Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did round planets form from the explosion of the Big Bang?
Aptera
Junior Member (Idle past 5191 days)
Posts: 4
From: Farmington, ME, U.S.
Joined: 01-06-2010


Message 1 of 156 (541845)
01-06-2010 2:32 PM


Ok, start at the beginning, I know that the mathematical probability of god is very bad. I believe in god, that is my choice, people who believe in evolution chose to do so and I respect that. Anyway, here is my argument.
According to the theory of evolution to the extent of my knowledge, the universe originated from an infinitely small, infinitely dense and infinitely hot piece of matter. I'll start here. First, where did this come from? I know a lot of evolutionists do not believe in eternity, but matter cannot be created or destroyed, so where did this come from? Next, why/how did this material spontaneously explode? How did round planets form? Normally when something explodes, it is not round. Rock is denser than the gases in our atmosphere, is it not? So, assuming we have an explosion with sufficient material and conditions to create round planets, wouldn't there be a gas "bubble" near the source of the explosion?
Any questions, post here or message me. Thanks.
Edited by Admin, : Remove off-topic content, change title.

"It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" - Mark Twain

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 01-07-2010 7:16 AM Aptera has not replied
 Message 4 by hooah212002, posted 01-07-2010 7:26 AM Aptera has replied
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 01-07-2010 7:28 AM Aptera has not replied
 Message 6 by Dr Jack, posted 01-07-2010 7:40 AM Aptera has replied
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 01-07-2010 8:18 AM Aptera has not replied
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2010 10:15 AM Aptera has not replied
 Message 16 by Rahvin, posted 01-07-2010 1:06 PM Aptera has not replied
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 01-07-2010 1:50 PM Aptera has not replied
 Message 18 by Iblis, posted 01-07-2010 5:58 PM Aptera has not replied
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2010 2:35 AM Aptera has not replied
 Message 143 by Asking, posted 06-04-2010 7:44 PM Aptera has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 156 (541983)
01-07-2010 6:59 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Why I see creation to be more scientifically correct than evolution. thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
AbE: The original topic proposal contained three different topics. I promoted the thread, then removed two of the three topics and changed the title appropriately. I'll work with the originator on his other two topics.
Edited by Admin, : Add AbE comment.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 3 of 156 (541985)
01-07-2010 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aptera
01-06-2010 2:32 PM


Hello Aptera, Welcome to EvC!
Aptera writes:
According to the theory of evolution to the extent of my knowledge, the universe originated from an infinitely small, infinitely dense and infinitely hot piece of matter.
Sorry, but you're wrong already (don't worry, many people that come here get this wrong). The therory of evolution only talks about the development of life. Everything that came before that is not a part of the theory.
First, where did this come from?
It didn't "come" from anything. With that I don;t mean it came from nothing. It's not really my strong point, physics, but I believe it was some sort of shifting of energy into a different state. That is the state we are in today. And before you start asking what was there "before the big bang", that question is nonsensical. Think of it like the question, what is north of the north pole, that makes no sense either.
Next, why/how did this material spontaneously explode?
It didn't explode. The big bang was the expansion of spacetime, which continues to this day.
How did round planets form? Normally when something explodes, it is not round.
Planets are round because of gravity. And again, there was no explosion.
Rock is denser than the gases in our atmosphere, is it not? So, assuming we have an explosion with sufficient material and conditions to create round planets, wouldn't there be a gas "bubble" near the source of the explosion?
If there was an explosion perhaps.
Hope this help clear some stuff up.
Edited by Huntard, : Forget to quote something

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aptera, posted 01-06-2010 2:32 PM Aptera has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 4 of 156 (541986)
01-07-2010 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aptera
01-06-2010 2:32 PM


According to the theory of evolution to the extent of my knowledge, the universe originated from an infinitely small, infinitely dense and infinitely hot piece of matter.
The Theory of Evolution states no such thing, nor does it event come close to attempting such a topic. Perhaps you are thinking of The Big Bang Theory or Abiogenesis, both of which are seperate theories from The Theory of Evolution. Hopefully we can overcome this hurdle rather quickly in order to answer your other questions (as in: I hope you aren't trying to "bash" evolution because you can't grasp cosmology). As for the reaminder of the post, I will leave that for some of the other posters who are more versed in the laws of physics.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aptera, posted 01-06-2010 2:32 PM Aptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Aptera, posted 01-07-2010 8:31 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 5 of 156 (541987)
01-07-2010 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aptera
01-06-2010 2:32 PM


I hardly know where to stat, Aptera, other than to say hello and welcome to EvC.
Are you aware that the universe was has been around for about three times as long as the planet we live on? That about 9,000,000,000 years passed between the Big Bang and the birth of our solar system?
Planets and large asteroids/moons are round because of gravity. Rock is only so strong - a chunk of it 500 miles in diameter or so has enough gravity of its own to slowly deform it into a more-or-less sphere. The moons of Mars are similar sort of rock as, say, the asteroid Juno. But the moons are small enough that they can't pull themselves into a symmetric shape. Juno, Mars, and Earth can, and have. Stars and planets like Jupiter, where we only can see a gas atmosphere, are roughly spherical for the same reason. Gas deforms a lot quicker than rock, but the reasoning is identical - gravity does it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aptera, posted 01-06-2010 2:32 PM Aptera has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 6 of 156 (541990)
01-07-2010 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aptera
01-06-2010 2:32 PM


Hello Aptera and welcome to the Forum
Ok, start at the beginning, I know that the mathematical probability of god is very bad.
Really? How does one calculate the probability of God?
I believe in god, that is my choice, people who believe in evolution chose to do so and I respect that.
I didn't choose to "believe in evolution" any more than I "choose" to believe in gravity, or the first law of thermodynamics. I'm convinced by the overwhelming evidence in favour of these scientific findings.
According to the theory of evolution to the extent of my knowledge, the universe originated from an infinitely small, infinitely dense and infinitely hot piece of matter.
The theory of evolution deals only with the changes that occur in biological populations, it does not approach the topic of how planets or the universe came to be. You're thinking of astrophysics and cosmology, according to these areas of scientific investigation, the universe was indeed much smaller than it was now 13.7 billion years ago, however there is no time at which it was infinitely dense, etc. - the physics we know can't cope with that, so although it's a logical conclusion, Big Bang theory only goes back to about one trillion trillion trillionth of a second after this hypothetical point. Secondly, the theory does not require that this be the origin of the universe - although that's how it's often construed.
First, where did this come from? I know a lot of evolutionists do not believe in eternity, but matter cannot be created or destroyed, so where did this come from?
We don't know. It may not have "come from" anything, it may have been spontaneously generated. It may have been formed by a process beyond our universe. They may have been a big crunch, followed by a big bang. The answer is beyond our knowledge.
Matter, by the way, can be both created and destroyed; you're thinking of energy - but that too can be created and destroyed according to Quantum Mechanics and does so constantly at the subatomic level. Regardless, the first law of thermodynamics applies to things within our universe, attempting to apply it to the universe itself is a logical fallacy.
Next, why/how did this material spontaneously explode?
It didn't "explode", the Big Bang is not an explosion. Thinking of it as an explosion will not help you understand it. As far why there was the expansion - I don't know, I don't think anyone does?
How did round planets form? Normally when something explodes, it is not round.
It wasn't round, they became round later, because trillions upon trillions of little bits of matter accumulated under their own gravity. Spherical objects are physically stable because they minimise the overal gravitational effect, similarly to why water droplets form spheres (here, it is atmospheric pressure and electrostatic attraction that is responsible but the principle is the same).
Rock is denser than the gases in our atmosphere, is it not? So, assuming we have an explosion with sufficient material and conditions to create round planets, wouldn't there be a gas "bubble" near the source of the explosion?
The "explosion" was everywhere. Every point, everywhere in the universe, is where the big bang was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aptera, posted 01-06-2010 2:32 PM Aptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Aptera, posted 01-07-2010 8:27 AM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied
 Message 145 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-25-2011 2:56 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 7 of 156 (542002)
01-07-2010 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aptera
01-06-2010 2:32 PM


First, where did this come from?
We don't know. We're not entirely sure we understand if the question makes sense and we might be doomed to forever speculate. Cosmologists are working on an answer, but whatever that answer is will only result in 'where did THAT come from' until a point is reached where that kind of thinking doesn't really make sense any more, or no further progress is possible.
Next, why/how did this material spontaneously explode?
Actually a difficult question, and the best answer that can be given requires a lot of background learning: negative-pressure vacuum energy density.
I'll cut to the chase and say I don't really understand myself.
How did round planets form? Normally when something explodes, it is not round.
IIRC they used to make lead shot by dripping molten lead of a tall tower. The lead would naturally form into spheres, hit a reservoir of water and solidify as spheres.
Spheres naturally form all the time. Like soap bubbles. Indeed - if you 'exploded' a tank of water and filmed it at high resolution you'd see lots of round things. Here is something like that occurring at a smaller scale. Here is a lemon exploding, you can see spherical drops of water/lemon juice quite clearly.
With those examples, it's kind of a function of surface tension. At larger scales, the force of gravity becomes substantial enough to have a similar effect. Which is why big things in this universe are all round - unless some other force is acting to change that.
So, assuming we have an explosion with sufficient material and conditions to create round planets, wouldn't there be a gas "bubble" near the source of the explosion?
It's been said before, but I'll repeat it anyway: The expansion wasn't an explosion caused by the rapid expansion of hot gasses in a confined area leading to a buildup of pressure until a (designed) failure of containment occurs and bits of casing and other shrapnel are scattered around. And, except in a particularly pedantic fashion, the expansion didn't create round planets. Round planets formed because the distribution of energy in the expanding universe was 'lumpy'.
Suffice it to say - it's more complicated than it looks and you should be cautious when using simple analogies and your attempts to imagine the picture the scientists are trying to convey. Ultimately it comes down to the maths - and the maths is not straight forward.
edit: OH! And welcome to EvC by the way. I'm normally more polite than to forget a welcome - you'll have to excuse me: I have been, and continue to be, rather ill (nothing serious, thankfully).
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aptera, posted 01-06-2010 2:32 PM Aptera has not replied

  
Aptera
Junior Member (Idle past 5191 days)
Posts: 4
From: Farmington, ME, U.S.
Joined: 01-06-2010


Message 8 of 156 (542004)
01-07-2010 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dr Jack
01-07-2010 7:40 AM


Well, By the mathematical probability of God I mean that we have not experienced a god. By belief in a theory, I mean that as of yet I am not convinced. I believe in god, but I do have some doubts. What you believe, you choose to believe in. Gravity is observable (please, don't get riled about this one) where as basically what I have heard on here nobody knows about the big bang theory, this is. So the universe was created through a space-time "gap"? Never thought of it that way. If the conditions were correct, particular gravitation could theoretically happen.
You have some interesting points, thanks for sharing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dr Jack, posted 01-07-2010 7:40 AM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Huntard, posted 01-07-2010 9:09 AM Aptera has not replied
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 01-07-2010 12:45 PM Aptera has not replied

  
Aptera
Junior Member (Idle past 5191 days)
Posts: 4
From: Farmington, ME, U.S.
Joined: 01-06-2010


Message 9 of 156 (542005)
01-07-2010 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by hooah212002
01-07-2010 7:26 AM


Er... No I'm not trying to "bash" evolution... I have been homeschooled all of my life and therefore only learned Evolution/Big bang theory/Abiogenesis to the extent of my own research. Now, I have been to a few classes on evolution, but these seemed to bundle it together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by hooah212002, posted 01-07-2010 7:26 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by hooah212002, posted 01-07-2010 8:40 AM Aptera has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 10 of 156 (542006)
01-07-2010 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Aptera
01-07-2010 8:31 AM


here is a great place to start: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Aptera, posted 01-07-2010 8:31 AM Aptera has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 11 of 156 (542013)
01-07-2010 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Aptera
01-07-2010 8:27 AM


Aptera writes:
Well, By the mathematical probability of God I mean that we have not experienced a god.
Some claim to have experienced him. I however, do not find that convincing evidence for myself to justify a believe in him.
By belief in a theory, I mean that as of yet I am not convinced.
Ok, fair enough. Ask, and perhaps through our answers and your own research, you'll be one day convinced by the evidence.
I believe in god, but I do have some doubts.
This is something you should work out yourself, I feel. I will say however that there are many people who believe in god who are also convinced by the evidence that evolution is true.
What you believe, you choose to believe in.
I don't "choose" to "believe" in something. I am either convinced or unconvinced by the evidence that some claim is true.
Gravity is observable (please, don't get riled about this one) where as basically what I have heard on here nobody knows about the big bang theory.
I thikn some physicists might disagree with you on not "knowing" the big bang theory. True, no one has observed the big bang, but this isn;t necessary to draw conlcusions from the evidence it did leave behind.
So the universe was created through a space-time "gap"?
This is all kind of hard for me to explain. I hope cavediver or Son Goku can give a very basic explanation. In the meantime, look it up on Wikipedia (just search for big bang). That should point you in the right direction.
If you need some clarification, please ask, we're here to help.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Aptera, posted 01-07-2010 8:27 AM Aptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by slevesque, posted 01-07-2010 10:40 AM Huntard has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 12 of 156 (542029)
01-07-2010 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aptera
01-06-2010 2:32 PM


First, where did this come from? I know a lot of evolutionists do not believe in eternity, but matter cannot be created or destroyed, so where did this come from?
Matter can be created --- from energy (indeed, one might think of matter as frozen energy).
Now, you might ask what was the origin of the energy. That's an interesting question. One possible answer suggested by the inflationary hypothesis is that the net energy of the universe is zero.
Next, why/how did this material spontaneously explode?
The simplest solutions to the equations that describe gravity (i.e. Einstein's equations of general relativity) require that the universe should either be expanding or shrinking. We happen to live in one which is expanding.
How did round planets form?
Further to what other people have said, it's actually part of the definition of a planet that it should have enough gravity to make itself round. By a recent resolution of the International Astronomers' Union:
The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System, except satellites, be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:
(1) A "planet" is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
Normally when something explodes, it is not round. Rock is denser than the gases in our atmosphere, is it not? So, assuming we have an explosion with sufficient material and conditions to create round planets, wouldn't there be a gas "bubble" near the source of the explosion?
It's hard to see what sort of confusion of ideas could lead someone to ask such a question.
For now, let me point out that it was not an explosion and that it doesn't have a source.
One analogy commonly used is that of blowing up a balloon. Imagine the two-dimensional surface of the balloon as an analog to our three-dimensional space. Points on the surface of the balloon get further away from one another, but there is no point on the surface of the balloon that can be considered the center of the expansion --- or, alternatively, any point on the surface of the balloon could be so regarded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aptera, posted 01-06-2010 2:32 PM Aptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by cavediver, posted 01-07-2010 12:42 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 13 of 156 (542036)
01-07-2010 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Huntard
01-07-2010 9:09 AM


I don't "choose" to "believe" in something. I am either convinced or unconvinced by the evidence that some claim is true.
I thin that what he means is that even though your choice is evidence-based, it remains a choice in the sense that you decide that you have enough evidence to put your confidence in a given theory. The point where you decide you have enough evidence could be viewed as a choice, although probably unconsciously in some/most cases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Huntard, posted 01-07-2010 9:09 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 01-08-2010 8:17 AM slevesque has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 14 of 156 (542061)
01-07-2010 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Adequate
01-07-2010 10:15 AM


