[Newsbot]

Title: 47-million-year-old primate fossil unveiled
Category: Science
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2009-05-19 21:02:48

[Public_Domain]

[RUEZ]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

But that's impossible! We were made from absolutely nothing all at once 5000 years ago!

Take that you stinky Christians.

[ShepherdsDog]

...and what existed before the Big Bang, except a sub-atomic singularity?

[Blue_Nose]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

...and what existed before the Big Bang, except a sub-atomic singularity?

The big bang was the beginning of spacetime - there was no time before the big bang, and therefore it doesn't make sense to talk about "before" time existed. It's like asking what was to the left of the universe before the big bang.

[ShepherdsDog]

No, that is just one theory. Some have theorized that this is a cyclical event. In what medium and for how long did the singularity exist before it exploded? Something doesn't come from nothing.

$1:

Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.

[Blue_Nose]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Something doesn't come from nothing.

So the fact that there's something means that at no point was there ever "nothing" - if the Big Bang was the third or seventeenth or billionth in a string of cyclical events, then the answer to your question "what existed before the Big Bang" is simply "another universe". There's no "before the universe existed".

What about the quoted text? From a website created by these guys:

AllAboutGOD AllAboutGOD:

Many people refer to us as “Christians,” but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus.

and you forgot to quote the rest of the page there - the part that concludes with "Big Bang Theory - What About God?" Quote mining the words of physicists to attempt to incorporate God as a scientific hypothesis is quite disingenuous.

That site also explains why intelligent design is a better 'theory' than evolution, and all kinds of other unscientific garbage.

[DrCaleb]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.

Wholly incorrect. Such a construct would be contrary to all available data, and itself based on philosophy alone.

[hurley_108]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

But that's impossible! We were made from absolutely nothing all at once 5000 years ago!

Not all at once, it took seven days, you know. And it was more like 6000 years ago than 5000.

[hurley_108]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.

Wholly incorrect. Such a construct would be contrary to all available data, and itself based on philosophy alone.

If I recall correctly, observations do show essentially perfect spherical symmetry to the universe. However it is postulated that such an observation would be made from no matter where in the universe one stood, and thus the universe has no "center."

So in essence, the claim isn't wholly incorrect, it's just a wholly inappropriate interpretation of the observations and of the theory.

[herbie]

$1:

47-million-year-old primate fossil unveiled

Dick Cheney?

[DrCaleb]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Wholly incorrect. Such a construct would be contrary to all available data, and itself based on philosophy alone.

If I recall correctly, observations do show essentially perfect spherical symmetry to the universe. However it is postulated that such an observation would be made from no matter where in the universe one stood, and thus the universe has no "center."

So in essence, the claim isn't wholly incorrect, it's just a wholly inappropriate interpretation of the observations and of the theory.

1) It has no 'centre' because that is a flawed concept. (Assuming!) that the big bang created the universe, therefore the centre of the big bang is 'everywhere'. We also don't know the 'brane' of the Universe - it's 'shape'. Anywhere could arbitrarily be the 'centre', but 'centre' is a flawed concept.

This is the 'shape' of the cosmic background radiation, with brighter spots being occupied by mass.



2) Observations also show that everything is moving away from everything else (Hubble showed us this). If the Earth were the centre, or if we were to designate the earth as the centre; then we must be able to observe everything moving away from us at a constant rate. But that is incorrect, as some things are observed to be moving away from us, but in the same direction as us. We are also moving away from other things, all at different rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

So, to designate Earth as 'centre' is inappropriate, and does not fit available data.

[fifeboy]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

But that's impossible! We were made from absolutely nothing all at once 5000 years ago!

I'm sure there is an explanation for this Mr. C. Look closely, isn't there an impression of a sandaled foot and a scrap of the dead sea scrolls somewhere in that fossil

[fifeboy]

herbie herbie:

$1:

47-million-year-old primate fossil unveiled

Dick Cheney?

OK herbie, now I gotta school ya on the difference between reptiles and primates, good grief, didn't you pay attention in the lecture...

[HyperionTheEvil]

In other shocking news, the Church today announced that what they reffered to as "this fossil" was actually planted by jesus to trick humanity