The Big Bang

[Asimov]

Do you comprehend, in detail, these "huge mathematical models that stand up" - for yourself - or do you simply have blind faith in the people that tout them?

 

Who says we believe in them absolutely?

[Kelli]

Thesis: God created the universe, since order cannot arise from nothing or from chaos.

 

If the thesis is true, then who or what created the 'ordered' God of creation?

 

simple question... Answer it, Christian.

 

It'll never happen. They'll stand on science only when it's convenient. It's convenient to use the old "A 747 cannot be created from a tornado" analogy, but when it comes to other logical scientific reasoning, such as applying the same principle to how something like a perfect god came into being, suddenly they run away from science as fast as they can go.

[Grandpa Harley]

Hey, it's a remote chance... this one claims to be different... so lets give God Boy a chance...

[Sparrow]

This is a new thread in order to respect the founder of the Salvation thread I was just in.

 

Topic: The Big Bang.

 

Well, it looks like I should probably expand on my comments about the "Big Bang", since I am obviously getting a lot of flack. How 'bout I just skip my own interpretation and go straight to a clip, provided by NASA, from Harvard... (Make sure to turn on your speakers)

 

hmm... maybe we should listen to that again... what should we call it? My intelligence has been insulted because I called it an "explosion"... but this Harvard rendition is not really a BANG either, is it? So, what about... a Big BOOM... or a Big BLAST... I don't know, it still sounds like an explosion to me.

 

Oh dear ..... yawn ..... yet another christian turns up and in an effort to criticize science starts playing the pedant with the precise meanings of a word.

 

 

Ok, enough making fun of a theatrical little noise. Now, let's see what this article says about this beginning...

 

Just before the Big Bang.

 

No one knows what the universe was like at this time. Best current theory: the "inflationary universe" model assumes that all of space is filled with an extremely concentrated, unstable form of energy that will be transformed into particles of matter at the instant of the Big Bang. But no one knows how space and time came into existence in the first place.

 

Now, Han. I have you quoted as saying

The Big Bang came from a hot and dense singularity that could have existed for eternity as far as we know. We can't estimate it's age, because "age" and "time" is dependent on the space/time fabric which came into structure when the Big Bang occurred. We have to talk about hypertime to explain what the age of this singularity is, and we step outside of our understanding of time. But it was not "non-existent" before the Big bang, it just wasn't part of OUR time.

 

Well, for me as a Christian, the answer to where all this "stuff" came from is that God made it. As a Christian, that works for me. I am comfortable with that. Yeah, I know you guys think that's hilarious. So, yes, I come into this with a presupposition. However, I assume many of you come with a presupposition that there is no Christian God; so at least that's on the table.

 

Well bully for you!! I’m glad it works for you and that your comfortable with it.

 

But just a correction, there probably is no god – christian or otherwise.

 

 

If "age" and "time" is dependent on the space/time fabric which came into structure when the Big Bang occurred" then wouldn't there have to be something that exists beyond the realm of space and time in order to create it?

 

Maybe, but then again, maybe not.

 

There are a number of theories (and I use the word “theory†very specifically) that suggest there may have been something. There are also a number of theories (and again I use the word theory very specifically) that suggest that nothing was in fact required.

 

Understand, a theory need only have evidence and there is plenty of evidence for the expanding universe and “big bangâ€.

 

Just which theory is right is the question, and with time, maybe we’ll know.

 

Like Antlerman asks, you have no idea of science, do you?

 

 

Based on what I have gathered thus far, this forum is supported by those who do not believe that which cannot be supported by fact. So, how is this theory proven by fact? Now, I am very interested in hearing this because I was under the impression that science is proven, through measurements and calculations, which I thought would be based on space and time. Now, obviously I am not a science major. Can you explain this in layman's terms.

 

As Antlerman has pointed out, a theory is not a fact – and true, you’re clearly not a science major, nor a science minor I would suggest.

 

Just consider the difference between gravity and the theory of gravity – gravity is a fact, and theory of gravity attempts to describe what gravity does, and in some cases, how it does it.

 

Quite a difference really, wouldn’t you say?

 

Instant of the Big Bang.

 

Particles burst into existence. (OH! THAT'S what it is! It's not an EXPLOSION, it's a BURST. Sorry, my bad. ) [/color]

 

Again you show your real intentions by pedantically picking at the word chosen and not what it is attempting to describe.

