Explain the Big Bang

[norswede]

Since you seem to think that God couldn't possibly exist without solid evidence and that Creationism is an invalid theory because it is unproven, prove to me that the Big Bang took place and how. If these cannot be explained in the same sense that you wish for us to explain God and Creationism then I'm afraid that it can't be considered "Science" any more than God and Creationism can and if you believe in it without understanding it, you live by just as much faith as theists do.

 

[oriel36]

Since you seem to think that God couldn't possibly exist without solid evidence and that Creationism is an invalid theory because it is unproven, prove to me that the Big Bang took place and how. If these cannot be explained in the same sense that you wish for us to explain God and Creationism then I'm afraid that it can't be considered "Science" any more than God and Creationism can and if you believe in it without understanding it, you live by just as much faith as theists do.

'Big bangers' believe that there is no continuity between the past,present and future as people understand these things in terms of yesterday,today and tomorrow,they believe that they can see the evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly by observation hence the idea is more of a mental affliction than anything else.You have about as much a chance of observing the evolutionary history of the Universe directly as you have of observing your own evolutionary history directly from your life as a child to an adult.

So,this leaves only the technical ins and out as to why the human race lost its mind and decided to follow such a crude ideology as 'big bang'.

Ask a 'big banger' where he gets his evolutionary Universal structure from and he will go into contortions explaining the furthest observations away represent an old galaxy when the Universe was smaller,or is it that we are looking at a bigger Universe and a young galaxy,oh wait a minute,the Milky Way is in an older Universe looking at a smaller Universe and on and on this garbage goes.

What the 'big bangers' are unknowingly doing is expressing a conundrum which Christians centuries ago were familiar with,at least before the Earth's daily and orbital motions were discovered.Before Copernicus resolved the issue of the Earth's motions,Christian astronomers had an idea that the Earth was moving but just couldn't find the right arguments to resolve the issue.When you hear these current jokers talking about the idea that 'every-point-is-the valid-center-of-the-big-bang',they actually refer to stellar circumpolar motion or right ascension as it is known in their circles.If Archbishop Cusa's reference to the issue of planetary dynamics looks strangely familiar to the reader here,there are very good reasons behind it and although Cusa's comments were on the right track in trying to dig out the motions of the Earth from the observation,he is actually pointing out the absurdity of putting the Earth at the center of anything -

"And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect that the world and its motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For the Universe will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa 15TH Century


If you think that you can see the evolutionary history of the Universe directly then good for you,the real history of the planet is written in the rocks and fossil records of the planet or by looking at cause and effect as the planet turns,moves around the Sun,moves with the Sun around the Milky Way galaxy or any other motions there may be and yet to be discovered.

 

[Nick665]

Since you probably think that Xenu couldn't possibly exist without solid evidence and that Xenu's Creation of the Universe is an invalid theory because it is unproven, prove to me God's Creation. Xenu's Creation seems a much more solid theory to me.

 

[roach]

Since you seem to think that God couldn't possibly exist without solid evidence and that Creationism is an invalid theory because it is unproven, prove to me that the Big Bang took place and how. If these cannot be explained in the same sense that you wish for us to explain God and Creationism then I'm afraid that it can't be considered "Science" any more than God and Creationism can and if you believe in it without understanding it, you live by just as much faith as theists do.

This is as tiresome as it is unoriginal. But, I just thought this post was funny. The reason why the big bang is 'science' and the existence of god is not, is because one is derived from empirical evidence and the other is derived from faith. (you figure out which is which). I hope this will cause you to re-think your misinformed conception of what science is. (As long as you got that the big bang is the one based on empirical evidence. Otherwise, I just reinforced your prior conception and I'm really sorry)

 

[Matariki]

Question: Why do so many Christians think that the concept of the big bang is unbiblical? There's nothing in the bible that's standing against the possibility, except our interpretation of scripture and speculation.

Please do yourself a favor and watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzetqYev_AI&list=FLwu9MhhOdsuGm1ocUXbXALQ&index=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzetqYev_AI&list=FLwu9MhhOdsuGm1ocUXbXALQ&index=1

 

[roach]

Question: Why do so many Christians think that the concept of the big bang is unbiblical? There's nothing in the bible that's standing against the possibility, except our interpretation of scripture and speculation.

