If God doesn't exist...

[HUGGY]

You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.

That assumption is stupid. No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check. At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it. It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".

This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward. At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.

That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand. You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime."

That pretty much identifies you as a fool.

The Results

Overall the study showed significant advances in homeschool academic achievement as well as revealing that issues such as student gender, parents’ education level, and family income had little bearing on the results of homeschooled students.

National Average Percentile Scores

Subtest

Homeschool

Public School

Reading

89

50

Language

84

50

Math

84

50

Science

86

50

Social Studies

84

50

Corea

88

50

Compositeb

86

50

a. Core is a combination of Reading, Language, and Math.
b. Composite is a combination of all subtests that the student took on the test.


Household income had little impact on the results of homeschooled students.

$34,999 or less—85th percentile
$35,000–$49,999—86th percentile
$50,000–$69,999—86th percentile
$70,000 or more—89th percentile

The education level of the parents made a noticeable difference, but the homeschooled children of non-college educated parents still scored in the 83rd percentile, which is well above the national average.

Neither parent has a college degree—83rd percentile
One parent has a college degree—86th percentile
Both parents have a college degree—90th percentile

Whether either parent was a certified teacher did not matter.

Certified (i.e., either parent ever certified)—87th percentile
Not certified (i.e., neither parent ever certified)—88th percentile

Parental spending on home education made little difference.

Spent $600 or more on the student—89th percentile
Spent under $600 on the student—86th percentile

The extent of government regulation on homeschoolers did not affect the results.

Low state regulation—87th percentile
Medium state regulation—88th percentile
High state regulation—87th percentile
HSLDA: New Nationwide Study Confirms Homeschool Academic Achievement

The school system of the USA is for me personally not very interesting. I would not know what to do with knowledge about. Let me give you this thought of one of my teachers. He said once: "Let us be honest. Even the worst school system is not able to inhibit a talented student to learn something".

So, it seems that you have retreated from this absurd comment..".But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime.'

Excellent.

Still home schooling is in my eyes nearly a crime. But I don't not know what's in this case the best for the USA - and even if I would know it this would be nearly unimportant because I'm not a citizen of the USA.

"Still home schooling is in my eyes nearly a crime."
As this is in the face of easily obtainable evidence, you remain a fool.

To call someone "fool" has as less to do with the christian religion as "home schooling" has something to do with the christian religion. As far as I know grew around the monasteries the first schools for everyone. Believe it or not: home schooling is per se a paradox. I'm for example a stranger - from my point of view a kind of journeyman. I'm always learning - that's my way.

Here's the problem.....I provided data proving that home schooled students do better than government schooled kids....yet you continued with a clearly incorrect statement.


Now....no matter what you post....this applies:

"The 13th chime of a clock, not only does it make no sense, but it calls into question the validity of the 12 chimes that preceded it."'

 

[Mudda]

God doesn't even bother showing you any proof of its existence.

View attachment 68665

The proof is all around you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

So you have nothing, got it.

I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.

What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?

I'm still going with a miracle happened.

*****CHUCKLE*****

In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.

 

[zaangalewa]

The school system of the USA is for me personally not very interesting. I would not know what to do with knowledge about. Let me give you this thought of one of my teachers. He said once: "Let us be honest. Even the worst school system is not able to inhibit a talented student to learn something".

So, it seems that you have retreated from this absurd comment..".But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime.'

Excellent.

Still home schooling is in my eyes nearly a crime. But I don't not know what's in this case the best for the USA - and even if I would know it this would be nearly unimportant because I'm not a citizen of the USA.

"Still home schooling is in my eyes nearly a crime."
As this is in the face of easily obtainable evidence, you remain a fool.

To call someone "fool" has as less to do with the christian religion as "home schooling" has something to do with the christian religion. As far as I know grew around the monasteries the first schools for everyone. Believe it or not: home schooling is per se a paradox. I'm for example a stranger - from my point of view a kind of journeyman. I'm always learning - that's my way.

Here's the problem.....I provided data proving that home schooled students do better than government schooled kids....yet you continued with a clearly incorrect statement.

"Aha" ... better to say "Antiaha".

Now....no matter what you post....this applies:

"The 13th chime of a clock, not only does it make no sense, but it calls into question the validity of the 12 chimes that preceded it."'

