Jump to content

Big Bang


Guest Seeking_Intellectual_Honesty
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Seeking_Intellectual_Honesty

Could someone explain the big bang with respect to evolution?

sorry i couldny say much..

 

i was confroned by a christian and he asked me to explain the big bang

im not a physics student... so i couldt say much

help??

 

1 more thing...

could someone with knowledge explain evolution? the whole thing, from the big bang?

I am a state of needed help...

The_First_Galaxies.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Big Bang is a completely seperate theory from Evolution. Many people lump them together, despite them being from two seperate branches of science.

 

I'm no physics student either, but the basics of the Big Bang is that all the matter and energy in the universe was concentrated in a single point. Then it exploded, causing the universe to expand and the matter and energy to spread across it. That's as detailed as I can go.

 

Evolution is the way that life on Earth developed and is developing. It is a fact, but the theory of Evolution is the mechanism by which things developed. We have so much evidence for Evolution that denying it is ludicrous. The theory part is about how the organisms change. The current understanding of the process deals with mutations in the genome that help an organism to survive and mate. The smallest group that can evolve is a population of creatures.

 

Anyway, explaining Evolution from the Big Bang is impossible since it started ~3.5 billion years ago, ~11.5 billion years after the Big Bang. It started when organic molecules were formed from the interactions with the early Earth's atmosphere and became concentrated in the water. simple cells formed, and they gradually changed to better be able to survive and compete with other organisms. That's how all the organisms living on earth came to be. And it's still ongoing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, don't be suckered into the idea that the theory of evolution deals with the origin of life. As Callyn said, the ToE deals with the mechanism by which life evolves, and is a completely different branch of biology than how life came to exist in the first place. Aside from our "shot in the dark" hypothesis of the primordial soup, the latter is one big question mark to science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they said. Trying to put the Big Bang together with evolution is something like trying to play Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor on a grilled cheese sandwich. They *may* be connected, somehow, but what a senseless waste of time. (Not to mention that the sandwich gets cold...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeking Intellectual Honesty, you might want to consider the subject of abiogenesis. It seems that scientists have almost created life! However, abiogenesis is not considered part of evolution... it seems to be considered how life started, not how it evolved. That seems to be a very fine line to me. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeking Intellectual Honesty, you might want to consider the subject of abiogenesis. It seems that scientists have almost created life! However, abiogenesis is not considered part of evolution... it seems to be considered how life started, not how it evolved. That seems to be a very fine line to me. :shrug:

Could I get a link to that or a citation? It's awesome if it's true, but we're not that far along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeking Intellectual Honesty, you might want to consider the subject of abiogenesis. It seems that scientists have almost created life! However, abiogenesis is not considered part of evolution... it seems to be considered how life started, not how it evolved. That seems to be a very fine line to me. :shrug:

Could I get a link to that or a citation? It's awesome if it's true, but we're not that far along.

 

If she's referring to the experiment I think she is, what happened is we managed to create the basic structures of dna, amino acids, by discharging lightning through a mix of chemicals thought to have existed in the oceans of the primitive earth. We only got the building blocks but it's a huge start. To create life would be incredibly hard considering the small scope of a chemical experiment but it's not to say that it couln't have happened sometime in a billion years somewhere in the billions of cubic kilometers of ocean earth has always possessed. Time does wonder... if you play the lottery long enough you're bound to win even if all the odds are against you.

 

EDIT : Got a link for ya, check it out it's called the Miller-Uray Experiment

 

Another link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

:)Hi Dark Helmet! I think it goes beyond Stanley Miller's experiment that suggested in recreating the primordial soup with lightning, seems there is the possibility for amino acids to take on life traits. That may be considered the beginning of abiogenesis, yet I think David Lee is the one who has really stirred up the controversy. What I have read about abiogenesis is that they are able to naturally synthesize self replicating polypeptide chains, mRNA. The next step is to form DNA... and I think then we will be on our way to have life! I think it starts with chemicals congregating in a confined spot, maybe with amino acids, that have symbiotic catalytic effects on each other. When I read it, it seemed to get more and more technical for me. More info on it found here.

