It doesn't.*trying to remember what i learned in my junior high science classes*
just because science shows that the big bang was this beginning to this universe doesn't mean that the big bang was the complete beginning. who's to say that the concentrated mass that the big bang came from isn't from another universe prior that had collapsed on itself, and this is just one of the cycles the universe goes through. science doesn't know enough information about the universe yet to make rash generalization like that
I said "who's to say", kind of like a "what if". anything after the "whos to say" is just a hypothetical example i made up on the spot based off of information i learned in school helping prove my point that we don't know enough about the universe to make generalizations about a god being the creator. i didn't mean to imply that i learned that the big bang was part of a universe cycle or anything like that or that what i said had any evidence behind it. (ill edit it to match my thoughts better)It doesn't.
The teacher may not have understood the material, the material may not have been accurate (depending on the state there can be really ignorant people deciding what goes in textbooks), and it's possible you just weren't paying careful attention to what was being taught.
Inflation and Expansion (the Big Bang) is the concept that is supported by most of the current evidence. It only determines how our universe as it is took shape. It makes no claim as to what happened before. With the information we currently have, anything before inflation is purely speculation and probability.
I said "who's to say", kind of like a "what if". anything after the "whos to say" is just a hypothetical example i made up on the spot based off of information i learned in school helping prove my point that we don't know enough about the universe to make generalizations about a god being the creator.
On the contrary, beliefs based on science are EASILY defended.
yeah i was surprised to learn that yesterday. watch Jesus Camp, it shows you the radical evangelical christians we have in america.
Origins to me don't really matter - in the now does.we still have a long way to go until we can start to make theories about the origins of our universe
No worries. Those were just three possibilities of why information might be presented like that.I said "who's to say", kind of like a "what if". anything after the "whos to say" is just a hypothetical example i made up on the spot based off of information i learned in school helping prove my point that we don't know enough about the universe to make generalizations about a god being the creator. i didn't mean to imply that i learned that the big bang was part of a universe cycle or anything like that or that what i said had any evidence behind it. (ill edit it to match my thoughts better)
And as more data is collected the hypothetical becomes the theoretical, the possible becomes the probable, and we have ourselves a new understanding.But it has been proposed that there are alternate universes, and that a tear may occur and through that tear, an inflation begins (our universe).
This then leads to the speculation that our universe may one day tear, and start another universe ... maybe there is a domino universe game going on.
Only when it suits them.
most believe science is not real