13 is a Fibonacci number and 13 o'clock is a completly normal time here in my european country, what everyone should know who tries to know something about what's going on all over the world. 13 o'clock is one hour after 12 o'clock here. Our day has 24 hours so we could start to be astonished at 25 o'clock. 25 is by the way a square number ... of a disappearing square - because it's the end of the witching hour too.

 

[zaangalewa]

So you seem not to be able to give an answer, because I am I and not this what you would prefer what I should be.

You forgot the video...you know, to make Sealybobo happy....

I am slow - I need some time for a step, that's all.

 

[the_human_being]

You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.

That assumption is stupid. No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check. At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it. It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".

This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward. At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.

That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand. You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.

Have you actually read what you are posting here? "Some unknown force". "So called "ball". "At some point". "A certain point". Are you claiming that your post actually has anything at all to do with SCIENCE?

 

[james bond]

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it? I don't know. If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists. He would be understood. In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God). That's just the way it is.

As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did. Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins. He performed miracles while he was here. He was supposedly perfect and a role model. They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.

Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes. I think, therefore I am. In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix. If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence. However, things happen that disprove my doubt.

So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
2. I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God. He does not make mistakes. He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away. He does what he is supposed to do. We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty. We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
3. So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
4. Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives. I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them. There is perfection.

The second proof of God goes as follows:
1. Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence? If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
2. Sadly, I am still not perfect.
3. My parents, are not perfect either. They have their faults, too. They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
4. Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.

On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection. While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.

This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.

How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."

How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".

You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.

It's logical proof or rationalism.

Descartes based it on how humans admire perfection.

It's not I that do not have a clue. You'll understand one day.

To me, it's more who gets the last laugh.

If you take a step back and look at all the facts, it seems that God is just the ignorant answer to how we got here. We didn't know shit when we came to that conclusion. The fact is we don't know. I don't have a problem with people who believe God exists but admit they don't know. I just don't like being lied to.

You don't believe all the other religions are real, do you?

What do you mean when you take a step back and look at the facts? There is more evidence that God exists. It helps to have a little faith.

And how can you say someone who has lasted all these years suggests ignorance? Science, while it eventually comes to the truth, is mostly wrong. Science ends up backing the Bible. What other ignorance are you referring to besides science?

And who is lying to you? Descartes? Surely, his, "I think, therefore I am" has stood the test of time. His proof of God lies in striving for perfection. That means getting 100% correct on the test. Winning. Doing your best since we're not perfect.

 

[zaangalewa]

... For instance try talking to many blacks about racism and say the word "ni**er". They feel so strongly about that word that their brain completely shuts down and the discussion is over. ...

Is this the same íf someone uses the word "negroe"?

Too bad I'll never watch one video

So you don't know what you miss and you never will feel the yearning of Nils in Scandinavia for one of the best sides of your country.

Don't even understand

So many words for nothing. This situation now remembers me to some people who stood on a bridge while a big wave of water came down the mountains. They filmed and discussed about while others tried to warn them from the distance. When they started to run it was to late.

 

[james bond]

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it? I don't know. If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists. He would be understood. In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God). That's just the way it is.

As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did. Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins. He performed miracles while he was here. He was supposedly perfect and a role model. They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.

Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes. I think, therefore I am. In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix. If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence. However, things happen that disprove my doubt.

So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
2. I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God. He does not make mistakes. He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away. He does what he is supposed to do. We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty. We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
3. So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
4. Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives. I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them. There is perfection.

The second proof of God goes as follows:
1. Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence? If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
2. Sadly, I am still not perfect.
3. My parents, are not perfect either. They have their faults, too. They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
4. Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.

On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection. While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.

This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.

How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."

How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".

You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.

It's logical proof or rationalism.

Descartes based it on how humans admire perfection.

It's not I that do not have a clue. You'll understand one day.

To me, it's more who gets the last laugh.

So basically, you have nothing to back up all that malarkey. Got it.

Not if I get the last laugh. I think we all admire perfection. We love to ace the exam. Win the championship. Marry the perfect woman. Strive to be a success.

Plenty more evidence such as Kalam's Cosmological Argument.

Or why one may not attain perfection as some things are predestined.

 

[zaangalewa]

You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.

That assumption is stupid. No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check. At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it. It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".

