chy22:


Except you are thinking like a typical atheists who assume that every person who believes in a creator are less intellectual than you guys. I will really assume you have identified problems with the explanation you gave, in addition to no explanation you gave me.
Your explanation failed to explain where those materials that exploded came from, neither did it explain what conditions caused them and where the conditions that caused them originated from.

About reality and evidence of occurrence of such explosion, you can not possibly tell me that is a prove. No body recorded or observed the formation of earth so how is that a prove. Also no-body has been able to put up a hypothesis on this issue and observed it in the laboratory either.

Get one thing clear though, my acceptance of the existence of a creator is purely a belief and I recognise that. But you should also accept that you acceptance of no Creator is also a belief and has got noting to do with science.

That said, for your explanation of earth formation to stand you really need to think about this six points
1. Cosmic evolution: You need to explain how time and space came to be, because without time and space where then did the big bang happen and you proof is really a lie.
2. Chemical evolution: You really need to prove how high elements i.e metals and others originated from hydrogen, if you can not fill in this point then what chemicals exploded. Remember chemical reactions need catalysts, and hydrogen on its on can not cause such explosion.
3.Stellar and planetary evolution: one body has documented the observation of star formation no planet formation. And if you explanation is true then considering the trillions of stars we should have observed the formation of one.
4. Organic evolution: No laboratory in the world has observed the formation of life from non-living thing, evolutionists and even atheists them self have no clue on how consciousness evolved to its level today.
5.Macro-evolution: Assuming for some reason the above 4 occurred without a creator, no body or lab have observed the change from kind of animal to another. Believe they have really tried to get this done but still noting.
6. Micro-evolution: Lastly, all the things said and claimed by evolutionists and atheists has been based on this one factor. The truth about the matter is calling this micro-evolution is delusional, this is simply Variation and they are observed. However, a life form can only produce its kind, people often use zebra and horse as a prove this can lead to macro-evolution but this simply a lie. A horse and a zebra can interbreed which makes them same kind, just like a dog and a wolf. But this is not the problem humans and other primates can not interbreed, so how (you should know what I am getting at).

Also remember that most of these kinds that can interbreed often end up with non fertile offsprings. Now they use fossil as prove of these series of events both fossils can not prove that these animals had offsprings and proves nothing.

So basically this cosmic explosion is been proved on lie noting more. Please accept it as a belief and that will sound reasonable because there is no proof.
I welcome your reply any time though.

all4naija:
You are already blabbing because you don't understand what I am saying. The right conditions came about as the first explosion cold down giving birth to different particles that give rise another particles. These are observable processes in the universe. When you split an atom(a particle) you will have another particles and when you split the other particles you have another through a very extreme processes. You need to educate yourself than claiming I don't know what I am saying when they are observed in many labs around the world. You primitive man. There are different chemicals made up of billionth to the billionth of billionth to the billionth in continuation, meaning it is imaginary in number as you continue to split the process getting toward the singularity due to limitation of what is available to man as regard mathematics. Which has thrown god and religion out of the equation already.

Emmalot121:
Where you there when it all happened? How is the method applied in this explanation different from that of Genesis, other than the fact that the Bible is more logical, believable, simple and inclusive.

davien:
Okay....so the original singularity is not understood....the expansion that led to the universe is(to a substantial degree)...
Hence the expansion is regarded as the creation of the universe...
If you have a balloon and make two dots on it with a marker and then inflate it....those points keep moving further and further...
This analogy is an example to try to portray the expansion of a 3-dimensional plane in which two cardinal locations never converge but keep moving away from one another...
Looking into space...we observe an example of this kind of expansion analogy by the red-shift(farthest visible light) of far away galaxies..
Now....lets say you asked someone who wasn't there to witness you blow the balloon with air and asked him what indicated it ever being inflated..
He'd tell you that when the balloons contents are examined air or a gas is neccessary to inflate it...
So how do we know an expansion took place?
If the universe emerged from such an immensely dense state we should be able to still observe the heat change or radiation around any point of the universe...
Hence we discovered we are saturated by a cosmic microwave background.
Should I continue? do you understand all these?

