Big bang theory disproved

[unitedistand]

those of you who read this who do not know God on a personal level, but rather know about God (in terms of religion) or don't even know God at all and would like to be saved from hell for eternity, where the worm dieth not and where the fire's not quenched, e-mail me.

 

I may not respond for a couple days, as seeing I'm going to be away on a fast from the computer.

 

[food4thought]

Strange that the reality of relationship with an unseen, supernatural Creator would be the main subject in a thread about the big bang. I do believe in a relationship that leaves a really open minded person without a doubt as to the reality of God, but this isn't the thread for it.

I will say the major arguments for the big bang theory have been either proved wrong by further research or can be explained just as well, if not better by creation.
Some of the major evidences/arguments for the big bang have been:
1. The constancy of the speed of light.

2. The red shift of light from distant stars.

3. The great size (and by extension, apparent age) of the universe.

Not an all inclusive list, but I think it provides a good start for some reasonable debate.
Maybe someone could help me out with the specific articles and research, but I am fairly certain that the spead of light has been observed to be a great deal faster and a great deal slower in laboratory experiments.
I can recommend some good reading that provides some very solid and viable arguments for the second and third statements. www.icr.org has some excellent articles on cosmology, and the book "Starlight and Time" lays out a very detailed theory based upon Einsteins general theory of relativity.

I hope there are still some believers at this site willing to keep up the with love and patience.

 

[Corey]

Originally posted by food4thought
Maybe someone could help me out with the specific articles and research, but I am fairly certain that the spead of light has been observed to be a great deal faster and a great deal slower in laboratory experiments.

c = the speed of light in a vacuum

The speed of light varies depending on the medium it passes through. LIght cannot go faster than c however, in any medium. In the experiment where it was thought to have been faster than c, it was shown that the medium caused photons to bunch up in the front of the light packet, so that it appeared it was moving faster.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by unitedistand
pretty interesting how "big bang" theorists still manage to use a word naming space that also disproves the theory:

Litterally, Universe means "one spoken sentence". What was that "one spoken sentence" that was spoken?  Simple.

Genesis 1:3 says it clearly:  ". . . Let there be light . . ."

And who said Big Bang refutes God?  Hugh Ross and some other creationists insist that Big Bang is not only proven, but that it "proves" the existence of God.  www.reasons.org

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by food4thought
Some of the major evidences/arguments for the big bang have been:
1. The constancy of the speed of light.

2. The red shift of light from distant stars.

3. The great size (and by extension, apparent age) of the universe.

Not an all inclusive list,

Again, go to www.reasons.org for Hugh Ross' certainty that the Big Bang happened.  You seem to have some misconception that Big Bang is atheism.

Anyway, those are not the major evidences for BB.  The red shift was the first indication that the universe was not static.  It led to the hypothesis of BB, since if you extrapolate backward from the expansion you end up with all the matter in one place eventually.

The two major pieces of evidence that led to universal acceptance of BB are the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) and the hydrogen/helium mix of the universe.  Neither can be explained by a Steady State Universe or by instantaneous creation but are predictions of BB.  In fact, BB predicted both before the data was found.  An excellent example of how theories are supported: they make risky predictions of knowledge that should be found if they are true.  Some reading on evidence supporting the BB is:

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/acosmexp.html  Questions about Big Bang
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/askmag.html#list  General Ask the Space Scientist

2.  PJE Peebles, DN Schramm, EL Turner, RG Kron, The case for the relativistic hot Big Bang cosmology.  Nature, 352: 769-776, 29 Aug. 1991.
3.  Barry Parker, The Vindication of the Big Bang, Breakthroughs and Barriers, Plenum Press, 1993.
12.  MA Buchner and DN Spergel.  Scientific American, 280: 62-71, Jan. 1999.  Discusses changes in inflationary theory to account for new observations.
14. M Joy and JE Calrstrom  Probing the early universe with the SZ effect.  Science 291: 1715-1717, March 2, 2001.  Interaction with the CMBR with free electrons in ionized gas produce the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) effect.  Proposed in 1970, but not detected until recently.  Is independent test of big bang and theories associated with it.  So far, supportes big bang strongly.
15. RR Caldwell, M Kamionkowski, Echoes from the big bang.  Scientific American 284: 38-43, Jan. 2001.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by unitedistand
What's even more amusing is the fact that you also support a theory that states that humankind came from fish. Does the human embryo even have formations of fins? I DON'T THINK SO!