 

If one does an engine search for information, there is a lot of contradictory opinions to this theory. I am no scientist, however, if we look at history... this contradiction is almost always the case from a society that wants to believe a supreme power in another dimension made us magically appear or animated life. Remember Bruno and Galileo. So, I don't know what the Truth may be...

 

BTW, I came on this site stating that God animated life... and was readily shown this abiogenesis theory. That's how I found out about it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeking Intellectual Honesty, you might want to consider the subject of abiogenesis. It seems that scientists have almost created life! However, abiogenesis is not considered part of evolution... it seems to be considered how life started, not how it evolved. That seems to be a very fine line to me. :shrug:

 

It is indeed, and it's one creationists love to exploit.

 

That seems to be a favored tactic, actually. Cretinists bank on the odds that those they're "debating" are just as ignorant of the little, but incredibly important distinctions like that as your general sheeple.

 

Granted, not all creationists are likely this aware. There are almost certainly those who really are ignorant who take it upon themselves to go out and "battle" in the name of the "faith." I'm willing to believe most well-known creationists, however, are fully informed and well-versed on the scientific principles and theories they oppose. They intentionally and knowingly exploit people's ignorance of the finer points of scientific theories in order to bolster their image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could someone explain the big bang with respect to evolution?

sorry i couldny say much..

 

i was confroned by a christian and he asked me to explain the big bang

im not a physics student... so i couldt say much

help??

 

1 more thing...

could someone with knowledge explain evolution? the whole thing, from the big bang?

I am a state of needed help...

 

 

These sites have a lot of good information. I would also recomend going to a book store and buying books by Dawkins on Biology and Hawkings for Physics.

 

As several people already stated, Evolution has nothing to do with origin of the Universe.

 

Talk Origins

 

Understanding Evolution

 

Dr. Zachary Moore Podcasts

 

 

Good luck with your search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is indeed, and it's one creationists love to exploit.

 

:)Woodsmoke, when I first looked into this, about a year ago... disbelievingly... there was little contradictory opinions to the abiogeneisis theory. Now that I looked to find info for this thread... there's tons of contradictory opinions!!! So be careful to use it against creationist without being prepared for their side of supporting evidence.

 

I tend to think abiogenesis may be true, as we consider history of such. However, I do believe in a supreme being too... and everything is part of it. I see nothing threatening about abiogenesis now... yet when I first came on this site, I did think it was this supreme being that perhaps 'magically' animated life. :Doh:

 

So, I understand the creationists' shock! However, if we are truly in a search for Truth...so be it. If we were given the gift of reason, we might as well use it. Perhaps some of us just need to be redefining our interpretation of "God". :wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, I have no intention of "taking up the cause" anytime soon. I already went through my debating phase as I was deconverting, it's just not important to me anymore.

 

The way I see it, there's no reason I should stand outside their city and bang my head against the walls when I could be back in ours dancing the night away. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thre big bang has nothing to do with evolution,

 

the big bang is an event, specificly the event of the emergence of the universe.

 

The big bang hypothesis was first presented in the 1920s, but was rejected by scientists in favour of the steady state model of the universe,

(the big bang model was deemed too similar to the bible creation myth, and its co-discoverer was a priest)

 

In the late 1950s evidence was found that strongly suggested the big bang model to be corect,

 

more evidence was discovered in the 1960s and 70s, and the big bang replaced the steady state model,

 

By the late 70s most cosmologists had accepted the big bang model, A few holdouts continued to cling to the steady state model untill the 1980s,

 

those few holdouts are frequently quoted (missquoted/quotemined) by creationists who try to imply that the steady state adherants are somehow supporting the creationist doctrines.

(in fact the steady state adherants accused the big bang theorists of being secret creationists)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wave: Hey, nice to see you two, D Laurier and Fonkey!

