Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.nature.com/news/how-astronomers-saw-gravitational-waves-from-the-big-bang-1.14885

This might very well lead to a Nobel-prize.

Creationists, your God-of-the-gaps just got smaller.

Thus one question is answered but a great many more are raised. The quest for knowledge continues.

Doctor Linde's reaction is just awesome, too!

Ha, creationists just say Humbug, God is making waves!

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Ha, creationists just say Humbug, God is making waves!

When I was young boy I asked my mother where did rain come from.

She answered, "Rain is gods tears from crying".

One day, when I was young boy I asked my mom where did thunder a lightning come from.

She answer, :Thunder is the sound of God and the Angels bowling. And when someone gets a strike, lightning strikes."

Someday, when my kid asks where did we come from,

I can give the more complex answer, or say god clapped his hands and BOOM! life came out of no where.

Looking back at my mother's answers, I think god sucks at bowling. He's always crying when him and the angels bowl.

Being the creator of everything, you'd think he'd have created a game he was good at, instead.

I'll stick to believing in God.

 Rotary wrote:

I'll stick to believing in God.

That's the good thing about science.

It's true whether you believe in it or not.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Rotary wrote:

I'll stick to believing in God.

That's the good thing about science.

It's true whether you believe in it or not.

You know what's better? Accepting that other people have different opinions without implying that they're wrong. He prefers to believe in God; that doesn't automatically make his views false.

Grow up.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Rotary wrote:

I'll stick to believing in God.

That's the good thing about science.

It's true whether you believe in it or not.

The other great thing is that they aren't mutually exclusive ideas; one can believe in science and religion.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Rotary wrote:

I'll stick to believing in God.

That's the good thing about science.

It's true whether you believe in it or not.

You know what's better? Accepting that other people have different opinions without implying that they're wrong. He prefers to believe in God; that doesn't automatically make his views false.

Grow up.

Science doesn't ask you to "accept if it's true." It either is or is not, no believing is required.

Saying "I'll stick to believing in God" as a reply to deny one of the biggest findings in physics in almost 100 years that more or less proves what we already knew to be true is false.

I don't have to accept someone denying science just because they "don't believe in it."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Rotary wrote:

I'll stick to believing in God.

That's the good thing about science.

It's true whether you believe in it or not.

The other great thing is that they aren't mutually exclusive ideas; one can believe in science and religion.

Agreed. However, that does not seem to be the case here.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Rotary wrote:

I'll stick to believing in God.

That's the good thing about science.

It's true whether you believe in it or not.

You know what's better? Accepting that other people have different opinions without implying that they're wrong. He prefers to believe in God; that doesn't automatically make his views false.

Grow up.

Sorry Scooty puff but I still believe in God. I don't really want to turn this into a God or no God thread, but don't try to force your views on everyone who reads this thread.
For every piece of evidence you show God doesn't exist i can counter with a different argument.
Lets just make it so creationists can view and post in this thread freely with out having to defend themselves. I worded my post the way I did to show we don't all believe the same thing.

 Piston Honda wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Ha, creationists just say Humbug, God is making waves!

When I was young boy I asked my mother where did rain come from.

She answered, "Rain is gods tears from crying".

One day, when I was young boy I asked my mom where did thunder a lightning come from.

She answer, :Thunder is the sound of God and the Angels bowling. And when someone gets a strike, lightning strikes."

Someday, when my kid asks where did we come from,

I can give the more complex answer, or say god clapped his hands and BOOM! life came out of no where.

Looking back at my mother's answers, I think god sucks at bowling. He's always crying when him and the angels bowl.

I think the better version is this:

 Rotary wrote:
Sorry Scooty puff but I still believe in God. I don't really want to turn this into a God or no God thread, but don't try to force your views on everyone who reads this thread.

These "views," or as I like to refer to them as scientific facts, are the topic here. Whether you believe in god or not is irrelevant to me or this discussion.

For every piece of evidence you show God doesn't exist i can counter with a different argument.

No. No you can't. There is absolutely no evidence that backs up what you believe, that's why it isn't science.

Lets just make it so creationists can view and post in this thread freely with out having to defend themselves. I worded my post the way I did to show we don't all believe the same thing.

Again, you don't believe actual, verifiable facts. As a creationist, you ignore the reality of the universe around you. There is nothing of value that can come from a worldview such as that when it comes to discussing actual science such as this. Besides, faith in religion and accepting the fundamental facts of science (the big bang happened, Earth is 4.5bya, evolution has and is happening, etc.) are not mutually exclusive. If you make a fantastical claim such as, "Predictions we have made are now found to have been verified by observations are incorrect because my holy book doesn't say it," the burden of proof is on you and you should be prepared to defend your position.

Remember the phrase popularized by Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Okay, then tell me which parts of the cell were evolved and which were instantly created during big bang. I'm sure you are aware the majority of them are all required to exist at the same time or the cell would die.
Also how much heat and time does it take to turn a chemical or a piece of matter into a living cell and why can't we reproduce it.
Also, where did all the stuff that created the big bang come from. I guess it just decided to exist.
The big bang theory can be viewed as magic. With enough time anything is possible.
So I'm going to put this rock on the table and in a million years it will grow legs, a stomach and a brain. Oh I forgot a mouth, shoot, it died. I guess it had to have those parts all at once, not evolve them.
Feel free not to talk down to me next post,
But you are wrong about one fact, the burden of proof isn't on me at all, that's why its called faith. Obviously that drives you crazy.

Is this really necessary?

 djones520 wrote:
Is this really necessary?

Ehh sorry it's not. It's frustrating to have someone not allow you your own opinion. I'm done posting in this thread, obviously any further posts would just derail it further. Clearly anyone who disagrees with scooty should avoid posting here less they want to be informed how wrong they are.