When the limbs are first formed, they are indeed fin shaped, since the cells between what will be the fingers haven't died yet.  The early human embryo also has gill arches. Why should we have those when we don't have gills?

The answer for both is that our early ancestors (millions of speciation events ago) were fish and this is reflected in our embryological development.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by unitedistand
well, as Ken Hovind has said, "Time is the evolutionist's God." You remove the element of time from the big bang theory and evolution, you can disprove both.

The law of energy states that Energy can neither be created nor destroied, just changed.

Since that's stated, the energy from the universe must've came from somewhere, and if I'm not mistaken, the big bang theory states that there was nothing before the "massive explosion".... which, from deductive reasoning, means that there wasn't even the energy to create the universe.

Physical laws are " A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances." http://bob.nap.edu/html/evolution98/evol1.html  The First Law of Thermodynamics, which is what you stated, has the stated circumstance that it applies within the universe.  "Before" the universe is outside the area where it applies.

Now, the calculations show that the universe has zero net energy. The "positive" energy of matter, gravity, etc. is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the expansion.  Thus, no energy was needed to create the universe.

God is certainly one hypothesis for the cause of the BB.  However, there are other hypotheses.  One of these is quantum fluctuation.  Particles pop into and out of existence all the time in vacuum.  From "nothing".  It is also called 'quantum foam'.  The equations of QM indicate that it is possible that the universe is a huge quantum particle that popped into existence out of nothing.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by unitedistand
seesaw, you really certainly cannot disprove someone who I have spoken to, someone who I've seen as a mist and another confirms as an eye witness to this expierience who actually was an athiest for a while.

So what?  So you had a personal experience of deity.  What does that have to do with whether the universe was created by the BB or not? Did the "mist" tell you that BB never happened?

 

[DNAunion]

Lucaspa: Physical laws are " A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances." http://bob.nap.edu/html/evolution98/evol1.html The First Law of Thermodynamics, which is what you stated, has the stated circumstance that it applies within the universe. "Before" the universe is outside the area where it applies.

DNAunion: Interesting double standard. Let's see why.

Lucaspa: God is certainly one hypothesis for the cause of the BB. However, there are other hypotheses. One of these is quantum fluctuation. Particles pop into and out of existence all the time in vacuum. From "nothing". It is also called 'quantum foam'. The equations of QM indicate that it is possible that the universe is a huge quantum particle that popped into existence out of nothing.

DNAunion: Hmmmm, let's see how this works.

Lucaspa's opponent says the first law of thermodynamics would prevent the Universe from coming into existence. Lucaspa says that doesn't work because that fundamental law of nature pertains only to the Universe itself - '"Before" the universe is outside the area where it applies". But of course, when Lucaspa needs the laws of quantum mechanics to be handy "before" the Universe, they are. How marvelously convenient.

Gee, I guess we all get to pick and choose at will which laws of physics we want to have and not have operating "before" the Universe. Can't argue with anyone using that strong line of reasoning.

 

[Doubting Thomas II]

I wasn't aware there were any "laws" of quantum physics. Do tell.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by unitedistand:
pretty interesting how "big bang" theorists still manage to use a word naming space that also disproves the theory:

Universe
let's break this down, shall we?

the prefix in the word: Uni-.  

Definition of Uni:  prefix signifying one, once; as in uniaxial, unicellular. Uni is of Latin origion.

the main part of the word, Verse

Definition of verse: one line of poetry, Spoken sentence. Verse is also of latin origion.

Litterally, Universe means "one spoken sentence"

Interesting theory, but....afraid not:

Latin universum, from neuter of universus, which means "entire or whole"--which in turn comes from uni- + versus, meaning "turned toward", from past participle of vertere, which means "to turn." Thus, the first definition and primary usage of the term universe is "the totality of all the things that exist; creation; the cosmos; the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated; a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power."

The big bang theory is very likely this past century's major example of how mainstream science has moved toward the biblical explanation of the creation of the unverse. Prior to the virtually universal acceptance of the BBT, most scientists held to the steady state theory that asserted that the universe had always existed, rather than the biblical explanation that there was in fact a beginning (of time, all matter and the universe itself).

 

[blader]

Originally posted by unitedistand

blader, I'm calling things as they are. Things don't get named just because the name "sounds good"... There's always meaning behind a name.

Yes, so what? So because the word universe that scientists use to describe the space/time continuum we live in just happened to have an alternate definition, that throws the past 50 years of modern cosmology out the window?

