How did the Universe come to be?

[Tyriece]

The big bang IS still part of the string theory, how ever it is used differently. Also while inflation in part is driven by negative pressure it is unknown what mechanism is responsible for inflation. Please do some more research and come back -_-

No, string "theory" isn't really a proper theory yet, and to describe BBT as part of it is seriously ignorant. The basic principle of scientific correspondence requires that any succeeding theory must be able to incorporate all of the explanatory power of the previous theory. E.g., Einstein's general relativity will model the phenemona that had previously been adequately modeled by Newtonian physics as well the areas where Newtonian mechanics broke down.

But that doesn't mean that Newton's theories are "part" of general relativity. They clearly anteceded relativity, and so to claim they are part of the theory is completely anachronistic.

"how ever it is used differently" I should not have put that it is apart of it anymore because it is completely re-defined.

[Dyakovo]

Why do you believe Big Bang happened, there is no evidence.
Why do you believe evolution happened, there is no evidence.

There's a lot of evidence for both.

[Seljuq Kyiv]

On the other side of the spectrum:

A Universal God
As far as Gods go, we can't prove or disprove the existence of a God in general. What I mean is we prove Earthly Gods are fake, but generally the supernatural being that is a God is something we can't prove/disprove. Now let's go further with this, a universal God creates and sustains the universe. I can see it, but that would mean this God is taking care of the infinite universe at the same time, do you see the problem with this? This God can't be everywhere at once so it is illogical to say he sustains the infinite universe, let alone creating it, which is what he should still be doing because the universe is infinite. I think this option is illogical because why would a Universal God need to create material forms? He should already have everything in his utopia, there shouldn't be a need for creation.

This paragraph is so full of shit I don't even know where to start.

[Sociobiology]

The big bang is a crap theory. How did all the matter come to be in the first place? The theory doesn't explain it. I say god created all the matter and forces in the universe. He created the matter that caused the big bang.

two "I don't knows" is not a better explanation than one "I don't know"
creating a recursion does not help your stance.

[Sociobiology]

These debates are so frickin' pointless. Religious or not it boils down to: If god did it, where did God come from. OR. If the Big Bang happened, how did everything come from something and how did that something come from another something and it continues. Whatever, what I'm trying to say everything has a beginning and we'll never know the absolute truth.

prove your assumptions.

[Imperializt Russia]

Pursuit of truth is worthy for itself, even if the truth is unattainable. It's aspirational.

Its irrational. Why dig for a treasure that doesnt exist?

You can't predict what you'll get out of it.
Particle experiments gave us the MRI machine amongst other advances, and people love to give particle theorists a kicking for "not being useful".

I can never actually be perfect, or know everything.

That doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying to be better than I am, trying to learn more than I know.

Self-improvement is great. But wasting time on something that you know cant be achieved is stupidity and has nothing to do with self-improvement.

We don't know it can't be achieved.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I don't know. As usual, not knowing doesn't lead me to presume that some intergalactic superbeing made it so.

[Darwinish Brentsylvania]

'Twas the Big Bang.

[CTALNH]

I willed it into existence.

big bang.

[Caldring]

The Big Bang supposedly is something that just flashed and the universe was here. The entire infinite universe felt this flash, really? Do you realize just how big the object that created such a thing would have to be? Impossibly large to cover the infinite universe, plus we can't really prove the Big Bang actually happened, we would need the scientific method to prove this, and I don't see how we can. I think this option is illogical because of how infinite the universe is, also this theory just seems to be something scientists just put out there to counter the God theory.

Okay, so we can't prove if whether or not the big bang actually happened; but that is no excuse for the kind of stupidity that is being shown here. Has the word 'density' ever crossed your mind? Have you ever really even learned anything about it? The theory is that the universe started as a single incredibly dense point, so that when the event occurred that we refer to as 'The Big Bang'. So when this 'flash' occurred, the universe was already incredibly small.
Also your use of the word 'infinite' is also completely wrong - the universe is expanding at an exponential rate so that at current technology we can't see the edge of the universe, let alone reach it, because it will continue to expand faster than we can go towards the edge; but if you take a single moment in time and send something into space, since it is a frozen moment in time the universe is no longer expanding so therefore is not infinite and whatever we sent out will eventually reach the edge (disregarding gravity and all those fun physics). So when you say the universe is 'infinite' what you really mean is that we will never be able to reach the edge of it unless we freeze time and people started to get lazy and started calling it infinite.