Matter can be created --- from energy (indeed, one might think of matter as frozen energy)
Arghhh
What do you need to add to the ocean to get waves? Energy! Does this mean that waves are made of energy? No! Ocean without waves, and ocean with waves are both just made of the ocean.
Energy can excite a matter field from a ground state (no matter) to a higher level state (matter). But both 'no matter' and 'matter' are the same thing: different states of the matter field.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2010 10:15 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2010 5:15 AM cavediver has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 15 of 156 (542062)
01-07-2010 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Aptera
01-07-2010 8:27 AM


From the Big Bang to the Planets
Aptera writes:
Gravity is observable (please, don't get riled about this one) where as basically what I have heard on here nobody knows about the big bang theory, this is. So the universe was created through a space-time "gap"?
I think you've misunderstood what Mr Jack was saying, but a little more detail should clear it up.
When astronomers peer out into space using their powerful telescopes they find that the more distant a galactic group the more rapidly it is receding from us. When all galactic groups in the universe are receding from all other galactic groups it can only mean that the entire observable universe is expanding.
If the universe is undergoing expansion then that means that last year it was smaller than it was this year. And the year before that it was even smaller, and the year before that even smaller. If you continue extrapolating backward in time then you find that the universe becomes smaller and smaller. If you go far enough back in time, approximately 13.7 billion years, then you find that all matter must have existed in a very small region of space, smaller than a single atom.
It is from this very tiny and dense region containing all the matter and energy currently in the universe that the Big Bang sprang. There it was, all this matter and energy in a very tiny volume, and we don't know how it got there or where it came from, but we know it was there. It had to be there, because when we retrace the path of the matter we see in the universe today we see that it is all moving away from a single point.
Not knowing where the material comprising the Big Bang came from is not the same thing as not knowing whether the Big Bang happened. It had to have happened, because if it didn't then the galaxies we see through our telescopes couldn't be where there are with the motion they have.
The Big Bang was initially very hot and was comprised of a quark plasma, but as it expanded and cooled matter was able to condense out of this quark soup, mostly hydrogen. There was also a little helium and a smattering of lithium. As it happens, these are the three lightest elements, and these clouds of mostly hydrogen dispersed into space. No planets formed out of the Big Bang. The Big Bang produced only the three elements I mentioned.
But within a half-billion years or so after the Big Bang the mostly hydrogen clouds had cooled to the point where tiny irregularities could serve as seeds from which the first stars could begin condensing. The first stars were probably huge, and if they had planets then it wasn't planets as we know them because there was no carbon, no oxygen, no sodium, no calcium, no iron, no elements at all other than hydrogen, helium and a little lithium. If there were planets then they must have been comprised mostly of hydrogen gas, because that was mostly all there was.
Huge, massive stars burn up and exhaust their hydrogen fuel relatively rapidly, in as little as a few million years. The process by which they burn their fuel, nuclear fusion in the star's core, "cooks" the lighter elements like hydrogen into heavier elements like helium. Once the hydrogen is used up then the helium is used to cook even heavier elements, like lithium, beryllium and carbon. As more and more of a star's nuclear fuel is consumed it switches to other nuclear processes that create heavier and heavier elements, all the way up to iron (Fe, atom number 26).
When a star no longer has sufficient fuel to generate sufficient heat to maintain the matter comprising it as a ball of very hot matter then it collapses in upon itself. This greatly increases the density of matter in the star's core and creates the conditions necessary to cook the nuclear fuel into elements heavier than iron, but the same process also causes the star to explode (nova for small stars, supernova for larger stars). Exploding stars going nova and supernova send most of their contents, including their newly formed heavier elements, out into the gas clouds already resident in space.
As time went by in the early universe more and more heavier elements accumulated in the gas clouds from these early novas and supernovas, and now new stars condensing from these gas clouds containing heavier elements could form planets as we know them today, since elements like aluminum and iron and manganese (rocks) and oxygen (necessary for water) and carbon (necessary for organic molecules) were available.
Approximately 9 billion years after the Big Bang our own sun condensed out of a gaseous cloud in our Milky Way galaxy, along with a suite of planets of which our planet Earth is one.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Aptera, posted 01-07-2010 8:27 AM Aptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024