davien:
Okay....so the original singularity is not understood....the expansion that led to the universe is(to a substantial degree)...
Hence the expansion is regarded as the creation of the universe...
If you have a balloon and make two dots on it with a marker and then inflate it....those points keep moving further and further...
This analogy is an example to try to portray the expansion of a 3-dimensional plane in which two cardinal locations never converge but keep moving away from one another...
Looking into space...we observe an example of this kind of expansion analogy by the red-shift(farthest visible light) of far away galaxies..
Now....lets say you asked someone who wasn't there to witness you blow the balloon with air and asked him what indicated it ever being inflated..
He'd tell you that when the balloons contents are examined air or a gas is neccessary to inflate it...
So how do we know an expansion took place?
If the universe emerged from such an immensely dense state we should be able to still observe the heat change or radiation around any point of the universe...
Hence we discovered we are saturated by a cosmic microwave background.
Should I continue? do you understand all these?

Emmalot121:
Do I have to? The Bible is everywhere, lend and read.

davien:
Okay....so the original singularity is not understood....the expansion that led to the universe is(to a substantial degree)...
Hence the expansion is regarded as the creation of the universe...
If you have a balloon and make two dots on it with a marker and then inflate it....those points keep moving further and further...
This analogy is an example to try to portray the expansion of a 3-dimensional plane in which two cardinal locations never converge but keep moving away from one another...
Looking into space...we observe an example of this kind of expansion analogy by the red-shift(farthest visible light) of far away galaxies..
Now....lets say you asked someone who wasn't there to witness you blow the balloon with air and asked him what indicated it ever being inflated..
He'd tell you that when the balloons contents are examined air or a gas is neccessary to inflate it...
So how do we know an expansion took place?
If the universe emerged from such an immensely dense state we should be able to still observe the heat change or radiation around any point of the universe...
Hence we discovered we are saturated by a cosmic microwave background.
Should I continue? do you understand all these?

blym4real:

I did not want to venture into science, but let do a little bit of science,
You are yet to explain the right conditions.

all4naija:

You cannot even wrap your head around what I am explaining to you. They are even observable through many processes, both in labs around the world and in the universe. That is the reason why you need to train your brain beyond your limited thinking in your local environment and let reality speak by studying what the brightest minds have been able to explain in their findings. We aren't talking about logic here we are talking about reality, facts, evidences and they proven in different experiments.

all4naija:
You have proven your idiocy with great clarity in this post. I even gave you the a name of a famous particle accelerator or lab that has carried out researches and tests on many of those processes, the LHC and other space programs which I didn't mention because you can easily use Google to do that on your own. Please, go and seat at a corner with your delusion that you called reasoning by imagining a creator as a being or whatever whereas all things happened through a process and still happening as we speak.

chy22:


Yet you forget the most important question, where did you get the ballon?

all4naija:
Please, reread my previous post. Either you cannot get to understand what I am saying or just like to move in circumlocution. I am not going to keep saying the same thing over and over again. The right condition is the point in time when the different particles change into another state. I used water as an example with 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen combining to form it. Jeez! This dude is as dense as a stone.

blym4real:

Here you go again, you comparing experiment in the lab where the scientist themselves set the condition, time and concetrations of the reactant. Who was doing all that during the big bang.
If it easy for you to believe that some chemicals,reactions and conditions just came about without any external force action, it more easy for me to believe in the existence of God.

chy22:


Really, particle accelerator?
Particle accelerator was designed and created.
The particles to be accelerated was added.

The creator of that accelerator clearly demonstrates things don't just happen for no reason, he created the particle accelerator for a reason.
Also been in mind that have a particle accelerator has noting to do with the key points I raised for you.
Just like I mentioned in my reply to you, most of your type in developed world don't even use that as a prove of anything.
Also is quiet easy for you to get the scientific journal for such publication if ever existed here.

The particles it self how was it created, even before the use of the accelerator to increase the vibration.

