[ Join Free! ]
(No Spam mail)

  • RolePlay
  • Join Us
  • Writings
  • Shoutbox
  • Community
  • Digg Mashup
  • Mp3 Search
  • Online Education
  • My Youtube
  • Ear Training
  • Funny Pics
  • nav

  • Role Play
  • Piano Music
  • Free Videos
  • Web 2.0
  • nav

    << | >>

    dots Submission Name: Theists vs. atheists: Scientific View (3rd Post)dots

    Author: Silencer
    ASL Info:    25/m/AL
    Elite Ratio:    3.91 - 52/66/29
    Words: 471
    Class/Type: Deep Thought/Serious
    Total Views: 1312
    Average Vote:    No vote yet.
    Bytes: 2676


    Make the font bigger!! Double Spacing Back to recent posts.

    dotsTheists vs. atheists: Scientific View (3rd Post)dots

    Continuing from the previous post on the big bang:
    One of the most reknown scientists of our time is a man by the name of Stephen Hawkings. He came up with a formula that works off of string theroy. It states that the universe is on a continuing cycle of expansion and collapse, and has done this past eternally. The expansion, according to Hawkings, occures when another universe bumps into another it causes it to explode violently. The problem with this is that there is not enough matter in the universe to cause it to collapse on itself. Aside from that the universe could not have been past eternal in this aspect because the explosion would have to be bigger each time in order to keep the cycle moving at all. Well, if you rewind this it simply gets smaller and smaller untill you have nothing at all. Another theroy simply states that the universe is past eternal and will remain erernal. The problem with this theroy was indeed shot down shortly after having been concieved. Many galaxies which can be seen by teloscopes are in states called either red shift or blue shift. This simply means in this case that they are either "behind" our own galaxy moving "forward" or they are in "front" of our galaxy moving "forward." Either way all the movement of the galaxies is in fact moving outward from a point. This proves the big bang and at the same time disproves the past eternal universe. In all these prove one thing. There are more theroies but most are simply too ridiculious to mention due to lack of supporting evidence. The big bang happened at a single point, and is NOT past eternal.
    Even the way in which the universe exploded is really quite remarkable. It was not a normal fuel-air explosion we would whitness on Earth. It would have literally spread out in all directions, at different, random angles. If even one of these angles would have been different the possibility of life in the universe would have been conciderably, much, much, more nigh than they already are. Even the worlds most reknown physists will say it seems as if it were tweaked just right, to occur in such a manner that this universe would be a habitable place.
    Ever since the idea of creation was concieved people have worked to disprove it. And in the mid 1900's they very nearly did. And in the 80's on science has done nothing but disprove Darwin, and point towards intelligent design. I recieved a comment about the 2nd post and the commentator stated that he/she still believed God did it. I was never trying to point otherwise. Science led me away from God, and yet it has brought me back together.

    Submitted on 2007-02-15 19:50:43     Terms of Service / Copyright Rules
    Submissions: [ Previous ] [ Next ]

    Rate This Submission

    1: >_<
    2: I dunno...
    3: meh!
    4: Pretty cool
    5: Wow!

    ||| Comments |||
      Wow. I have never read your previosu posts but this caught my attention and i had to take the dive. I guess i had heard it before- the theory of the big bang and man's existence and well I am faith based- that is God-based and i felt that it was wasy off creation. Reading this, my mind is not yet quite changed but appreciate the fact that if there was indeed a big bang anyway, God had everything to do with it.

    God bless.
    | Posted on 2007-02-17 00:00:00 | by nevender | [ Reply to This ]

    Think Feedback more than Compliments :: [ Guidelines ]

    1. Be honest.
    2. Try not to give only compliments.
    3. How did it make you feel?
    4. Why did it make you feel that way?
    5. Which parts?
    6. What distracted from the piece?
    7. What was unclear?
    8. What does it remind you of?
    9. How could it be improved?
    10. What would you have done differently?
    11. What was your interpretation of it?
    12. Does it feel original?


    Be kind, take a few minutes to review the hard work of others <3
    It means a lot to them, as it does to you.




    User Name:


    [ Quick Signup ]
    [ Lost Password ]

    January 10 07
    131,497 Poems

    I have 14,000+ Subscribers on Youtube. See my Video Tutorials

    [ Angst Poetry ]
    [ Cutters ]
    [ Famous Poetry ]
    [ Poetry Scams ]

    [ Smaller ] [ Bigger ]