This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward. At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.

That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand. You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.

Sorry - but what do you call "ball"? The universe has not a before and not an outside. It had started to expand about 13.82 billion yeras ago, where it had less the size of an electron. Now it has a size of about 78 lightyears - ah sorry: 78 billion lightyears. Where, when and what was this "ball"?

 

[sealybobo]

You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.

That assumption is stupid. No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check. At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it. It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".

This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward. At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.

That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand. You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.

Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars. The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness. Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.

Or God did it.

Which answer is simple yet stupid and makes most people feel comfortable? God of course. Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up. And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.

But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid. Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.

 

[sealybobo]

It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it? I don't know. If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists. He would be understood. In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God). That's just the way it is.

As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did. Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins. He performed miracles while he was here. He was supposedly perfect and a role model. They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.

Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes. I think, therefore I am. In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix. If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence. However, things happen that disprove my doubt.

So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
2. I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God. He does not make mistakes. He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away. He does what he is supposed to do. We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty. We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
3. So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
4. Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives. I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them. There is perfection.

The second proof of God goes as follows:
1. Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence? If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
2. Sadly, I am still not perfect.
3. My parents, are not perfect either. They have their faults, too. They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
4. Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.

On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection. While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.

This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.

How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."

How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".

You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.

It's logical proof or rationalism.

Descartes based it on how humans admire perfection.

It's not I that do not have a clue. You'll understand one day.

To me, it's more who gets the last laugh.

If you take a step back and look at all the facts, it seems that God is just the ignorant answer to how we got here. We didn't know shit when we came to that conclusion. The fact is we don't know. I don't have a problem with people who believe God exists but admit they don't know. I just don't like being lied to.

You don't believe all the other religions are real, do you?

What do you mean when you take a step back and look at the facts? There is more evidence that God exists. It helps to have a little faith.

And how can you say someone who has lasted all these years suggests ignorance? Science, while it eventually comes to the truth, is mostly wrong. Science ends up backing the Bible. What other ignorance are you referring to besides science?

And who is lying to you? Descartes? Surely, his, "I think, therefore I am" has stood the test of time. His proof of God lies in striving for perfection. That means getting 100% correct on the test. Winning. Doing your best since we're not perfect.

There is more evidence that God exists. FALSE
It helps to have a little faith. TRUE
Science is mostly wrong FALSE
Science ends up backing the bible FALSE
The rest is just nonsense. Zero extra credit for that last part.

So you got 1 out of 4 wrong. You didn't get even close to 100% on the test.

 

[sealybobo]

... For instance try talking to many blacks about racism and say the word "ni**er". They feel so strongly about that word that their brain completely shuts down and the discussion is over. ...

Is this the same íf someone uses the word "negroe"?

Too bad I'll never watch one video

So you don't know what you miss and you never will feel the yearning of Nils in Scandinavia for one of the best sides of your country.

Don't even understand

So many words for nothing. This situation now remembers me to some people who stood on a bridge while a big wave of water came down the mountains. They filmed and discussed about while others tried to warn them from the distance. When they started to run it was to late.

Of course if you believe you are right you would think that. But you're insane so...

 

[sealybobo]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Do “The Newton” with Big Fig

 

[sealybobo]

That there could be some presence in the universe humans could call 'spirit' is another possible metaphor. I have to admit I 'sense' 'something', but I truly hesitate to express much about it as I know I can't explain it.

Watch Neil DeGrasse Tyson Explain the History of the Universe in 8 Minutes

 

[sealybobo]

For the longest part of human existence, say the last 40,000 generations, we were wanderers, living in small bands of hunters and gatherers, making tools, controlling fire, naming things, all within the last hour of the Cosmic Calendar.

We're so very young on the time scale of the universe that we didn't start painting our first pictures until the last 60 seconds of the cosmic year, a mere 30,000 years ago.
This is when we invented astronomy.

