the notion that what they know is actually based on what they believe to be...

          If you hold the belief that you cant influence what happens with your beliefs... then what do you think is going to be the influence of your beliefs? ..Argue for your limitation and they will become your limitations...
        • Nov 15 2013: Peter and guys,

          Asimov had an excellent take on the "science continues to change" issue:

          Highly recommended.
        • Nov 15 2013: Entropy,

          I am reading the linked article... and decided to come write this quick response before continuing to read it...

          It said: "The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that 'right' and 'wrong' are absolute...".
          Actually the basic trouble is that some see right as wrong and wrong as right and claim that truth isn't absolute that it's relative.

          The astute thinker will realize the humorous punt and how when (someone who is wrong) claims that (somebody who is right) is wrong... well that confirms the fact somebody is right and someone is wrong. Sometimes one needs to translate from one belief language is use to another to understand what is actually being said. The astute thinker will also recognize how people that think 'right' and 'wrong' are absolute... will get it right or get it wrong.... some will choose to accept what is as what is and correct what needs correcting and some will resort to other actions...

          Ok now will continue to read the article as it dives into fuzziness and see what sense I can make of someone who claims "I don't think that's so." and somehow manages to write something they don't think...I see it as a kind of humorous ironic logical self-defeating argument...
        • Nov 16 2013: Entropy,

          Completed reading the article...

          Isaac Asimov stated: “what I want to know is how wrong are they?
          Are they always wrong to the same degree”?

          Why is that? What I want to know is how right something be? Incidentally that implies to what degree does ‘the model’ correspond to ‘the original’?

          Isaac Asimov stated: “It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so”.

          Well looking at his essay reveals a different story as most of it is devoted to explain some small refinements in relation to the different notions that have been used to describe the earth… with what seemed to me an underlying focus to justify and continue propagating the folly of his chosen beliefs in a bit of a condescending style.

          It seems to me that right and wrong are clear concepts; it is just that some individuals accept that fact and some reject it.

          Living in a mental and physical world of absolute rights and wrongs, may involve imagining lots of things… some of it may include erroneous notions including theories that are wrong… some of it may include appropriate notions including theories that are right… the thing is: one can know to what degree something be right (or wrong) based on what actually happens to be. Thus I see that while claiming one thing, Isaac relied upon and absolute reality to which scientist sought to approach (ironically without ever recognizing it).

          To conclude this exercise I would like to point out that some choose to focus on whats right, some choose to focus on whats wrong, then some choose to focus on what to do with the absolute reality they live in consciously taking actions to change what needs changing and produce benefits for themselves and others. In other words consider what each is doing to make this place a better place ... one small refinement at a time with each thought word feeling action dream etc one chooses to give their life to.

          Smile :-)
      • thumb
        Nov 14 2013: Harald
        If my old book is written by the creator of the universe, then it does indeed trump "evolving science books". Folks who study it are convinced that it is so complex & interwoven, not to mention prophetic, that human authorship is a non-starter. We are not talking fairy stories, but hard nosed academics, & ordinary Joes alike who are convinced it's origin is what we would call supernatural. The fact that so many try to belittle such a literary masterpiece only serves to fulfil yet more of it's content.
        You are basing your theory on red shifted light, while at the same time admitting that next years science books may prove you wrong. Why should I buy into that ?

        • thumb
          Nov 14 2013: Peter, the bible was written by people over a period of hundreds of years.
          Even if there were a god, he has no body so he obviously couldn't write, but I suppose that's only a minor detail in this fairy tale.
          As I sad, science is not static. At some time, people believed in a flat earth. Eventually, science proved this belief wrong. The same is true for many other phenomena in nature. That's why science keeps studying and revising our knowledge.
          But frankly, I find you kind of hypocritical. On one hand you distrust science but on the other hand you use and benefit from achievements that were obtained through scientific inquiry.
        • thumb
          Nov 15 2013: Peter,


      • thumb
        Nov 14 2013: Hi Esteban

        "You claim to put your faith in the Bible claiming it has never been revised ... how do you know that for sure?
        Personally I put my faith in God, while seeking to do what ought to be done according to what God would do."

        The bible has a long history, well documented. Most translators go back to early manuscripts which are well authenticated. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls only confirmed the wisdom of this. No other book ever written is anything like as well documented.

        I am interested in where your concept of god comes from, & how you know which actions he approves of ?

        • Nov 15 2013: Peter,

          I was just basically pointing out toward the first commandment ... God above all else... including oneself... I was also pointing to how for someone to understand the word of God and which actions He approves of, one ought to understand the word of God as God would do... The question "how do you know that for sure?" implicitly addresses the original temptation involving being able to tell good from bad ( what is true from what isn't true). To me its quite evident I cant tell them apart and still I must choose between the alternatives... The hard fact is that we just don't know for sure... this or that. Do note that whether that hard fact is in fact a true hard fact or something else ... we just don't know for sure... depends on what is, it is or it isn't. What we have is faith in what we believe in. My faith rest upon God. Do note that when I state 'my faith' I mean the fate I happen to have thanks to the grace of God.

          Some place rest upon other things... how does one know one's interpretation and perception of what one reads corresponds to the original intent? I seen how many misinterpret what I stated (as I am sure I have misinterpreted what other have stated). I also seen how some refuse to validate what they think to be with what happens to be often certain they got it right... when the truth of the matter is that they think they got it right... and that is quite different from the original intent. One ought to validate things with the author of things accord to the authors satisfaction... until the author confirms one got it as intended...

          Ultimately if boils down to faith in what we believe in,,, science believes in their experimental results, some believe in their interpretations of stuff... me I have faith in God... if you want to use a different name have faith in the sustainable-desirable-congruent with life ways. Note how only God is actually sustainable-desirable-congruent with life ways. Love, truth, beauty, peace, wisdom do pass to...
        • thumb
          Nov 17 2013: Actually every book for which we know the authors is a step up from the books in the bible.

          and all that wisdom, talking donkeys human sacrifice, instructions to kill adulterers homosexuals, Sabbath breakers, unruly children, rules for slavery.

          Awesome compilation
    • thumb
      Nov 12 2013: I assume one great light is the sun. I note the bible fails to recognise the sun is just the closest star .

      I note no air or space craft have spotted the throne above the circle of the earth. Is it invisible?
      • thumb
        Nov 13 2013: Hi Obey,
        Just like old days. Two things,
        1) why would the bible tell us that our sun is just a star? The bible is for saving souls, not recording interesting facts.
        2) we're not entirely sure whether our sun is just another star.

        Your point about the throne is frivolous .

        • thumb
          Nov 13 2013: Hi

          1 are you accepting the bible may be incorrect in some matters of science?

          2 would you accept we can be reasonably confident out sun is just another star?

          3 it wasnt meant to be frivolous. The iron age authors may well have believed God was in the clouds looking down on them like they are grasshoppers. Just like some Muslims believe their prophet flew a winged horse to heaven.

          seems to me only the new testament is about salvation.

          most the ot seems to be about yhwhs arrangement with the Hebrew tribes.
      • thumb
        Nov 14 2013: Hi Obey
        I don't think the bible is wrong regarding science. It isn't a science book as such, but when it mentions science it's on the mark. The sun is our sun, no reason to explain the difference, or similarity to stars. All stars are not the same come to that.
        I don't know if our sun is just another star, nobody does. There are theories of all sorts out there.
        The OT is mostly about Jesus, from when he created the universe, 'till he rose from the dead. There is lots of historical stuff right enough. That allows us to test the truth of it by subsequent events, archeology etc.
        I think you can take God sitting above the circle of the earth as metaphor, He is omnipresent after all.

    • Nov 13 2013: Guys, guys, come on! Of curse science is getting closer. Next thing we will know is that the stars are but little holes in that extended tent that we continue to mistake for space and other suns and extra-solar-system planets, and such nonsense that science has mislead us to believe. It's just a tent! We will know soon enough. We will also get to know that our planet is flat (a disc at times, a square other times), and that it has foundations. That it does not move one bit. It's firm, didn't you know?

      These science guys and gals so wrong and all they had to do is read the Bible.
      • thumb
        Nov 13 2013: Hi Entropy,
        You seem to be a mine of useless information.

        • thumb
          Nov 13 2013: lol, that is funny coming from somebody who obtains hi wisdom from a thousands of years old tale.
        • Nov 13 2013: Harald,

          independent of the veracity and to who it relates too...
          ... I agree, that is funny... well at least to me...
          "(x) seem to be a mine of useless information".

          Information is information whether it is useful to a particular endeavor or not is a whole different matter... its curious how some project what they hold within...
        • Nov 15 2013: My ironymeter broke because of an overload ...

        • Nov 15 2013: Entropy

          so what kind of meter can handle that kind of a load...

          edited a word meager was intended as meter

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.