I see by your total posts that you are fairly new.

I look forward to more of your interesting comments!

 

Having said that... not to be lazy, however, since there are so many science junkies on this site... I'm sure someone knows the answer to my question off the top of their head. I heard on a documentary recently, when they were referring to a star/galaxy/something that they claimed was located 'closer to the initiatiaon of the Big Bang', I was actually shocked. Do we know fairly precisely from where the Big Bang originally exploded into our universe? :ohmy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some people that need an immediate and absolute answer to everything, these people tend to be on the creationist side.

 

:)Reboot, your always right. I think 'absolute' thinking is a great part of the problem, as well as the constant compounding of these ideas, having no room for one's reasoning to evolve, and putting too much weight on all of it.

 

Not to be the devil's advocate, I've heard there are Florida Highway Patrols still using Newtons laws to calculate accident events, even though they have now been replaced by Einstien's. You, understanding the scientific details more than I, may have a perfectly good excuse for this. :shrug: Learning, accepting, adapting to constant change may take more effort, so all sides may choose to stay in their own cozy little world?

 

Not everyone is like you and just thrives on knowing all these details to new discoveries. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Could someone explain the big bang with respect to evolution?

sorry i couldny say much..

 

i was confroned by a christian and he asked me to explain the big bang

im not a physics student... so i couldt say much

help??

 

1 more thing...

could someone with knowledge explain evolution? the whole thing, from the big bang?

I am a state of needed help...

 

[slamdunk] The big bang is assumed as no one observed it or the pin-point-sized ball of energy and matter that preceded it. A big bang explosion may seem logical because the universe is expanding. But there could have been a different cause that set the universe into the expanding mode.

 

I believe what we observe in the universe today is the result of Ps. 33:6,9:

 

6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,

their starry host by the breath of his mouth.

 

9 For he spoke, and it came to be;

he commanded, and it stood firm.

 

Perhaps a loud bang did accompany this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big bang is assumed as no one observed it or the pin-point-sized ball of energy and matter that preceded it. A big bang explosion may seem logical because the universe is expanding. But there could have been a different cause that set the universe into the expanding mode.

 

I believe what we observe in the universe today is the result of Ps. 33:6,9:

 

6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,

their starry host by the breath of his mouth.

 

9 For he spoke, and it came to be;

he commanded, and it stood firm.

 

Perhaps a loud bang did accompany this.

 

Welcome Slamdunk, but I think you're a little off on your understanding here.

 

The big bang is not an assumption, it's a theory. In fact it's only one theory in a set of complete theories for how the universe may have begun.

 

Your apparent belief in the accuracy of the bible is the only "assumption" I see around here.

Is there a specific issue you have with the big bang theory you would to discuss?

 

IMOHO,

:thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big bang is assumed as no one observed it or the pin-point-sized ball of energy and matter that preceded it. A big bang explosion may seem logical because the universe is expanding. But there could have been a different cause that set the universe into the expanding mode.

 

I believe what we observe in the universe today is the result of Ps. 33:6,9:

 

6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,

their starry host by the breath of his mouth.

 

9 For he spoke, and it came to be;

he commanded, and it stood firm.

 

Perhaps a loud bang did accompany this.

Slamdunk, welcome and I wish to challenge a point above. You state at the outset that the big bang is assumed because no has observed it. I wish to clarify that there is plenty of evidence that this event actually occurred. It is not a mere assumption out of thin air. It has gained the acceptance it has in the world of science because of that evidence.

 

Now as you state that God could have spoken this event to occur, well there really isn't any way to support that scientifically as it would exist outside the universe we live in. This necessarily falls under the domain of religion, and accepting it as a factor is purely a matter of faith without evidence. Science can't touch it. Likewise, without science you cannot address the mechanics of nature with unsupportable religious faith.

