English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

.
999,999,999,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999

to

0.0000000000000000000
000000000000000000000
000000000000000000001

Your thoughts please.

2007-02-23 12:49:36 · 16 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

16 answers

I'd say that the odds are extremely astronomical.....for all the DNA to actually develop on it's on then to some way get in the EXACT order needed, for the billions or trillions of animals and insects to develop spontaneously.......I'd rather have my faith in God. It makes more sense to me.

2007-02-23 12:57:08 · answer #1 · answered by cajunrescuemedic 6 · 0 2

And those numbers on based on?

Let me tell you: FANTASY.

The problem with these numbers, even if they were realistic, is a matter of timeframe. The universe has infinite time to make those odds happen, so even if the odds were ridiculously small, it wouldn't make any difference.

The issue for the Big Bang theory, however, is not the odds, but the evidence. It's not as sketchy, for my own experiences, as the existence of a God, but I've seen revisions and alternate hypotheses, such as "the big bang wasn't actually the first, but that the universe explodes and implodes with some regularity..." Of course, that was when scientists were trying out the idea that that universe was a finite space... Now the fad idea is back to infinite (and thus incomprehensible to the human mind) space.

Maybe the universe was always here... What are the odds of that? Or the odds of any one particular conception of a god? These odds are incalculable because there is nothing to compare it! What? We have some other universe to observe to make such judgements? No. So the odds are just pointless make-believe numbers whose only purpose is to soothe or aggrandize the human ego.

Here's a novel idea: We don't actually know how the universe came to exist. That's right. Why don't we just admit we don't know something instead of jumping to conclusions to appease the kids? Maybe telling the kids that there's something out there we haven't figured out will give them the (right) impression that "No, it hasn't all been done, but maybe someday you'll be the one to figure it out beyond a shadow of a doubt?" It seems to me that would add so much more excitement to a child's life to think that there might yet be some grand contribution they could one day make to our lives.

Instead, we get egotistical crap about people thinking they have all the bloody answers when it's really just BS.

2007-02-24 01:25:48 · answer #2 · answered by Cheshire Cat 6 · 0 0

This is really clueless. Why do you just make up ridiculous numbers you have no clue about.

First I wouldn't call the big bang event accidental or an explosion. I would say big bang events are a logical necessity. and big bang expansions are an expansion of space time and not a conventional explosion.

The funny thing is you completely ignore how improbable an infinitely improbable god would be.

In an infinite ergodic universe the odds are 100% of solar systems and life forming. They will form infinitely many times in fact. There are deep mathematical reasons for believing reality is both infinite and mathematically ergodic. Imaginary god superstitions have absolutely nothing to do with it.

2007-02-23 21:00:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well to say an explosion was an accident, that is to say there is some larger "Plan" which is directly against naturalism. Thus the point is not an unplanned explosion, but an explosion without a materialistic cause. In other words a star can explode if there are certain circumstances, perfectly logical and naturalistic, but if there is no time, space, matter, etc, then no such explosion can happen.

2007-02-23 21:04:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well the odds are better than the odds of God existing. Where did you figure out the odds from? You should provide the statistical information that you obtained in order to get to that answer. Or..........let me guess........you made up the numbers, didn't you? Kind of like the other stuff that is made up to support your theory of a God? Nobody has ever seen God, had God give them a guided tour of heaven or hell, etc.
However, back to your question, why if God made earth and people, then what would his point of making the other planets? Why would God make all the heavens at all, that makes no sense as it would have no purpose? Why would God make a star, that the earth travels around, that will run out of fuel one day and go supernova and destroy the earth (God's creation with his loved creations on)? Scientists are trying to get to the point of the big bang, which they are getting closer and there is evidence to support the big bang theory. However, the theory of God is one based on no evidence and can not be investigated at all. Hence which one is more realistic?

2007-02-23 21:13:55 · answer #5 · answered by corona001500 3 · 1 0

My thoughts are you must have flunked out of science class or just skipped it completely. It's appalling your lack of knowledge about basic science.

The Big Bang was created by a process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born.

It is hard to imagine the very beginning of the Universe. Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy, in the form of photons. Some of the photons became quarks, and then the quarks formed neutrons and protons. Eventually huge numbers of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium nuclei formed. The process of forming all these nuclei is called big bang nucleosynthesis. Theoretical predictions about the amounts and types of elements formed during the big bang have been made and seem to agree with observation. Furthermore, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), a theoretical prediction about photons left over from the big bang, was discovered in the 1960's and mapped out by a team at Berkeley in the early 1990's.


After some period of time following the big bang, gravity condensed clumps of matter together. The clumps were gravitationally pulled towards other clumps and eventually formed galaxies. It is extremely difficult to model how this clumping may have occurred, but most models agree that it occurred faster than it should have. A possible explanation is that right after the big bang the Universe began a period of exaggerated outward expansion, with particles flying outward faster than the current speed of light. This explanation is known as inflation theory, and has widespread advocacy within the astrophysics community because it reconciles theory with observation. It should be noted, however, that inflation theory is not directly verifiable.

Whether you believe inflation theory or not, galaxies did form. And since they formed from matter that was moving rapidly, they also move rapidly. Due to a phenomenon called doppler shifting, the wavelength emitted by something moving away from us is shifted to a lower frequency, and the wavelength of something moving towards us is shifted to a higher frequency. A good example of this is the sound of a fire truck siren as it drives by; the pitch of the siren is higher as the fire truck moves towards you, and lower as it moves away from you. Although this example illustrates the effect for sound waves, the same effect occurs for all wavelengths (incuding light), the result being that visible wavelengths emitted by objects moving away from us are shifted towards the red part of the visible spectrum, or redshifted. And the faster they move away from us, the more they are redshifted. Thus, redshift is a reasonable way to measure the speed of an object (this, by the way, is the principal by which radar guns measure the speed of a car or baseball). Here's the point: When we observe the redshift of galaxies outside our local group, every galaxy appears to be moving away from us. We are therefore lead to the conclusion that our Universe is expanding. This is called hubble expansion, after Edwin Hubble, who discovered the phenomenon in 1929.

2007-02-23 22:01:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

There are 15 pieces to a meat grinder. If you put all 15 pieces in a mixer, turned it on and left it there, you would still have only 15 pieces. It takes a thoughtful person to assemble that meat grinder.
Jehovah empowered his son, Jesus Christ with his holy spirit and Jesus is the master worker who created all things in existence.
To deny that fact is like putting those 15 pieces of a meat grinder into a mixer and turn it on, then hope that in a trillion million years all of those pieces would some how put themselves together and work.

2007-02-23 22:53:03 · answer #7 · answered by Here I Am 7 · 0 0

I would like to see your evidence of calculation of those odds please. It was not a random accident. We see evidence of systems that are falling victim to places of intense gravitational pull. As the matter is impacted into these areas, the overload of matter to the hold of the gravity leads to an inevitable explosion of matter and energy outward. Just like the big bang theory. What's so hard to see? Jesus, please save me, from your followers.

2007-02-23 21:03:16 · answer #8 · answered by Huggles-the-wise 5 · 1 0

Those odds are still better than "God" existing. Who says the Big Bang was an accident? Even atheists like myself do not say it was an accident. But to say that it was planned out by a deity when you have ZERO evidence to back this up is just silly.

2007-02-23 20:51:53 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 6 1

How do you know a different universe is incapable of supporting life? Sure, it may not support OUR life but a creature could evolve to suit the environment if it was hotter, colder, more gravity etc. etc.

2007-02-23 20:53:30 · answer #10 · answered by Tom :: Athier than Thou 6 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers