Breaking news; the tea party is retarded

That's nice, but you're actually an atheist. Your beliefs map to atheism, you behave like an atheist, and you smell like one too, you filthy heathen. "Agnostic" is a word that atheists use to describe themselves when they're trying not to offend religious people, but it means exactly the same thing as "atheist".

 

The first parents descended from simpler and simpler organisms until all that was left were the raw ingredients to form lipid chains, amino peptides, and carbohydrates. Everything else goes back to that point too, because DNA is made of the same four things in every living organism we can see. And those raw ingredients are derived from long-dead stars. What put it all there/here in the first place? Damned if I know.
Hell, I don't even know the logistics of creating a singularity with all of the matter and energy in the current universe, making it unstable and watching it expand, unless the universe it was created in had even more matter and energy than that, and it was placed in a "pocket space" with no dimensions, which caused it to become unstable and expand faster than light can travel simply because there was no outside force acting on it to keep it stable.
Or it's simply the remains of a previous universe, and it happens like this forever.
Whatever the case, Hawking estimates there are 10 quintillion particles in the observable universe. The only ways I can think of to get a number even that high is by recycling a dead universe or somebody gathering particles from a universe much, much larger in scope, which would ask the question, "Is there a series of infinitely larger universes all created in a method of experiment?" And really, that could be, but that's as ridiculous to me as both a deity-creator and pure random chance...though if there are infinite universes along side ours with different physics, some with identical physics and different positions for astrological objects, and all that, I could accept random chance. Hell, the infinite alternate universes thing could also work along side the big bang/crunch idea, perhaps it's happened several times before and the physics were slightly different each time, and this universe happened to be one with life in it.
You...don't care about my design, so I'll assume you're trying to flummox me. I already said I can't answer the question directly. There's a pretty good reason, too - I wasn't there.

 

I'd vote for this guy:


<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4d_FvgQ1csE?version=3&amp;hl=sv_SE"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4d_FvgQ1csE?version=3&amp;hl=sv_SE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

Back to square one, then. If the theory with universe-creating scientists doesn't in the slightest bit bring us closer to answering the "Where did everything come from?" question, why introduce it and put any stock in it in the first place?

 

Considering the fact that the estimated number of atoms in the observable universe is said to be ten to the power of eighty, I think there are actually slightly less planets out there.

 

Were the universe composed on nothing else but such monoatomic planets, there would still be only 10^80 of them, though.

 

Why introduce the big bang theory? How did everything get into a singularity with zero visible dimensions and then suddenly expand? Why introduce the steady state theory? Where did the infinite universe come from?
Why insist the universe constantly expands and contracts unless you're willing to say the universe itself is not bound by the laws inherent to its contents and has always existed, and then you've just given the universe the power of God.
My theory is just as good as any of those, because it answers just as many questions.
Now, unless you're a Nihilist, I'd like to see your best educated guess.

 

But I am a nihilist. A moral and existential one, anyway.

You, on the other hand, are a person who just said the generally approved Big Bang model describing the earliest stages of the universe's development is of equal scientific value as a concept assuming the existence of an outer universe with universe-creating scientists while giving nothing more in return than exchanging the "What created this universe?" question with the "What created that universe?" one.

I have no guess. I do not know what caused the Big Bang nor where did the singularity come from. But I do know introducing redundant middlemen doesn't bring us any closer to finding out.

 

Actually, your theory is better because it answers the additional question "Does Grossenschwamm know what he's talking about?"

 

Yeah...

 

You mean like any time somebody says "G*d created the universe."
And somebody wittily retorts "Well who created G*d," into forever until somebody has an aneurism. There's no point to any of these theories, because we can't observe things outside of our universe anyway. If you took me seriously, you'd wait until I had my reactor design finished and make a damn space-time machine like I told you.

I actually know more about this universe than most men know about their own dicks. Did you know that before the Wright Brothers flew, physicists had proven that heavier than air flight was impossible? You call me crazy, but eventually, I'll be the one supplying your house with power.

 

I wish you had committed suicide.

 

Your time would be better served warming fish in your ass.

 

Breaking news: According to scientists, the hitherto unquantifiable substance known as "Dark Matter", which comprises 83% of the mass of the universe, is actually just Drog's dick.

 

That's pretty damn good.

 

I'm pretty proud of my work in this thread so far, I must say.

 

Yeah, your two line "tangent" did some damage.

 

Compensating for something with the length of your signature, mate?