• Atheists' view of world creation?
    259 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sickle;33166291]No, it isn't.[/QUOTE] The basic principles are fairly well understood. The solar system started off as a large cloud of gas. This cloud of gas shrunk under its own gravitational pull, mostly towards the center of the solar system and became the sun. Other bits of gas that didnt form the sun became the planets and asteroids etc. Although its more complicated than that because we actually live in a second generation solar system (all of our heavier than iron elements must have been formed in a supernova, so we must have been formed from the remains of one)
[QUOTE=Icedshot;33167589]The basic principles are fairly well understood. The solar system started off as a large cloud of gas. This cloud of gas shrunk under its own gravitational pull, mostly towards the center of the solar system and became the sun. Other bits of gas that didnt form the sun became the planets and asteroids etc. Although its more complicated than that because we actually live in a second generation solar system (all of our heavier than iron elements must have been formed in a supernova, so we must have been formed from the remains of one)[/QUOTE] The gas formed the stars, the stars produced the other elements through fusion, the elements were then dispersed when the stars died. Then the dust formed the planets.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;33167627]The gas formed the stars, the stars produced the other elements through fusion, the elements were then dispersed when the stars died. Then the dust formed the planets.[/QUOTE] Actually stars can only produce up to iron with fusion. After iron, it takes energy to create the heavier elements rather than giving out energy, and that's the sort of energy that's present in a supernova But basically yes
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;33167094]I've talked to you. And not only are you fucking crazy, you commonly make up new definitions for words and stop using proper grammar making your posts nigh unreadable. Honestly I have no idea why anybody bothers responding to you at this point.[/QUOTE] It's called experimental grammar.
[QUOTE=Sickle;33166291]No, it isn't.[/QUOTE] Lol. The creation of our world is not obvious to you then.
[QUOTE=AK'z;33168024]It's called experimental grammar.[/QUOTE] yourself kill [editline]7th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Bat-shit;33168131]Lol. The creation of our world is not obvious to you then.[/QUOTE] It isn't intrinsically obvious, in the same way that 2 + 2 = 4. You're experiencing [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias]Hindsight Bias.[/url]
[QUOTE=AK'z;33168024]It's called experimental grammar.[/QUOTE] It's called making no fucking sense.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;33168131]Lol. The creation of our world is not obvious to you then.[/QUOTE] A very valid explanation to which I've come to live by was posted by this amazing man; [quote=Bat-shit]Just shit piling up in space due to gravitation and other cool laws of physics, which are relative and.. well, there's just a lot of objects of different masses, in space.[/quote] There is a LOT more to it than just that, thanks.
Guys... they think our moon was created... from another fucking planet... CRASHING INTO OUR PLANET!!! WTF?!?! [url]http://www.popastro.com/moonwatch/moon_guide/geology3.php[/url]
[QUOTE=Master X;33169347]Guys... they think our moon was created... from another fucking planet... CRASHING INTO OUR PLANET!!! WTF?!?! [url]http://www.popastro.com/moonwatch/moon_guide/geology3.php[/url][/QUOTE] are you being sarcastic
[QUOTE=Master X;33169347]Guys... they think our moon was created... from another fucking planet... CRASHING INTO OUR PLANET!!! WTF?!?! [url]http://www.popastro.com/moonwatch/moon_guide/geology3.php[/url][/QUOTE] . . . And?
[QUOTE=AK'z;33168024]It's called experimental grammar.[/QUOTE] It's called BEING INSANE. [QUOTE=Master X;33169347]Guys... they think our moon was created... from another fucking planet... CRASHING INTO OUR PLANET!!! WTF?!?! [url]http://www.popastro.com/moonwatch/moon_guide/geology3.php[/url][/QUOTE] I read that page, It seems to be biased bullshit. [editline]7th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=AK'z;33166088]You've watched me. Never talked to me.[/QUOTE] Viewing your posts is enough.
Biased bullshit? Why exactly, they are all valid arguments? I thought this was a common theory. What do you think the moon was formed of? And it's not necessary a planet.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33170606]I read that page, It seems to be biased bullshit.[/QUOTE] no, it isn't, educate yourself
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33168932]It isn't intrinsically obvious, in the same way that 2 + 2 = 4. You're experiencing [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias]Hindsight Bias.[/url][/QUOTE] Is it a bad thing then?