 

If you accept that nothing magical occurs within nature, i.e., requiring something outside the universe to act upon it, yet you somehow see the moment before the rapid expansion of the universe had some sort of intelligent, willful super thing/being speaking (?), and set the stage for the singularity to "go", then that is your faith. I won't dispute that because it falls outside the universe and science. I just personally don't accept it as necessary to the universe or to us as humans.

 

One point to make to the original poster: when it comes to the Theory of Evolution on this planet, it should also be noted that ALL animal life (note I said "animal", of which humans are also) has been confirmed to have all evolved from one single animal on this planet. DNA data shows that all animal life on this planet has a single common ancestor, from humans, to bats, to fish, to worms, to insects, to the octopus; all began from the ancient sea sponge.

 

BTW, DNA modeling is the closest thing to in fact actually "having been there". So, in fact if some fool tries to discredit science by saying mindlessly, "where you there?," not that that is necessary for science to be valid and true, but in this case for all intents and purposes, the answer to that question could be "Yes! We're there right now looking at it." It's like a perfect historical record right there in the code.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big bang is assumed as no one observed it or the pin-point-sized ball of energy and matter that preceded it. A big bang explosion may seem logical because the universe is expanding. But there could have been a different cause that set the universe into the expanding mode.

 

I believe what we observe in the universe today is the result of Ps. 33:6,9:

 

6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,

their starry host by the breath of his mouth.

 

9 For he spoke, and it came to be;

he commanded, and it stood firm.

 

Perhaps a loud bang did accompany this.

 

Welcome Slamdunk, but I think you're a little off on your understanding here.

 

The big bang is not an assumption, it's a theory. In fact it's only one theory in a set of complete theories for how the universe may have begun.

 

Your apparent belief in the accuracy of the bible is the only "assumption" I see around here.

Is there a specific issue you have with the big bang theory you would to discuss?

 

IMOHO,

:thanks:

 

[Day] Hello Skankboy. Thanks for the nice reception:-) While many scientists say that the big bang is a theory, I think in their hearts that believe it actually happened. But either way, it is the general acceptance by science. The Bible, OTOH, does not equivocate or state theories: God did it:-)

 

My only issue with any theory that postulates a cause for the existance of the universe is that the cause was not observed. The Bible says there was one who observed it's origins: The One who created it as in the Psalm verses, Gen. 1:1 and many others. Science says this, the Bible says that, other books say something else. Who's right? Everyone believes, what he believes, is likely, possible or right.

 

But when I study some of the spiral galaxies, nebula, constellations, etc. I bow in awe. Personally, I see intelligent design in many of these, especially the sombrero galaxy. Check that out and the whirlpool galaxy M51.

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big bang is assumed as no one observed it or the pin-point-sized ball of energy and matter that preceded it. A big bang explosion may seem logical because the universe is expanding. But there could have been a different cause that set the universe into the expanding mode.

 

I believe what we observe in the universe today is the result of Ps. 33:6,9:

 

6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,

their starry host by the breath of his mouth.

 

9 For he spoke, and it came to be;

he commanded, and it stood firm.

 

Perhaps a loud bang did accompany this.

Slamdunk, welcome and I wish to challenge a point above. You state at the outset that the big bang is assumed because no has observed it. I wish to clarify that there is plenty of evidence that this event actually occurred. It is not a mere assumption out of thin air. It has gained the acceptance it has in the world of science because of that evidence.

 

[DAy] Fair enough. But what specific evidence are we talking about when it comes down to the theorized pin-sized ball of matter, energy and space that exploded? What caused it to explode? I realize there is the red shift, micro-wave radiation, expanding universe, etc., but aren't these the RESULT of whatever caused the universe to come into existance? And I agree that it would seem logical to think that they are the result of a massive explosion. But could it not be that an Intelligent Designer was the Cause, Mover and Sustainer of all that we see happening in the universe?

 

Now as you state that God could have spoken this event to occur, well there really isn't any way to support that scientifically as it would exist outside the universe we live in.