 

Perhaps gi-normouse-pop would make you happy. How about a humongous boink? Or a calamatous-kaboom?

 

Does these sound better to your auditory aesthetics?

 

No one yet knows how this process takes place. From these particles will arise all the matter from which we and the universe around us are made. The matter and energy are so densely packed that 1 teaspoonful of space contains 100 million trillion trillion trillion pounds. We don't know what the larger universe is like very far beyond this small chunk.

 

Scale of window: 1 inch across.

 

Weight in this volume: 10 billion trillion trillion trillion pounds.

 

Did you know that, in response to the question "Where did the material come from for this 'Big Bang'?", scientists are now entertaining the notion that there are other dimensions! This is commonly called the M-Theory, which is an expansion of the String-Theory. They admit there is no evidence for this String Theory), that is the building block for "Mr. M", yet they are willing to believe it anyway. Nothing but an unfinished mathematical theory. NO evidence. None. Yet they believe it.

 

Well no. That’s not the way it is at all.

 

M-Theory, string theory, brane theory, etc, are all viable models that very well describe what observations are already existent and what evidence has already been gathered.

 

When it is said that there is no evidence, it means that there is nothing (yet) which points strongly to one being absolutely correct.

 

On top of this, as someone else on this web page has said, there isn’t the technology yet to test it. Emphasis on the word “yet†is intended.

 

 

Now, why is it more logical to say there is no possibility of a Biblical God because you see no proof? Yet, for some strange reason, believe in a Big Bang when scientists willingly admit to the very same thing we are accused of. Having no actual evidence.

 

Well firstly, you’re the one who is making a rather dubious connection between the biblical god and the big-bang (or VLP – Very Large Pop).

 

Secondly, the biblical god is not very special to this argument, because by the same implication you could easily apply this argument to zeus, thor, odin, cern or any other deity you chose to dig out of the grave.

 

Thirdly, there is a great deal of evidence for the big bang – the cosmic back ground radiation is a pretty big bit of evidence (just to mention one piece) – whereas there is absolutely none, zero, zippo, zilch, didley-squat evidence for the biblical god and all the other mentioned and not mentioned.

 

 

Why exactly can they entertain that there are dimensions, they do not understand, where our universe originated from?

 

Because this is how science works. That’s why. Science is just a tool of discovery.

 

There is evidence that something happened, and they’re searching for the reasons in natural explanations.

 

No gods need apply.

 

 

However, not even taking into consideration the BIBLICAL God, they can't even entertain the idea that maybe there is (at the very least) an intelligent being, in one of those dimensions, that brought forth this universe?

 

Why not take into account the biblical god?

 

May as well also ask: Why not the greek gods, or the roman gods? What about the Egyptian gods?

 

Because the point is to get an explanation and “God did it†doesn’t explain anything.

 

Spatz.

[Kat22]

OK. I am really no trying to ignore anyone. I have just had a busy week and haven't even been able to read more than a coupld responses. I will be answering soon.

 

God bless,

K

[HuaiDan]

OK. I am really no trying to ignore anyone. I have just had a busy week and haven't even been able to read more than a coupld responses. I will be answering soon.

 

God bless,

K

Face it. You've been overwhelmed by the crushing force of logic. My prediction is that future replies from you will involve circular reasoning, evasive sidetracking, strawman arguments and appeals to ignorance.

[Grandpa Harley]

Damn, I'm nostalgic for the time they weren't here...

[HuaiDan]

Let me add shifting the burden of proof to that list, as Kat's done that several times already as well.

 

 

About the dimensions thing Kat; if you're able to grok the concept of time outside of the constraints of units of time and time telling devices, then you'll be one step closer to getting inside your supposed god's head. What is time? Not really a rhetorical question for pondering, it has a definite and real answer.

[Sparrow]

OK. I am really no trying to ignore anyone. I have just had a busy week and haven't even been able to read more than a coupld responses. I will be answering soon.

 

God bless,

K

 

Hellooooo. Anyone home?

[Grandpa Harley]

Spatz,

 

I think the lights are on, the door is swinging open, the TV is on, but there's really no-one home...

[Antlerman]

As Antlerman has pointed out, a theory is not a fact – and true, you’re clearly not a science major, nor a science minor I would suggest.

 

Just consider the difference between gravity and the theory of gravity – gravity is a fact, and theory of gravity attempts to describe what gravity does, and in some cases, how it does it.