Please do yourself a favor and watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzetqYev_AI&list=FLwu9MhhOdsuGm1ocUXbXALQ&index=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzetqYev_AI&list=FLwu9MhhOdsuGm1ocUXbXALQ&index=1

Schroeder. Becoming another tiresome topic. There's a reason his work on the bible doesn't get published in science journals.

 

[Gracchus]

How's this for an explanation: From the outside you see a gravitational collapse into a singularity, a black hole. From the inside you see a "big bang".

Most of the physicists at the local college that I have asked say, "Could be. It preserves symmetry."

 

[GA777]

So,an explosion (The bing bang) brought all this perfect order and arrangement in the whole universe?I thought explosions were supposed to bring disorder and chaos.

The bing bang is just a failing theory/story (whatever you like to call it) just like many others.

 

[Gracchus]

So,an explosion (The bing bang) brought all this perfect order and arrangement in the whole universe?

Perfect order and arrangement!? You are living in fairyland.

I thought explosions were supposed to bring disorder and chaos.

There is nothing like a major city for disorder and chaos. The explosion of a thermonuclear device leaves a nice orderly crater. So ... Maybe you should think again.

The point is that you are trying to pass off ill-defined esthetic opinions as arguments.

The bing bang is just a failing theory/story (whatever you like to call it) just like many others.

It may indeed fail. But it can't be counted a failure yet.

 

[plindboe]

Since you seem to think that God couldn't possibly exist without solid evidence

Who are you talking to? I don't know anyone who says that.

Peter

 

[TheReasoner]

Since you seem to think that God couldn't possibly exist without solid evidence and that Creationism is an invalid theory because it is unproven, prove to me that the Big Bang took place and how. If these cannot be explained in the same sense that you wish for us to explain God and Creationism then I'm afraid that it can't be considered "Science" any more than God and Creationism can and if you believe in it without understanding it, you live by just as much faith as theists do.

Hm. You know, creationism isn't really adhered to by most Christians norswede.

That said, we could have a loooong discussion on philosophy of science here, but let's boil it down a lot.

We can SEE that the universe has developed from a mainly hydrogen based universe to one containing the elements we see around us (and are composed of) today, and we also SEE that it has expanded from a much smaller universe than we have now. This is seen by simply looking up at the sky with telescopes.
Now, we can also see a lot of other things if we look at non-visible radiation. And the inescapable conclusion is that at some point the universe began. At this point in time it was smaller than it is today, and it began in a violent "explosion". Technically you can't call it an "explosion", but it suffices as a simple explanation. The theory is formed - and backed/supported by evidence you yourself can check with fairly simple knowledge and access to readily available information on-line, in a library or even check yourself by use of instruments such as telescopes. It should in fact be possible for you to test parts of the theory with equipment you can build yourself. If you take the time. The point is: The theory isn't empty. It was proposed by Lemaitre, and since then it has changed a little, but it's core remains very solid. It is supported by what we see both in and outside the visual spectrum of light. Saying that it is false makes no sense if you can't even provide some evidence for the alternate position. If you want to challenge the model, then bring another model to the table with supporting evidence. If you cannot do that, then you do not have a viable case.

Norswede, the big bang theory isn't something that just popped out of nowhere. It is backed by hard evidence. It is not anti-religious in the least, in fact it was proposed by a Belgian priest (Georges Lemaître). And it doesn't at all conflict with or contest God. Not at all. I don't know why or how you managed to get convinced that it does.

So,an explosion (The bing bang) brought all this perfect order and arrangement in the whole universe?I thought explosions were supposed to bring disorder and chaos.

Well, it wasn't really an explosion. That's just a simplification. And it has brought chaos. That's why we are even possible. The universe used to have 0 entropy, now it most assuredly does not. The magnitude of "chaos" in the universe increased and increased until we got molecules - initially hydrogen, then more and more complex elements resulting in the periodic table we have today.
We can SEE this change. It isn't a guess. It isn't speculation. We can SEE it.

We probably speak of order in different ways though. To a scientist order is not what it would appear to be to you: In a perfect and orderly universe life would not be possible. We could have no exchange of information, no complexity of any kind, because this would be an imperfection. Thus by merely adding the slightest variation we deviate from perfection.
Even so, imperfection as in "chaos" is actually something that has been necessary for life to even exist. And it is precisely what Big Bang - whatever that was specifically - brought about

The bing bang is just a failing theory/story (whatever you like to call it) just like many others.