Surely you jest. I won't insult your intelligence by assuming you don't realize how flawed this line of reasoning is.

as I was saying...

Actually, I was in my kitchen, which has no TV in it. If your finite mind feels comforted by not believing what I told you, so be it. I know what I saw, though. The ex-athiest also knows what he saw and what he felt. Why should I lie if what I believe teaches that it's sin to lie? Would that not make me a hypocrite?

This has to do with Big Bang theory, how?

 

[blader]

Originally posted by unitedistand
I was religious since I was four, and I never knew christ until about 9 months ago. 13 years of religion can not beat 9 months of an actual relationship with Jesus.  I've never been happer in my life.  In fact, I was delivered from depression and drugs when I finally knew Jesus on a personal level.

Interestingly enough, even without religion (or a "personal relationship with God" whatever you want to call it), I'm neither depressed, nor a drug addict.

I'm fine. Thanks. =)

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by unitedistand
pretty interesting how "big bang" theorists still manage to use a word naming space that also disproves the theory:

Universe
let's break this down, shall we?

the prefix in the word: Uni-.  

Definition of Uni:  prefix signifying one, once; as in uniaxial, unicellular. Uni is of Latin origion.

the main part of the word, Verse

Definition of verse: one line of poetry, Spoken sentence. Verse is also of latin origion.

Litterally, Universe means "one spoken sentence". What was that "one spoken sentence" that was spoken?  Simple.

Genesis 1:3 says it clearly:  ". . . Let there be light . . ."

Nice logic. Mind if I borrow it?

*RANT MODE ON*

Pretty intersting how some Christians look upon the Rapture as a good thing when they use a word that clearly says otherwise.

Rapture
Let's break this down, shall we?

Actually, there's not much to break down. "Rapture" comes from the Latin verb rapere, meaning literally, "to sieze, or take by force." It was used most often in respect to invasions when the hordes would steal the women of a village.... for obvious reasons.

That means, you guessed it, rapere is also the source of the word "rape."

So tell me, after you are forcibly dragged up to heaven, what happens to you then? Hmmm....?

Maybe it's time to re-think this whole "rapture" thing. Personally, I'd rather stay here.

*RANT MODE OFF*

 

[Mark Donald]

I thought a "Rapture" was one of those dinosaurs with those really sharp teeth and claws?! They have them on Jurassic Park...they scare me!

(sorry my attempt to bring some Humour to our debate! Does it earn me any blessings?)


why throw the word "miracle" around? it's nothing unusual, more just God being himself. It's just the supernatural manifesting in the physical, although it may seem like something incredible to you because you don't realize that the spiritual and physical planes of existance are on such incredibly close parallel levels of being. The only reason you guys don't see him is that you don't welcome him.

Then again, some of you may not understand this, being that you're so scientifically-minded, you've not allowed yourself to grow into what God wants you to be.

Oh yeah, a little note to agnostics, God speaks, but you're not listening to him.

I dont think it is your place to criticise people on there walk with Christ... I have been a Christian since Feb. and I have been seeking God beging Him to show himself to me (not neccessarily in the way you describe) and I have recieved no such sign. This does not mean I doubt Him! He has shown me many other things. But most of all I dont see how you can say that is not a miracle because it is! I dont understand this miracles can be the smallest thing that affects you. The Baxters Dictionary of the Bible defines it as, "an event in the external world brought about by the immediate agency or the simple volition of God." another definition is "God acting contrary to the Laws of Nature." which I believe is clear from what you have described...

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by unitedistand
Yep. God's shown himself to me and another friend of mine in the form of a mist. His power is immense, brought me to my knees after a time. The ex-athiest felt weak in his presence. 

I agree with you that you can't disprove that God doesn't exist to someone who's an eye witness of his presence, of his existance.

Occam's Razor: When two possible theories exist that equally explain the facts, the simpler theory is more often than not the correct one.

Actually, I was in my kitchen, which has no TV in it. If your finite mind feels comforted by not believing what I told you, so be it. I know what I saw, though. The ex-athiest also knows what he saw and what he felt. Why should I lie if what I believe teaches that it's sin to lie? Would that not make me a hypocrite?

Aha! There's a simpler, alternate possibility! Tell me, united, at the time you and your ex-atheist friend fell to your knees, was the gas on in your stove? A good does of that stuff will induce a whole lot of visions. Anyone remember a certain episode of The Simpsons?

I say this not to mock, but to remind you that we must exhaust (no pun intended) all "natural" possibilities before we give the credit to Gods, devils, angels, demons, spirits, ghosts, fairies, elves, hobgoblins, and every other "supernatural" resource.