 

Quite a difference really, wouldn’t you say?

I would venture to say that her only exposure to science was in a "Science is Wrong!" class at her church.

 

Yes the theory of Gravity in fact is "just a theory". Therefore, Evangelical's are now proposing an alternative to the conventional research around the Theory of Gravity, and have now proposed the alternative, "Theory of Intelligent Falling"

 

 

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

 

Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

 

<snip>

 

Read the whole story here: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

[Sparrow]

Spatz,

 

I think the lights are on, the door is swinging open, the TV is on, but there's really no-one home...

 

(Snicker) ... I'm so glad you said that .... I thought that if I did, I'd be accused of being too sarcastic again..

 

Thanks ... that made my night Grandpa!

 

:-)

 

Willa = Spatz

[Sparrow]

As Antlerman has pointed out, a theory is not a fact – and true, you’re clearly not a science major, nor a science minor I would suggest.

 

Just consider the difference between gravity and the theory of gravity – gravity is a fact, and theory of gravity attempts to describe what gravity does, and in some cases, how it does it.

 

Quite a difference really, wouldn’t you say?

I would venture to say that her only exposure to science was in a "Science is Wrong!" class at her church.

 

Yes the theory of Gravity in fact is "just a theory". Therefore, Evangelical's are now proposing an alternative to the conventional research around the Theory of Gravity, and have now proposed the alternative, "Theory of Intelligent Falling"

 

a

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

 

Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

 

<snip>

 

Read the whole story here: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

 

 

Oh my ... I do hope the onion is a joke news site.

 

I suppose, it would explain why water is sooooooooooo intelligent! Pour it on a varied surface and it, by magic it seems, always finds the lowest point. Amazing really. Intelligent falling of course.

 

Spatz = Willa

[quicksand]

Kat is engaging in the timeless classic, Argument from Silence.Take that evil atheists you have been refuted.

[Sparrow]

Kat is engaging in the timeless classic, Argument from Silence.Take that evil atheists you have been refuted.

 

That explains it! No wonder I lost the discussion.

 

Spatz

 

(snicker)

[Grandpa Harley]

Spatz,

 

I think the lights are on, the door is swinging open, the TV is on, but there's really no-one home...

 

(Snicker) ... I'm so glad you said that .... I thought that if I did, I'd be accused of being too sarcastic again..

 

Thanks ... that made my night Grandpa!

 

:-)

 

Willa = Spatz

 

If someone tells me I've been 'too sarcastic' then I have a spring in my step, a tune on my lips, and a twinkle in my eye for about three days...

[Robbobrob]

Yes the theory of Gravity in fact is "just a theory". Therefore, Evangelical's are now proposing an alternative to the conventional research around the Theory of Gravity, and have now proposed the alternative, "Theory of Intelligent Falling"

 

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

 

Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

 

<snip>

 

Read the whole story here: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

I see the Onion is stealing the thunder of the greatest religious movement of all time, Pastafarianism. Arrrrgh.

 

The reason no one falls off the Earth is clearly because the Flying Speghetti Monster holds us down. As more people have been born, he touches us less, hence why the average height has increased. Midgets get extra touching, which is why they are so short....FSM's chosen people.

 

The theory of gravity is a cute concept, but cannot compete with the TRUTH of his Noodly Goodness.

 

May you all be touched by his Noodly Appendage. RAmen.

[Monk]

I just glanced over this thread, and I'm really not very familiar with this Kat22. Perhaps this has been covered already, and if so, I'm sorry for bringing it up again, BUT even if we assume the Big Bang or the universe or space/time or whatever had a predecessor or creator (either some pre-existing matter or god or whatever)...even if we assume that....what makes this individual, Kat22, so sure that it just HAS to be the Christian god that did it?

 

I just don't understand. WHY does it always HAVE to be god? Why the obsession? There's enough mystery and power and awe in the universe without adding a god. No matter how far back we trace the origins of the universe, we'll never find an end...something will always have caused whatever we currently know to be the end result.

 

Why try to confine it to such a shallow label as the current ideal of "god?"

[Kat22]

Ugh! I thought I didn't have a life until I realized how long it had been since my last post! OK, I see there is a lot of posting and not enough of me to answer all of them. So, I am going to have to slow the topic down and back up a bit. Bare with me, I'll try not to go over too much a second time.

