Religion

struggle4progress

(120,097 posts)

1. I hope the graphic is wrong, because a theory predicting stars first formed 400 million years ago

Mon Feb 9, 2015, 11:23 PM

Feb 2015

would grossly conflict with our current geological knowledge: for example, we think we have trilobytes from 500 million years ago

ON EDIT: Ooops! I guess the graphic means 400 million years after the big bang

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning [View all] rug Feb 2015 OP

I hope the graphic is wrong, because a theory predicting stars first formed 400 million years ago struggle4progress Feb 2015 #1

Thats 400MY after the big bang Peregrine Feb 2015 #31

Yes: I edited with that correction yesterday struggle4progress Feb 2015 #32

I heard Roger Penrose being interviewed recently MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #2

Those would be tough experiments to construct. rug Feb 2015 #3

True enough! nt MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #5

Is this another "fluctuating universe" model? okasha Feb 2015 #6

I don't know what that is. MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #8

Big question BillZBubb Feb 2015 #4

The background radiation is always in the back of my mind mmonk Feb 2015 #10

Imagine there is no universe where yehi 'or was uttered Agnosticsherbet Feb 2015 #7

Thanks. There was a reason I posted this in Religion. rug Feb 2015 #16

Relgion and Cosmology are two major sources of theories about the origin of the univese. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2015 #18

I thought the steady state model has been largely rejected. rug Feb 2015 #19

This gives it new life. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2015 #20

Not really. okasha Feb 2015 #55

Not a dichotomy? rogerashton Feb 2015 #30

That's helpful. Once the math is removed I followed it. rug Feb 2015 #37

And yet edhopper Feb 2015 #40

And have yet to answer that question. rug Feb 2015 #41

We don't yet have the answers edhopper Feb 2015 #43

"Yet" isn't much better. rug Feb 2015 #44

Than "God"? edhopper Feb 2015 #45

No it isn't. Here's why. rug Feb 2015 #46

That is how you logically edhopper Feb 2015 #47

Name-calling isn't much of an argument either. rug Feb 2015 #48

Why do you say edhopper Feb 2015 #49

Because physics, by its very nature, has limits. rug Feb 2015 #50

Only if you believe edhopper Feb 2015 #51

I would like to think that reason would settle this difference, but ... rogerashton Feb 2015 #52

What makes you assume there are questions beyond those limits? AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #58

Fun With Music Cartoonist Feb 2015 #9

That is great! Did you do that? cbayer Feb 2015 #13

Why post this Religion? edhopper Feb 2015 #11

Agnosticsherbert got it. Yehi 'or. rug Feb 2015 #17

I don't take religious and folk origin stories edhopper Feb 2015 #21

Is the Big Bang not an origin story? cbayer Feb 2015 #24

I rewrote it edhopper Feb 2015 #25

See, this could be completely fabricated and I would have absolutely no idea. cbayer Feb 2015 #12

Not really edhopper Feb 2015 #14

I was kind of making a joke. cbayer Feb 2015 #15

There are far more than a few physicists edhopper Feb 2015 #22

The degree to which a layperson can really understand this is questionable, imo. cbayer Feb 2015 #23

I don't have a problem understanding it edhopper Feb 2015 #26

The data can be shown and explained, but it can still be proven wrong cbayer Feb 2015 #27

You are only dependent on scientists/experts because you choose to be. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #29

Distinguish evidence from models. rogerashton Feb 2015 #33

It is fascinating to me, but my point was that much of it has to be cbayer Feb 2015 #34

My point was just rogerashton Feb 2015 #35

I reread your post and missed the point about refining the model. cbayer Feb 2015 #36

People put way too much confidence in the peer review process goldent Feb 2015 #39

I agree and too many people say "Peer reviewed!. Must be OK!" cbayer Feb 2015 #59

Oh fucking please. Here we are with the false equivalency again. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #28

well said pokerfan Feb 2015 #38

I think you can only verify the arguments are logically consistent goldent Feb 2015 #42

Post removed Post removed Feb 2015 #56

I've long thought that the Cosmos didn't LuvNewcastle Feb 2015 #53

That's why I think the inevitabilty of knowledge is dubious. rug Feb 2015 #57

That's the bottom line... TreasonousBastard Feb 2015 #60

How did you arrive at the 15 billion years edhopper Feb 2015 #61

Seeing as how both Time and Space were a function of the BB, there was no "before" it Vincardog Feb 2015 #54

I'm always thinking about this stuff, my DU journal here is full of... hunter Feb 2015 #62

Have you seen Interstellar? cbayer Feb 2015 #63

I did. But my paranoid pessemistic self saw some "Twighlight Zone" nightmares in it. hunter Feb 2015 #64

Ok, this is not an interpretation that occurred to me, but cbayer Feb 2015 #65