And need I remind you that your mind is every bit as "finite" as blader's? Is that pride I sense in your post?

And to answer your question, yes, it would make you a hypocrite. What's your point?

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Going back to the origin of the Universe by means of a quantum fluctuation out of nothing. Note that the Universe does not spring fourth out of nothing, but out of something. The following is from the person responsible for the "Universe is a quantum fluctuation" idea.

"The spontaneous, temporary emergence of particles from a vacuum is called a vacuum fluctuation, and is utterly commonplace in quantum field theory. If it is true that our Universe has zero net value for all conserved quantities, then it may simply be a fluctuation of the vacuum, the vacuum of some larger space in which our Universe is imbedded." (Edward P. Tryon, Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?, Nature, vol. 246, No., 5433, December 14 1973, p396-397)

DNAunion: So this explanation has something preexisting our Universe: a larger space that obeys the rules of quantum mechanics and the laws of conservation. This explanation just pushes back the question of the ultimate origin to another place and time and by another mechanism - it doesn't solve the riddle of the ultimate origin as some seem to think.

 

[unitedistand]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
Nice logic. Mind if I borrow it?

*RANT MODE ON*

Pretty intersting how some Christians look upon the Rapture as a good thing when they use a word that clearly says otherwise.

Rapture
Let's break this down, shall we?

Actually, there's not much to break down. "Rapture" comes from the Latin verb rapere, meaning literally, "to sieze, or take by force." It was used most often in respect to invasions when the hordes would steal the women of a village.... for obvious reasons.

That means, you guessed it, rapere is also the source of the word "rape."

So tell me, after you are forcibly dragged up to heaven, what happens to you then? Hmmm....?

Maybe it's time to re-think this whole "rapture" thing. Personally, I'd rather stay here.

*RANT MODE OFF*

Well, since we've gotten completely off the subject of the big bang theory, here's some information for you.

Find one place where the word "rapture" is in the bible.  It's not.  Anyhow, the word rapture in the usage that Christians use comes from the latin word Raptus, which means carried away, not forcibly dragged, not raped.  rape means to take by force, or to take away from something by force, as you have clearly stated.

But, i'm not having anything taken away from me that is not going to be replaced by something of greater magnitude, so it's not by force.

 

[MsAnne]

I saw a wonderful bumper sticker last week:

Big Bang Theory - God spoke it and BANG it happened!


OK, go back to your feuding now.

 

[unitedistand]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
Occam's Razor: When two possible theories exist that equally explain the facts, the simpler theory is more often than not the correct one.



Aha! There's a simpler, alternate possibility! Tell me, united, at the time you and your ex-atheist friend fell to your knees, was the gas on in your stove? A good does of that stuff will induce a whole lot of visions. Anyone remember a certain episode of The Simpsons?

no drug use, we've got an electric range and stove (ceramic heating elements), also, there was no possible natural source of the mist.

I say this not to mock, but to remind you that we must exhaust (no pun intended) all "natural" possibilities before we give the credit to Gods, devils, angels, demons, spirits, ghosts, fairies, elves, hobgoblins, and every other "supernatural" resource.

I can agree to that sometimes,  but to really understand why either the Big bang theory or even evolution, for that matter, would be so seemingly ridiculous, one has to realize that not only are galaxies are moving further away from each other (which has been proven that they do travel further away from each other, no arguement here), but it's been noted that planets have also moved further apart, we're just a slight bit further away from the sun each year.  Scientists have measured a reletive number as to how much each year, but I cannot recall what that is.  Take the year that people have estimated when dragons (dinosaurs) were in existance and the timing would have been impossible, seeing as though that the earth was "lush and green" when dinosaurs lived throughout the world.  The distance between the earth and the sun would have been so close that this couldn't have been possible for any life to survive, especially for herbavores because of the nature of their diets. 

Since the sun would have been so much closer to the earth, it would have caused all the plant life to either burn up and die due to the intense heat, or the water would have been all gas until the earth was far enough from the sun to actually produce rain. 

That's just common sense.

And need I remind you that your mind is every bit as "finite" as blader's? Is that pride I sense in your post?

I realize that my mind on it's own is finite in it's own understanding, but the understanding I pull from is not of myself, but of he who sent me.

And to answer your question, yes, it would make you a hypocrite. What's your point?

Well, since what I speak is truth, I do not speak lies to you, I cannot possibly be a hypocrite, now can I?