 

Since hard facts and math are so crucial to this discussion, I paste below a very good question (found in an essay titled "30 Problems with the Big Bang")

 

The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.

 

The Big Bang requires that stars, quasars and galaxies in the early universe be “primitiveâ€, meaning mostly metal-free, because it requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in stars. But the latest evidence suggests lots of metal in the “earliest†quasars and galaxies. [(2001), Astron.J. 122, 2833-2849],[(2001), Astron.J. 122, 2850-2857],[(2002), Astrophys.J. 565, 50-62] Moreover, we now have evidence for numerous ordinary galaxies in what the Big Bang expected to be the “dark age†of evolution of the universe, when the light of the few primitive galaxies in existence would be blocked from view by hydrogen clouds.

 

My own question is how exactly the dating, of the universe, process works?

[Asimov]

Ugh! I thought I didn't have a life until I realized how long it had been since my last post! OK, I see there is a lot of posting and not enough of me to answer all of them. So, I am going to have to slow the topic down and back up a bit. Bare with me, I'll try not to go over too much a second time.

 

Since hard facts and math are so crucial to this discussion, I paste below a very good question (found in an essay titled "30 Problems with the Big Bang")

 

The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.

 

The Big Bang requires that stars, quasars and galaxies in the early universe be “primitive”, meaning mostly metal-free, because it requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in stars. But the latest evidence suggests lots of metal in the “earliest” quasars and galaxies. [(2001), Astron.J. 122, 2833-2849],[(2001), Astron.J. 122, 2850-2857],[(2002), Astrophys.J. 565, 50-62] Moreover, we now have evidence for numerous ordinary galaxies in what the Big Bang expected to be the “dark age” of evolution of the universe, when the light of the few primitive galaxies in existence would be blocked from view by hydrogen clouds.

 

How do you know it is a very good question?

 

My own question is how exactly the dating, of the universe, process works?

 

The explanation is complicated, but it is based on the WMAP data.

 

The figure of the age of the universe from the point of the Big Bang to "present day"; 13.7 billion years.

 

Just to let you know that the WMAP data provided us with a better picture of the universe and more support for inflationary models.

[crazy-tiger]

Ugh! I thought I didn't have a life until I realized how long it had been since my last post! OK, I see there is a lot of posting and not enough of me to answer all of them. So, I am going to have to slow the topic down and back up a bit. Bare with me, I'll try not to go over too much a second time.

 

Since hard facts and math are so crucial to this discussion, I paste below a very good question (found in an essay titled "30 Problems with the Big Bang")

 

The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.

 

The Big Bang requires that stars, quasars and galaxies in the early universe be “primitiveâ€, meaning mostly metal-free, because it requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in stars. But the latest evidence suggests lots of metal in the “earliest†quasars and galaxies. [(2001), Astron.J. 122, 2833-2849],[(2001), Astron.J. 122, 2850-2857],[(2002), Astrophys.J. 565, 50-62] Moreover, we now have evidence for numerous ordinary galaxies in what the Big Bang expected to be the “dark age†of evolution of the universe, when the light of the few primitive galaxies in existence would be blocked from view by hydrogen clouds.

I read the linked article... interesting how none of it indicates any kind of problem, just that we've now got a little extra information that clarifies part of BBT.

 

When will you learn that BBT isn't written in stone?

My own question is how exactly the dating, of the universe, process works?

You are connected to the internet, stop being a lazy fucker and go find out.

[Ouroboros]

My own question is how exactly the dating, of the universe, process works?

http://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/origins/earth/age.htm

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

 

The article is interesting because I could validate the ekpyrotic model. Another explanation could be that the universe is curved so much that it bends into itself and what you see is a galaxy from somewhere else in the universe. Or maybe this points to even something else.

 

Here's a question I have for you though. If the galaxy is not that old, but only 6000 years. How could that light from a galaxy 13 billion light years away reach our planet within just 6000 years? (And don't come with the "light speed has changed" because the mathematical models don't support it. If you calculate the light speed as changing, then all other parameter changes too, and suddenly you'll end up with the same time for the light to reach us. Basically, if you speed up light, it will not only affect the hypothenuse or one of the catheti, but the whole triangulation would make the distance even further away and the time would end up the same. So the light has been traveling for a much, much, much, much, ... longer time than 6000 years.)

