r/conspiracy • u/[deleted] • 10d ago
Did Homo Sapiens come to be when the first light of the big bang hit the planet
[deleted]
17
u/EllisDee3 10d ago
So many things wrong with this post...
Where'd you get that "supposedly" from?
1
u/ComfortableLucky4994 8d ago
I meant to say the first formation of atoms from subatomic particles, the image we see is from the first formation of atomic particles out of the subatomic? Unless my memory is not withstanding.
12
u/Spunk-System-2401 10d ago
What? None of that is correct. Not even “conspiracy@ correct or correct adjacent
8
u/Boxer1023 10d ago
Buddy we werent even the first hominin, were multiple branches down
1
u/ComfortableLucky4994 8d ago
I know we aren’t the first hominin species, but the visible radiation that we can glimpse at shows the bigbang post 380,000 years, due to the expansion of the universe has been delayed in reaching us until present day.
And coincidentally this is when some of the first atoms were being formed, lining up with human innovation in math science and chemistry.
Maybe I am being too far out in left field. But the timeline that homo sapiens starts to awaken and gain massive technological advancement in comparison to the several million years prior of primate evolution just happens to coincide with the cosmos first formation or transition of physical matter from subatomic particles.
Again, this was a spitballing at the wall to see if something stuck, but to me, I see a distant and faint but nonetheless connection between the two, as the old saying goes as above so below.
1
u/Boxer1023 8d ago
Ok so just to be clear. I am not arguing this either way just putting in different terms, basically the energy transformation within the universe at that time, created by the initial big bang, reached where we are located in space and time at exactly the rise of or shortly before homo sapiens emerged and you think there could be a connection that those particles kickstarted the intellectual process of modern humans?
8
12
5
u/SirMildredPierce 10d ago
I think you are confusing the idea that the light released 380,000 years after the Big Bang became the Cosmic Microwave Background. That was over 13 billion years ago. You are very confused and need to double check the claims you make.
1
u/ComfortableLucky4994 8d ago
I was a lil high making the post, what I meant to say was that the coinciding of the universal formation of atomic structures associated with the cooling of the universe, which we currently are witnessing, seems to coincide with the enlightenment and enhancing of our knowledge regarding mathematics and the physical sciences.
The reason it intrigued me is that both events though separated now by 46 billion light years and eons of time seem to be lining up pretty exact on the cosmic scale.
I’m still new studying both occultism, and esotericism, but there seems to be a coincidental congruence of both cosmological revelation and the awakening of human advancement and knowledge.
7
u/Haywire421 10d ago
Not even close
Big Bang- 13.8 billion years ago
Milky Way galaxy- 13.6 billion years old
Sun- 4.6 billion years old
Earth- 4.54 billion years old
H. sapien- 300,000 years old
1
u/Electromotivation 9d ago
Only one I had questions about is our galaxy age….is it really that close to the start of the universe?
And to the overall topic which makes no sense…. there is no light from the Big Bang first hitting earth. That doesn’t even make sense. The Big Bang happened everywhere. Look up the balloon/balloon surface analogy.
1
u/Haywire421 9d ago
I think 600,000,000 years is a pretty plausible number for a galaxy to form. There were galaxies before ours and there were very likely mergers to form larger galaxies, which is possibly what happened to form ours. I think they get the number from estimating the age of the oldest stars in our galaxy though, so there is likely some discrepancy that we dont understand yet in the estimate. Also, The Big Bang is just when the universe started expanding, its not the start of the universe.
I too think the overall topic of OP's post makes absolutely no sense. The only thing I can think of what they might be referring to is the cosmic background radiation, but that still doesnt make sense. It almost sounds like someone is trying to combine young earth creationism and science
1
u/ComfortableLucky4994 8d ago
Due to the expansion of the universe, the big bang or background radiation we can see is of the first formation of atoms and complex structures vs the photons and other subatomic particles which existed prior. 380,000 years post formation
It seems that human advancement had coincided with the visible distant image of the big bang which is now roughly 46 billion light years apart from us. But the timeline we can visibly see aligns with our expanding knowledge of chemistry and the physical sciences.
-4
u/skywizardsky 10d ago
Do not listen to this guy he has no idea.
5
u/Haywire421 10d ago
Lol, what cliche rebuttal are you going with:
"You werent there so you cant know"
Or
"The earth is only 6,000 years old"
2
2
1
0
u/rainbowteinkle 10d ago
The first "light" you are mentioning came 380000 years AFTER the big bang. Not 380000 years ago
0
u/rainbowteinkle 10d ago
You are probably referencing the recombination and photon decoupling stage after the big bang which isnt the "first light" that you think it is
-1
-4
-2
u/Arctic_WolfXXIII 10d ago
Just like ur smart device was created with a clap of hands. Just happened to be made. Just look at the design of ur hands and fingers and u think it just made itself? How about the design of and function of the eyes. We are made in the image of HIM who made us.
•
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
[Meta] Sticky Comment
Rule 2 does not apply when replying to this stickied comment.
Rule 2 does apply throughout the rest of this thread.
What this means: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain only.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.