[Caldring]

The material from the previous universe pulled together and created the Big Bang. That is a real theory, not just my idea.

So Steady-State Theory?

[Caldring]

The Big Bang was no flash or a bang.
It was a tiny dot that suddenly started expanding.

That would take so much time and space, how can you really say that tiny dot created the infinite universe?

Key word they missed: Density
Probably would have helped if they added: Singularity or black hole

[Federated Terran States]

I Suggest that aliens built a hadron like supercollider which created an alternate universe with its own big bang, they watched while said universe grew up, and built their own hadron supercollider, creating another universe.
After several iterations of this the original aliens put the experiment on a back shelf and agreed to never speak of it again!

[Caldring]

There was no space. Your human mind might not understand it, but listen well: there was nothing.

Nothing = nothing. No time, no space.

Nothing is space. There was always some kind of massive container of nothing, that is space, a container, even with nothing inside it

I don't think that you're getting it. It wasn't like it is now with a galaxy and then a really really big gap where a whole bunch of shit could be but probably isn't, and then another galaxy; it was a really really small, really really dense point where that is the only place that anything could possibly exist. It's like in a video game where you hit the boundary of the world - Noble 6 can survive a fall from orbit because the space that he fell through to get back onto reach existed: Noble 6 can't survive jumping off of a regular cliff because the universe doesn't exist beyond the cliff.

[Zottistan]

Why do you believe Big Bang happened, there is no evidence.
Why do you believe evolution happened, there is no evidence.

For the Big Bang.

As for evolution, just look at dog breeding. That's evolution in progress.

[Sun Wukong]

It was created by the Christian God in a process of 7 days. How long ago this occurred, nobody knows.

The Bible says 6.

Don't Christians ever read that thing?

[Trotskylvania]

The material from the previous universe pulled together and created the Big Bang. That is a real theory, not just my idea.

So Steady-State Theory?

No, "Big Bounce" theory, a possibly infinitely recurring sequence of big bangs, expansionary epochs, big crunches and new big bangs.

[Conscentia]

Why do you believe Big Bang happened, there is no evidence.
Why do you believe evolution happened, there is no evidence.

Sir, there is loads of evidence for both. (For example, there is clear evidence for the metric expansion of space predicted by the Big Bang theory.)
In-fact, evolution is literally better understood than gravity.

[Conscentia]

[...] As for evolution, just look at dog breeding. That's evolution in progress.

Er, not exactly...

[Zottistan]

[...] As for evolution, just look at dog breeding. That's evolution in progress.

Er, not exactly...

Where's the problem? Traits being passed hereditarily isn't evolution?

[Imperializt Russia]

Er, not exactly...

Where's the problem? Traits being passed hereditarily isn't evolution?

It's selective breeding. The same thing we've been doing to crops for millennia.

[Zottistan]

Where's the problem? Traits being passed hereditarily isn't evolution?

It's not evolution, it's selective breeding. The same thing we've been doing to crops for millennia.

Isn't selective breeding just manipulation of evolution?

[Imperializt Russia]

It's selective breeding. The same thing we've been doing to crops for millennia.

Isn't selective breeding just manipulation of evolution?

Arguable.

Darwin used selective breeding as evidence for natural selection.
I would argue that selective breeding is not "evolving" (though in the strictest terms it is, hence my editing of my post in your quote), as it is being directed. The end conclusion of selective breeding, especially in crops, is genetic alteration.
Which is not a part of the natural selection process, and is entirely directed.

I say this with only the most basic grasp of biology required by law in the UK.

[Conscentia]

It's not evolution, it's selective breeding. The same thing we've been doing to crops for millennia.

Isn't selective breeding just manipulation of evolution?

Yes, but it demonstrates artificial selection - not natural selection.

[Zottistan]

Isn't selective breeding just manipulation of evolution?

Arguable.

Darwin used selective breeding as evidence for natural selection.
I would argue that selective breeding is not "evolving" (though in the strictest terms it is, hence my editing of my post in your quote), as it is being directed. The end conclusion of selective breeding, especially in crops, is genetic alteration.
Which is not a part of the natural selection process, and is entirely directed.

I say this with only the most basic grasp of biology required by law in the UK.

If it can happen under directed conditions, it's proof that it can happen. This lines up with the factual suggestions that it can happen in nature, with fossils and similarities across species and stuff like that, to make evidence.