Just like they all do, I gave you six point that needs to be achieved for what you are saying to be true, you have not disproved that critically, neither have you provided any prove they occur, contrary to the fact that they do not occur.

davien:
The balloon(deflated) represents the singularity that is not understood...mostly due to the fact that space being infinitely curved and time being infinitely dilated from a singularity cannot be understood by classical eucladian mathematics because it represents a 0-dimensional infinite regress..
The same way einstein abandoned classical eucladian co-ordinate system in favour of a non-eucladian one(theory of relativity) is also what we need to do..
A new conjecture of mathematics is required..not a miracle.

ooman:


Ok, This is nothing but hoax. Perhaps you think everyone is as dumb as you. Newton never used "advanced mathematics" (and calculus is not advanced to me) to get 2060. He just added 1260 to 800 AD and he got 2060, and he wasn't even sure of the date. Perhaps you should read with common sense before posting rubbish here. This is not sunday school where i.diots believe everything, ok?

musicwriter:


Please note that I do not belong to the cursing fellows. So, next time you want to address me you have to not insult me. You can always be civil by making your point without insulting anybody.

Newton predicted the world ending that's the info I was passing there. Will the world end in 2060?. Nobody knows.

blym4real:
do you know the meaning of condition in science, condition for a reaction can be the temperature,concentration of reactant in the right proportion,pressure e.t.c

blym4real:

You don't understand the singularity yet you believe in it, more reason for me to believe in God. you can claim God does not exist because you also don't understand the existence of God

If you have a balloon and make two dots on it with a marker and
then inflate it....those points keep moving further and further...
This analogy is an example to try to portray the expansion of a 3-
dimensional plane in which two cardinal locations never converge
but keep moving away from one another...
Looking into space...we observe an example of this kind of
expansion analogy by the red-shift(farthest visible light) of far
away galaxies..
Now....lets say you asked someone who wasn't there to witness
you blow the balloon with air and asked him what indicated it ever
being inflated..
He'd tell you that when the balloons contents are examined air or
a gas is neccessary to inflate it...
So how do we know an expansion took place?
If the universe emerged from such an immensely dense state we
should be able to still observe the heat change or radiation around
any point of the universe...
Hence we discovered we are saturated by a cosmic microwave
background.

all4naija:
Isn't all you said a process? Even if humans built the accelerator in this case they came through process to give birth to another process and the accelerator will give birth to another process to find out something in another process .Please, make use of your brain for once.

davien:
It would seem you ignored the bulk of my explanations and instead are using a classic "you have faith too" accusation.
Perhaps you failed to read my examples of evidences that were collected that proved the universe emerged from a singularity I even used a balloon as a side analogy.


So,why the sudden dishonest accusation?

blym4real:
for you to prove your point just tell me who created the singularity or gases, whatever if it easy for you to believe it existed on it without anybody creating it, it more easy for me to believe in God.
Can a clay mould itself without an external force, can a reaction take place without an external force?

Qoigord:
I have no proof God exists
I have no proof that God doesn't exist

So I just mind my own business and live my life as an agnostic.

plaetton:


Exactly when in America sir?

all4naija:
Nobody! It is more or less a dimension. Create?! Why did you use the term create if you weren't thinking along the line of a supernatural being(fairy)? You haven't understood that even water doesn't need a creator in my previous posts to become water but by a process of other particles combining to form it. If you want to go further, then you would now have to talk about quantum mechanics and string theories where things at the smallest imagination carried around itself a mini universe(in a lay man explanation) to understand the process.

Anybody?! Who is anybody that exist to create it than your poor imagination!

Missy89:
Most Nigerians needs brain surgery.

davien:
The balloon(deflated) represents the singularity that is not understood...mostly due to the fact that space being infinitely curved and time being infinitely dilated from a singularity cannot be understood by classical eucladian mathematics because it represents a 0-dimensional infinite regress..
The same way einstein abandoned classical eucladian co-ordinate system in favour of a non-eucladian one(theory of relativity) is also what we need to do..
A new conjecture of mathematics is required..not a miracle.