...and that the universe has been expanding and contracting in a cyclical way (i.e., the big bang was just one of many). Not all scientists believe it, but if one day enough evidence supports it, will you believe it or trash it like evolution?
2007-09-28 08:23:13 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
to add:
1) I am an atheist
2) I am a scientist
3) I believe in evolution
2007-09-28 08:42:34 · update #1
joe_cit: once again you are being an a** for no reason
2007-09-28 08:43:30 · update #2
leviath: how did you decide I was a theist? and a damn one at that?
2007-09-28 08:44:26 · update #3
wgm: why do I need to define my beliefs... can you answer a question without knowing it.
2007-09-28 08:45:31 · update #4
matt: are you saying there was no such thing as time before people thought about it? the billions of years the earth existed before man wasn't billions of years?
2007-09-28 08:47:27 · update #5
bobalo: I think you don't understand the definition of a scientific theory... you are thinking of the common use of the word
2007-09-28 08:48:31 · update #6
(9#*217...: i did not understand your answer any more than you my question. Beer?
2007-09-28 10:13:12 · update #7
Evolution is only theory. When it can be proved I will reconsider my position. Good Luck!
Edit:
Ouch I Got the messages.
Ok, To the two E-mailers, I said I would reconsider my position because evolution cannot be proven!
Second wishing good luck was me laughing at him.
I doubt he even knew I was laughing
A N D I am sorry. ok.???
Theory, A belief not yet tested in practice; the general principles on which a science is based and built up: a hypothesis; something assumed as a starting piont for scientific investagation.
Websters
2007-09-28 08:35:55 · answer #1 · answered by bobalo9 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
"In the beginning" is just a way of defining the beginning of the earth. I'm a believer, but I don't trash evolution. I am a science nerd (so I know the significance of the term "theory" in a scientific context), a Mormon, and a believer that on some plane of understanding, very little in science need conflict with religion.
I can't imagine time having a beginning, to tell you the truth. I'm not going to dismiss it like you claim I do everything else, but I'll wait it out to see if there is decent evidence supporting the theory (although I'm tempted to call it a hypothesis considering how much evidence we currently have for it) before making a decision either way.
2007-09-28 08:55:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I doubt a cyclical universe is true. The universe seems to have begun with the Big Bang, and dark energy is supposedly increasing the expansion of the universe and the distance between stellar objects. It may have an "end."
I'm not religious, so I have to accept things on the basis of evidence. If enough evidence supports a cyclical universe, then I will accept it. I'm not sure if other people will, as many use "good feelings" to determine what exists and what does not.
Cheers.
2007-09-28 08:29:18 · answer #3 · answered by Dalarus 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
that's what happens while a information reporter tries to describe what a scientist is making an attempt to teach. in the event that they suggested that the LHC is making an attempt to ascertain why mass exist and how or attempting to examine approximately sub atomic debris then human beings music it out and study the funnies. yet say they are going to coach precisely how the universe got here into life and everybody receives excited. If technology ever discovers devoid of room for doubt or blunders precisely how the universe originated then i'm going to be inspired however the LHC isn't even attempting to do this. So i'm going to assert E) different or in specific if we study how mass works we could additionally get gravitation and that opens 1000's of opportunities for power, transportation, area exploration, medicine etc.
2016-10-20 05:50:51 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From your tone I can assume you are published.
I am, by the way, not talking about your thesis.
I, without some modicum of credibility, cannot believe a word you have written.
So the answer to your Q would half to be, by default, yes I will trash this new "theory" as well.
Vary whimsical, I must give you that.
Science has proven NOTHING about mankind's origin, much less about the Universe! LOL
2007-09-28 09:39:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Joe Citizen 66 said "Evolution and the origin of the universe have nothing to do with one another, you moron."
Well now I think he is a moron.
I think you are an idiot for not defining what type of believer you were after. I'm a believer, in fact eye started the whole notion that time had no beginning, no end.
2007-09-28 08:33:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thats right, the ekpyrotic model shows the universe as the result of huge 3 branes crashing together in huge bursts of energy - if they could prove the universe had been going on forever this would really cause a lot of even 'moderate' religious types to question their beliefs. One would hope so anyway. I think they'd probably just stick their heads in the sand or say it was 'just a theory'
Well quantum mechanics is just a theory, too but you damn theists get to type on your computers because its an accurate theory and model of reality - get it? Of course you dont.
2007-09-28 08:29:43 · answer #7 · answered by Leviathan 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Whatever works. There may be a "First Cause" behind the whole shebang, but that has yet to be proved or disproved. Believing it to be one way or the other does not make it so, but this we will probably never know.
2007-09-28 08:31:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Times exists for us so we can experience feelings and emotions. The Universe is an ever present now.
2007-09-28 08:47:40 · answer #9 · answered by Sal D 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They already trash it. Most physicists now believe time itself didn't exist before the big bang.
2007-09-28 08:28:13 · answer #10 · answered by mattgo64 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