- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In this (https://bigblueball.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30229) thread we have this quote:
Physical coincidence: If the density of the universe one second after the Big Bang had been greater by one part in a thousand billion, the universe would have recollapsed after ten years. On the other hand, if the density of the universe at that time had been less by the same amount, the universe would have been essentially empty when it was about ten years old.
Source: Stephen Hawking, Physicist
And Tigerblade said this:as for the one about the size of the universe being one part too big or small… that seems rather convenient that it was the exact perfect size, to such precision. i’m not starting a religious debate, but that seems to be a rather compelling argument for intelligent design.
So I thought good idea, and here we go then. Discuss away kiddies.
But heres what I think (assuming Hawking was correct in the first place!), suppose we had this “big bang” several times over, and it wasn’t so precise these times and the universe collapsed after ten years or what ever.
Then eventually we have the one which created our universe, and after so many bangs this one just happnes to have all the right conditions, and we are all ok. But then, as I said before, this is asuming Hawking is right and I can’t understand how somebody could make such precise calculations about such an unkown thing.
obviously, as you could probably guess from my comment in that thread (quoted above), i believe in Intelligent Design, aka Creation. don’t flame me for it, i’m not gonna preach at anyone or try to convert you. i’m just gonna explain my beliefs.
any and every discussion of the big bang and evolution says that over millions and billions of years, things developed to be the way they are today. countless mutations combined into forming the incredibly complex organisms we have today. however, what they fail to mention is that not once has science seen a useful mutation, or one that allowed the mutated creature to live better, stronger, or longer. mutations are always harmful, and the mutant rarely lives to maturity.
the incredible complexity of organisms (take humans, just to narrow down the field of argument) is far too advanced to have been the product of chance and mutations. the human brain alone is an example of something that i’m not willing to believe came about through mutations from monkeys. basically the argument of evolution is that we came from rocks. rain poured on the rocks for billions of eons, and slime formed, and cells formed, and so on up to humans.
either side of the issue comes back to “where did it all come from?” Hawking believes that the big bang created the universe, but where did the big bang come from? spontaneous explosion of nothing creates everything?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.