[Antlerman]

Since hard facts and math are so crucial to this discussion, I paste below a very good question (found in an essay titled "30 Problems with the Big Bang")

 

The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.

 

The Big Bang requires that stars, quasars and galaxies in the early universe be “primitive”, meaning mostly metal-free, because it requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in stars. But the latest evidence suggests lots of metal in the “earliest” quasars and galaxies. [(2001), Astron.J. 122, 2833-2849],[(2001), Astron.J. 122, 2850-2857],[(2002), Astrophys.J. 565, 50-62] Moreover, we now have evidence for numerous ordinary galaxies in what the Big Bang expected to be the “dark age” of evolution of the universe, when the light of the few primitive galaxies in existence would be blocked from view by hydrogen clouds.

Hard facts? How are these fringe alternative ideas considered "hard facts"? Let's look at what the stated purpose of the Meta Research group is, shall we?

 

Something has gone wrong in the field of astronomy

. Many widely held beliefs fly in the face of observational evidence. Theories go through such contortions to resolve inconsistencies that the ideas can no longer be explained in simple language. Alternative ideas are often rejected out of hand simply because they challenge the status quo. The result... many of today's theories are unnecessarily complex.

 

Meta Research is dedicated to bringing some

common sense

back to this field. Here we challenge ideas that have consistently failed to make successful predictions, examine new paradigms, and advocate the ideas found to be most worthy of further consideration and testing.

 

Intuitively, most of us understand that an idea's popularity is no more an appropriate measure of its validity today than it has been at any other time in history. Yet those who question any widely accepted theories are labeled ignorant, and if they persist are branded cranks, charlatans, or worse. Meta Research does not claim to have all the answers. But here at least it is safe to ask the rude questions... and to make a case for alternative hypotheses.

 

Good Lord! Whenever I hear some group criticize science saying, "let's apply some common sense here...." red flags start popping up all over the place! But if I'm not mistaken they are sounding more in favor of the long outdated idea of the Steady State Theory of the Universe. But you know, so what? None of this lends any credibility whatsoever to the "Godditit" model of the universe.

 

But here's the first word of caution to you as you embark on what I would hope is your sincere quest for knowledge (personally I doubt your sincerity), though groups like this have their place in the discussion, they are a long, long, long, long way from having any serious impact on an well supported theory. The BBT is far from a house of cards that some little gust of wind from the edges is going to unseat. The same thing can be said of those who have fringe ideas of ESP, reincarnation, and UFO's. They may have some validity somewhere in there, but they have a long way to go to be considered seriously.

 

Even so, even if the universe is more of a rubber band model, or some other alternative to the BBT, this is meaningless to support your position of a 6000 year old, "Godditit" universe. Please provide some scientific models of credibility to support that one! The age of the earth is not based on the Hubble, or background radiation, and it shows itself pretty strongly to be around 4.5 Billion years old. So it's not too unreasonable to assume the universe is older than that.

 

Here's a little more data for you in your hopefully sincere search for credible knowledge:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

 

 

(Good god, I am getting so sick of the insincerity and intellectual dishonesty from those who claim to love truth. How in the hell is that supposed to be appealing to intelligent people?)

[Grandpa Harley]

"

(Good god, I am getting so sick of the insincerity and intellectual dishonesty from those who claim to love truth. How in the hell is that supposed to be appealing to intelligent people?)"

 

Welcome to my world from the age of 5...

[Antlerman]

"

(Good god, I am getting so sick of the insincerity and intellectual dishonesty from those who claim to love truth. How in the hell is that supposed to be appealing to intelligent people?)"

 

Welcome to my world from the age of 5...

Your being that voice here of my other half allows me the luxury of being the optimist. I'm wondering if you started sounding like me, if I might not take over the job of site-cynic here. Damn, when it comes to this stuff, it makes me want to cry how pathetically desperate they are to hang onto these baby pacifiers. "Yeah, but science was wrong about that... so therefore they're probably wrong about this too! This means I'm justified believing in magic. The Bible is just a believable as anything in science, even more so because God wrote it!"

 

I'm sick of the insincerity. I'm sick of the dishonesty. I'm sick of the lack of integrity. I'm sick of that lack of desire for knowledge in people. I'm sick of the lack of interest in the face of evidence. I feel myself ready to unsheathe my samurai sword for the next round of parroted fundi blathering. You think this site can handle two of us?