And then, around 10,000 years ago, there began a revolution in the way we lived.
Our ancestors learned how to shape their environment, taming wild plants and animals, cultivating land and settling down.
This changed everything.
For the first time in our history, we had more stuff than we could carry.
We needed a way to keep track of it.
At 14 seconds to midnight, or about 6,000 years ago, we invented writing.
And it wasn't long before we started recording more than bushels of grain.
Writing allowed us to save our thoughts and send them much further in space and time.
Tiny markings on a clay tablet became a means for us to vanquish mortality.
It shook the world.
Moses was born seven seconds ago.
Buddha, six seconds ago.
Jesus, five seconds ago.
Mohammed, three seconds ago.
It was not even two seconds ago that, for better or worse, the two halves of the Earth discovered each other.
And it was only in the very last second of the Cosmic Calendar that we began to use science to reveal nature's secrets and her laws.
The scientific method is so powerful that in a mere four centuries, it has taken us from Galileo's first look through a telescope at another world to leaving our footprints on the Moon.
It allowed us to look out across space and time to discover where and when we are in the cosmos.
We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.
Carl Sagan guided the maiden voyage of Cosmos a generation ago.
He was the most successful science communicator of the 20th century, but he was first and foremost a scientist.
Carl contributed enormously to our knowledge of the planets.
He correctly predicted the existence of methane lakes on Saturn's giant moon Titan.
He showed that the atmosphere of the early Earth must have contained powerful greenhouse gases.
He was the first to understand that seasonal changes on Mars were due to windblown dust.
Carl was a pioneer in the search for extraterrestrial life and intelligence.
He played a leading role in every major spacecraft mission to explore the solar system during the first 40 years of the Space Age.

 

[sealybobo]

In the vast ocean of time that this calendar represents, we humans only evolved within the last hour of the last day of the cosmic year.
11:59 and 46 seconds.
All of recorded history occupies only the last 14 seconds, and every person you've ever heard of lived somewhere in there.
All those kings and battles, migrations and inventions, wars and loves, everything in the history books happened here, in the last seconds of the Cosmic Calendar.
But if we want to explore such a brief moment of cosmic time we'll have to change scale.
We are newcomers to the cosmos.
Our own story only begins on the last night of the cosmic year.
It's 9:45 on New Year's Eve.
Three and a half million years ago, our ancestors, yours and mine, left these traces.
We stood up, and parted ways from them.
Once we were standing on two feet, our eyes were no longer fixated on the ground.
Now we were free to look up in wonder.

 

[sealybobo]

Fossils show early human species ventured further east than thought

• SHARE PICTURE

+8
For the first time, fossils of the the hominid Australopithecus afarensis have been found east of the Rift Valley, showing the species travelled further than we thought . A sculptor's rendering of the species, displayed as part of an exhibition that includes the 3.2 million year old fossilised remains of 'Lucy', is pictured



Read more: Fossils show early human species ventured further east than thought
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Damaged Eagle]

T

It is most likely that nothing "kick started" the universe. The Universe just ... is...

And always has been and always will be. Will our sun be forever? No. Will the milky way last forever? No. Will our universe that we see last forever? No. One day every light will fade. We guestimate we have about another 10 billion years. So what will happen after the last star burns out? It will be complete darkness. And all the rock from every star will drift around for a few billion years until who knows? Maybe another universe will form after all the rocks join together and condense into something the size of your fist. Then explode into a big bang and then in 13 billion years from that date, some life on some planet in the new universe will think they are special and a god created it all for them. LOL

There is no "after". Time is only one more dimension in the Space-Time continuum.

Asking "what happens after?" is like asking "What is North of the North Pole?"

But my point is that most scientists tend to believe that there are multiple space-time continua. Ours, the one that started with the Big Bang, is just one of an infinite number. So, bottom line, there is no "need" for anything to "kick-start" the Universe.

See one of those small dots? That's us. And I don't mean our planet I mean our universe. Each bubble is a universe. But now there are infinite universes and dark space in between each of them. ENDLESS.

View attachment 68708

You have quantifiable proof of this or is this simply more scientific theology?

What happens if your proven wrong?

Oh! You just redefine the goal posts.

Weren't you accusing those who have religious beliefs of that earlier?

You still haven't shown proof of what caused the big bang to happen and I'm still going with a miracle occurred.

*****CHUCKLE*****

The answer is in the video you posted. Listen to it. A little after two minutes into the video.

Which answer would that be?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.

You have quantifiable evidence that there was something else that existed prior to this space-time continuum started up?

That assumption is stupid. No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check. At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it. It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".

This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward. At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.

That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand. You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.

Where's your quantifiable proof for this or is just more scientific creationism theology?

*****CHUCKLE*****