[QUOTE=Master X;33169347]Guys... they think our moon was created... from another fucking planet... CRASHING INTO OUR PLANET!!! WTF?!?! [url]http://www.popastro.com/moonwatch/moon_guide/geology3.php[/url][/QUOTE] Yea. You just found that out? During the early solar system objects would crash into each other a lot more. It happen to most of the planets in are solar system. [editline]7th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Drsalvador;33170606]I read that page, It seems to be biased bullshit.[/QUOTE] Its been a known fact for a while now actually. We have computer models to back it up and its really the only good hypothesis that explains how the moon was formed.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;33172924]Is it a bad thing then?[/QUOTE] It's a bias; so yes it is bad
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33170606] I read that page, It seems to be biased bullshit. [/QUOTE] How is it biased? It's all legitimate. [QUOTE=Maucer;33171705]Biased bullshit? Why exactly, they are all valid arguments? I thought this was a common theory. What do you think the moon was formed of? And it's not necessary a planet.[/QUOTE] I was always told it was a stray asteroid that got caught in Earth's gravity. The idea that a massive object slammed into our planet, turning it into a ball of molten lava blows my mind away. Anything could have happened before that on our planet and we would never know it. [QUOTE=macerator;33174896]It's a bias; so yes it is bad[/QUOTE] Except it's not a bias; so no it isn't bad.
[QUOTE=Master X;33176650]I was always told it was a stray asteroid that got caught in Earth's gravity.[/QUOTE] It probably wouldn't be considered an asteroid since it was so big and round unlike Marses asteroid moons. It would have probably been made of completely different stuff then earth as well. But yea I remember being amazed when I found out how the moon was formed as well.
[QUOTE=Sickle;33166291]No, it isn't.[/QUOTE] Your personal lack of knowledge is not representative of the whole of humanity.
[QUOTE=macerator;33174896]It's a bias; so yes it is bad[/QUOTE] that is the most simplistic viewpoint I've ever heard in my life hey guys modern science is entirely false because it is biased in favour of our sensory experiences
[QUOTE=Master X;33176650] Except it's not a bias; so no it isn't bad.[/QUOTE] You're telling me that 'Hindsight Bias' isn't a bias? (hint it says it in the name)
We can't tell yet. Perhaps, one day, we will.
[QUOTE=macerator;33179149]You're telling me that 'Hindsight Bias' isn't a bias? (hint it says it in the name)[/QUOTE] You're being fallacious good sir. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies[/URL] I never said any type of bias isn't bias... that's just silly. The subject in question here is the webpage, not hindsight bias. What I was saying, is that the webpage suggesting that the "current favoured formation mechanism for the Moon" is Giant Impact theory is not biased in nature. The webpage is just a description of different theories How can it be biased? It's a presentation of theories based on data. In fact it presents several other major theories before even mentioning the Giant Impact theory (if that's what you feel it is biased towards). [editline]8th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=macerator;33179149]You're telling me that 'Hindsight Bias' isn't a bias? (hint it says it in the name)[/QUOTE] You're being fallacious good sir. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies[/URL] I never said any type of bias isn't bias... that's just silly. The noun in question here is the webpage. What I was saying, is that the webpage suggesting that the "current favoured formation mechanism for the Moon" is Giant Impact theory is not biased in nature. The webpage is just a description of different theories How can it be biased? It's a presentation of theories based on data. In fact it presents several other major theories before even mentioning the Giant Impact theory. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33169676]are you being sarcastic[/QUOTE] No, I genuinely didn't know about that theory until about 10 minutes before I made that post. Refer to above post. [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;33169689]. . . And?[/QUOTE] I think it's rather incredible and I also think it relates to the thread, since according to this theory the moon played a big role in the creation of Earth. Or... not necessarily the creation; but it impacted the Earth significantly (no pun intended), and played a large role in making it what it is today.
Big bang/crunch is a big one. The way it goes is that a shitload of matter exists in the universe, and it goes through cycles of compacting into a singularity, and violently exploding, sending that matter everywhere in various forms.
[QUOTE=yuki;33179049]Your personal lack of knowledge is not representative of the whole of humanity.[/QUOTE] I think he meant that the current theory of how the Universe formed isn't intuitively obvious, because in order to get there, you need to understand at least the basics of relativity. It's hardly an axiom. [editline]8th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;33183548]Big bang/crunch is a big one. The way it goes is that a shitload of matter exists in the universe, and it goes through cycles of compacting into a singularity, and violently exploding, sending that matter everywhere in various forms.[/QUOTE] The evidence doesn't support Big Crunch. The rate of expansion of the Universe is actually increasing rather than decreasing. Not only that, but the cyclic idea would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33185091]I think he meant that the current theory of how the Universe formed isn't intuitively obvious, because in order to get there, you need to understand at least the basics of relativity. It's hardly an axiom. [editline]8th November 2011[/editline] The evidence doesn't support Big Crunch. The rate of expansion of the Universe is actually increasing rather than decreasing. Not only that, but the cyclic idea would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.[/QUOTE] It makes more sense than infinite nothing exploding and suddenly creating matter.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;33185401]It makes more sense than infinite nothing exploding and suddenly creating matter.[/QUOTE] No, it makes sense that there's no big crunch... because the evidence doesn't support it. It's more poetic, a big crunch; I'd agree with you there.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;33185401]It makes more sense than infinite nothing exploding and suddenly creating matter.[/QUOTE] I want to know how you came to define "it makes more sense that ..." as "it flies in the face of empirical observation".
Disregard what I said, I'm dumb.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.