 

[Day] Just like a theorized big bang.

 

This necessarily falls under the domain of religion, and accepting it as a factor is purely a matter of faith without evidence.

 

[Day] If science believes (deduces from evidence) that a big bang may have assembled the universe, then why is that not equally as religious? If science can't scientifically prove that the big bang caused the universe, then it is operating on the premise that it believes it happened in a way the evidence points. The creation of the universe is not a religious matter. If it is, so is the big bang. The creation is a matter of unrecorded history.

 

If you accept that nothing magical occurs within nature, i.e., requiring something outside the universe to act upon it, yet you somehow see the moment before the rapid expansion of the universe had some sort of intelligent, willful super thing/being speaking (?), and set the stage for the singularity to "go", then that is your faith. I won't dispute that because it falls outside the universe and science. I just personally don't accept it as necessary to the universe or to us as humans.

 

[Day] Right, we both hold firm to what we believe as the object of our faith.

 

One point to make to the original poster: when it comes to the Theory of Evolution on this planet, it should also be noted that ALL animal life (note I said "animal", of which humans are also) has been confirmed to have all evolved from one single animal on this planet. DNA data shows that all animal life on this planet has a single common ancestor, from humans, to bats, to fish, to worms, to insects, to the octopus; all began from the ancient sea sponge.

 

[Day] What came before the sponge? What do you suppose was the first life form and from what did it descend?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe what we observe in the universe today is the result of Ps. 33:6,9:

 

6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,

their starry host by the breath of his mouth.

 

9 For he spoke, and it came to be;

he commanded, and it stood firm.

 

Perhaps a loud bang did accompany this.

 

Big bang was chosen because it could help you picture the initial expansion from singularity... no life form would have been present to hear the sound waves though :HaHa:

 

[Day] Right. No one observed it.

 

Their starry host by the breath of his mouth was probably chosen due to the lack of scientific tools available back then. Its scientific equivalent today is most likely dark matter accretion prior star formation.

 

[Day] All these are the result, or what happened after the universe initially came into existance. Someone could say that a Big Wand was waved and left in its path all that we see in the universe. How can you say the wand wasn't the cause?

 

For he spoke, and it came to be he commanded, and it stood firm .... it stood firm most likely refers to the composition of the universe. The conditions necessary for current carbon based life requires just the right mixture of base elements at the start.

 

[Day] Just the right mixture. How coincidental.....or was it providential:-)

 

However in a multi-verse scenario you may have silicon based lifeforms. (check out the Susskind and God thread)

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=12021

 

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astr...rs/980221b.html

 

... here's a more technical explantion:

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/first_star_011115.html

 

Astronomers have created a computer simulation showing how the first star in the universe might have formed, helping to plug a gap in understanding of the timeline of the early cosmos.

 

[Day] How would the formation of a star give a timeline? How do we know that star formation wasn't the handiwork of an Intelligent Creator?

 

The simulation shows how exotic and invisible "dark matter" formed clumps that attracted normal matter, which collapsed and formed a giant star. The result implies that the first light in the universe was created by a single fiery furnace, not by some instantaneous creation of a galaxy or cluster of stars.

 

[Day] The Bible does say that on day one God created light.

 

After 155 million years -- an eyeblink in cosmological terms -- a cloud of normal and dark matter has built up the mass of a million suns. In the center, a star about the mass of our Sun is born. The very first star in the universe.

 

It took quite a few supernova's after that to create the heavy elements necessary to sustain carbon based life forms.

 

[Day] In my view, science does an excellant job explaining what an Intelligent Designer did, is doing and will continue to do.

 

If you lived 1000 years ago and your sole reference was a bible and no scientific tools then it would have been a somewhat band-aid explanation for the holes in human cosmological knowledge. These days however we have the tools to clarify the intuition. :shrug:

 

[Day] And yet, it is still all theory. All science can do is study and try to explain what caused it all to happen. :shrug:

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.