 Rotary wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Is this really necessary?

Ehh sorry it's not. It's frustrating to have someone not allow you your own opinion. I'm done posting in this thread, obviously any further posts would just derail it further. Clearly anyone who disagrees with scooty should avoid posting here less they want to be informed how wrong they are.

I wasn't slamming on you, just on the argument in particular. These things are even less productive then political ones. Personally, I wish everyone could just forgo the unasked for snide comments regarding anyones religious beliefs. We'd have a lot less trouble in the world if people could just accept others decisions in life.

Anyone ever stop to think that the reason creation makes no senses is because we look at from a linear perspective?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Piston Honda wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Ha, creationists just say Humbug, God is making waves!

When I was young boy I asked my mother where did rain come from.

She answered, "Rain is gods tears from crying".

One day, when I was young boy I asked my mom where did thunder a lightning come from.

She answer, :Thunder is the sound of God and the Angels bowling. And when someone gets a strike, lightning strikes."

Someday, when my kid asks where did we come from,

I can give the more complex answer, or say god clapped his hands and BOOM! life came out of no where.

Looking back at my mother's answers, I think god sucks at bowling. He's always crying when him and the angels bowl.

I think the better version is this:

Something I did?

there could be a lot of things that would make god cry.

Deleted.
Change of plan I have no interning of entering into a religous debate of any form on dakka.

Really interesting scientific discovery none the less.m


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Happy to comment on evolution though.

 Rotary wrote:

So I'm going to put this rock on the table and in a million years it will grow legs, a stomach and a brain. Oh I forgot a mouth, shoot, it died. I guess it had to have those parts all at once, not evolve them.

Religon aside You realise that evolution does not deal with how life came about? And that nothing about evolution says something that is not living can become living. The theory of evolution put simply is about how living this change over time it in no way claims that something dead can become something alive and does not attempt to explain how life came about in the first place.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Thus one question is answered but a great many more are raised. The quest for knowledge continues.

The quest for knowledge is beautiful and I hope it never stops.

 Ahtman wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Rotary wrote:

I'll stick to believing in God.

That's the good thing about science.

It's true whether you believe in it or not.

The other great thing is that they aren't mutually exclusive ideas; one can believe in science and religion.

Except off course my God is better than yours!

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Rotary wrote:

I'll stick to believing in God.

That's the good thing about science.

It's true whether you believe in it or not.

Sorry champ, this is still just a theory therefore requiring you to believe in it and not necessarily true. I'll point you to this statement --->

"What else is important about the finding?
Everyone in cosmology knows — but it is not widely appreciated — that the prediction about B modes from inflation relies not just on the phenomenon of gravitational waves but on the quantization of gravity itself. Inflation assumes that everything started out as quantum fluctuations that then got amplified by inflation. So at a very deep level, this finding relies on the connection between quantum mechanics and gravity being right."

Still theory not fact. I think we are done here. If someone wants to believe in God it's up to them, if you want to believe in an unfounded theory, it's up to you.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Rotary wrote:

I'll stick to believing in God.

That's the good thing about science.

It's true whether you believe in it or not.

The other great thing is that they aren't mutually exclusive ideas; one can believe in science and religion.

Except off course my God is better than yours!

My God flayed him self to give food to humanity.

He is also the god of life, death, goldsmiths, silversmiths, seasons and disease. He can start a zombie Apocalypse.

All hail Xipe Totec!

Bullockist wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Rotary wrote:

I'll stick to believing in God.

That's the good thing about science.

It's true whether you believe in it or not.

Sorry champ, this is still just a theory therefore requiring you to believe in it and not necessarily true. I'll point you to this statement --->

"What else is important about the finding?
Everyone in cosmology knows — but it is not widely appreciated — that the prediction about B modes from inflation relies not just on the phenomenon of gravitational waves but on the quantization of gravity itself. Inflation assumes that everything started out as quantum fluctuations that then got amplified by inflation. So at a very deep level, this finding relies on the connection between quantum mechanics and gravity being right."

Still theory not fact. I think we are done here. If someone wants to believe in God it's up to them, if you want to believe in an unfounded theory, it's up to you.

A theory but not an unfounded one.

 Ahtman wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Rotary wrote:

I'll stick to believing in God.

That's the good thing about science.

It's true whether you believe in it or not.

The other great thing is that they aren't mutually exclusive ideas; one can believe in science and religion.

Thank you, which makes the crowing on the OP irrelevant, and turned an astronomy thread into a bash religion thread. Not a good idea.

I would like to discuss the images discovered, militant atheists allowing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As we now have signs of 'gravity waves' can be deduct direction and bearing and locate the regional site of the Big Bang?

 Rotary wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Is this really necessary?

Ehh sorry it's not. It's frustrating to have someone not allow you your own opinion. I'm done posting in this thread, obviously any further posts would just derail it further. Clearly anyone who disagrees with scooty should avoid posting here less they want to be informed how wrong they are.

The "Ignore" button is a beautiful thing.


Just sayin'

 Orlanth wrote:
As we now have signs of 'gravity waves' can be deduct direction and bearing and locate the regional site of the Big Bang?

It's a bit like this:

 Orlanth wrote:

Thank you, which makes the crowing on the OP irrelevant, and turned a cosmology thread into a bash religion thread. Not a good idea.

As we now have signs of 'gravity waves' can be deduct direction and bearing and locate the regional site of the Big Bang?

Fixed that for you.

The original site of the big bang is, by definition, everywhere in the universe. The big bang is the idea that at one point in time the entire universe was condensed into one point in space that has since expanded out, the inflation of a balloon that Minx posted is a helpful analogy though obviously isn't perfect.