The big crunch is only one of three possible outcomes to the universe, and is looking more and more unlikely as time goes on. The three possibles are:
1) The Big Rip. Everything accelerates away from everything else faster and faster until even quarks are ripped apart.
2) Stabilises. The amount of matter and energy in the universe is just right for everything to stop accelerating apart, but not start accelerating together again.
3) The Big Crunch. The Universe is heavy enough that it collapses under its own gravity.

At the moment, it looks most like option 1 or 2, depending on who you believe.



As to why I'm knowledgable or stuff? I haven't a clue where I get a lot of it from.

*throws foliots disguised as cookies at Gladstone*

*Summons Patterknife to destor foliots*

What does IMO stand for?

In My Opinion :)

Other variations include IMHO, in my humble opinion, and IMAO, in my arrogant opinion.

But seriously, the Big Bang only happened once.

^ How do you know that? I happen to believe that the Universe has been created and destroyed innumerous times. Maybe that's a belief born of ignorance, but I happen to think the Universe has been recycled over and over, maybe compressing into a singularity then exploding. Whatever. Like I've said, these topics are worthless because it's merely speculation. As for the gates thing, that's either true, it's the subconscious, or it's a publicity stunt.

Because the Big Bang being able to happen more than once relies on a Big Crunch, which as I said is looking very unlikely. It's looking unlikely because of the fact that acceleration away from us is speeding up. Of course, that isn't absolute fact, it's the current theory.
Only one Big Bang has been observed though, so my point stands even if the universe is recycling itself.

...And if the Big Crunch comes and then the Big Bang all over again then nobody would be able to prove it because they'd be dead and we'll get back where we started.

Coming back to the out-of-body thing, how does that happen in a controled environment, like are scientist killing people and bringing them back to life. I read a book once about a girl with ESP. She could leave her body at will.

Somebody is in hospital, being monitored by lots of instruments, as you are when you're badly ill. Instruments show they're clinically dead. Then they get revived.

That's a pretty controlled environment.


As for the girl with ESP. Can't be proved in any way.

Here's the Wikipedia page for near-death experiences.

Kibblediggit wrote: ...And if the Big Crunch comes and then the Big Bang all over again then nobody would be able to prove it because they'd be dead and we'll get back where we started.

Actually; the Big crunch got thrown outta thw window years back. The Universe's expansion is accelerating. For a Big Crunch to Happen; the Universe needs to slow down and reverse and that sin't the case.

Nowadays, scientists believe the universe will continue to expand until The force of Gravity as a whole breaks down and matter is flung far and wide, eventually the Galaxy's will cool and die, even the Black holes will collapse into Oblivion and only Space dust will be left. This is called a Heat death...

Oh, and heard about string theory? Aliens!

Some other dude wanted to lead Moses' group, then God picked Moses, smited the other dude and made a hole open up in the earth and swallow his family.

I have this debate but with a lot more depth on other forums...mainly because there is one major creationists and some of his followers and some other dudes with separate but similar beliefs who argue 'n stuff.

Lucky you; God is dead.

I've decided to resurrect this thread. To either make people laugh at me or actually listen to me without snickering, I don't know.

I refuse to believe it Evolution the theory, simply because I don't see the evidence for the beginning of the theory. According to what I've been taught, evolution states the world evolved from a simple, single ansector or gene pool. However, where did that come from? And besides, why would I want to believe I come from a monkey?

That and I'm a Christian who takes the Bible, at least Genesis, literally. It makes more sense to me that we're created by God then developing over time, by chance, to become what we are.

However, I also believe evolution the fact as described by Wikipedia to refer to: the observations that populations of one species of organism do, over time, change into new species. In this sense, evolution occurs whenever a new species of bacterium evolves that is resistant to antibiotics which had been lethal to prior strains.

If you believe in bacteria evolving, why not Monkeys into Human, they have fossil evidence that cannot be disputed you know.

As Sentynel said somwhere... the Human brain isn't capable of dealing with the large numbers and large amount of chance involved in life.

I think humans can change over time and so can monkeys, but not into each other. Same with dinosuars and birds. And the evolution theory has changed since Anmaximander (sp?) the Bible has stayed the same, save translations, since it's been written.

But I can simply counter that with humans don't have the capability to understand the compleixty of God and his involvement in our creation.

Anmaximander?

I'm not sure what that is, nor if it is spelt right, but The Theory Of Evolution has never changed since Darwin.

The Bible has been proven to be written by Humans, and there are thousands of translations mistakes, and there are loads of Bibles which are not identical to each other as well.

We didn't evolve from Monkeys, but we had common ancestors. There is irrefutable fossil evidence that links us. Look at us, we are vertually identical. Saying Evolution doesn't happen is like saying genes don't mutate.


One thing I don't understand is if you believe Genesis literally, then how can you believe that Humans develop over time, if God created us exactly how we are now?...

They dont do they?

What, genes, Beleth?
Every time they're copied there's a chance that an error will be made in the copying. That's a mutation.


Ianna, if things can change over time, why can't they, over millions of years, change form completely?
As for taking Genesis literally - is that literally as in God created the Earth in seven of our days, or seven of his days?
As for the beginning of life, a simple protein that's capable of self replicating isn't actually that unlikely to happen, on a cosmic scale, when you have the right conditions - like on early Earth. If you still believe that's too unlikely, then take the theory of panspermia - where life spreads through the stars riding on asteroids etc. It's possible - some bacteria can survive open space and even entering a planet's atmosphere - it happened with the Space Shuttle Columbia crash, for example. While that obviously doesn't mean that life didn't have a beginning, it opens up the possibility for life to begin on any one of a near infinite number of worlds, rather than just ours, making it nearly impossible that it couldn't have started.