Is it? Why, no. It isn't. It's no more unsupported than if you sit at a racing track in which a car is driving and say "There is a car driving at this racetrack". The theory merely describes what we SEE. It's testable, and when tested it doesn't crumble, it gets stronger. So it really isn't failing, GA777. Not at all.

 

[GA777]

Perfect order and arrangement!? You are living in fairyland.

There is nothing like a major city for disorder and chaos. The explosion of a thermonuclear device leaves a nice orderly crater. So ... Maybe you should think again.

The point is that you are trying to pass off ill-defined esthetic opinions as arguments.

It may indeed fail. But it can't be counted a failure yet.

If this perfection didnt exist,how would you be living anyways?or should I name you all the conditions required for living?


nice,but not perfect for us humans.

It aint proved yet to be considered as a failure.It'll remain failure until it is proved.It's just a theory

 

[GA777]

Hm. You know, creationism isn't really adhered to by most Christians norswede.

That said, we could have a loooong discussion on philosophy of science here, but let's boil it down a lot.

We can SEE that the universe has developed from a mainly hydrogen based universe to one containing the elements we see around us (and are composed of) today, and we also SEE that it has expanded from a much smaller universe than we have now. This is seen by simply looking up at the sky with telescopes.
Now, we can also see a lot of other things if we look at non-visible radiation. And the inescapable conclusion is that at some point the universe began. At this point in time it was smaller than it is today, and it began in a violent "explosion". Technically you can't call it an "explosion", but it suffices as a simple explanation. The theory is formed - and backed/supported by evidence you yourself can check with fairly simple knowledge and access to readily available information on-line, in a library or even check yourself by use of instruments such as telescopes. It should in fact be possible for you to test parts of the theory with equipment you can build yourself. If you take the time. The point is: The theory isn't empty. It was proposed by Lemaitre, and since then it has changed a little, but it's core remains very solid. It is supported by what we see both in and outside the visual spectrum of light. Saying that it is false makes no sense if you can't even provide some evidence for the alternate position. If you want to challenge the model, then bring another model to the table with supporting evidence. If you cannot do that, then you do not have a viable case.

Norswede, the big bang theory isn't something that just popped out of nowhere. It is backed by hard evidence. It is not anti-religious in the least, in fact it was proposed by a Belgian priest (Georges Lemaître). And it doesn't at all conflict with or contest God. Not at all. I don't know why or how you managed to get convinced that it does.




Well, it wasn't really an explosion. That's just a simplification. And it has brought chaos. That's why we are even possible. The universe used to have 0 entropy, now it most assuredly does not. The magnitude of "chaos" in the universe increased and increased until we got molecules - initially hydrogen, then more and more complex elements resulting in the periodic table we have today.
We can SEE this change. It isn't a guess. It isn't speculation. We can SEE it.

We probably speak of order in different ways though. To a scientist order is not what it would appear to be to you: In a perfect and orderly universe life would not be possible. We could have no exchange of information, no complexity of any kind, because this would be an imperfection. Thus by merely adding the slightest variation we deviate from perfection.
Even so, imperfection as in "chaos" is actually something that has been necessary for life to even exist. And it is precisely what Big Bang - whatever that was specifically - brought about


Is it? Why, no. It isn't. It's no more unsupported than if you sit at a racing track in which a car is driving and say "There is a car driving at this racetrack". The theory merely describes what we SEE. It's testable, and when tested it doesn't crumble, it gets stronger. So it really isn't failing, GA777. Not at all.

IF it's not a failure,then there is a divine interference behind it (God did it).Because of the way things are organized in the univese.A simple hazard explosion alike cant form planets and stars alike.

 

[impblack]

It wasn't really an explosion (like faith_guardian pointed out). The name Big Bang was actually created to mock the theory because by the time this theory was created, physicists believed that the universe was static and eternal.
There are many proofs of the big bang. There's the expansion of the universe, the cosmic background radiation (that was created when the universe cooled enough so that atoms could be formed and the universe in general became transparent) and the abundance of primordial elements (they are consistente with the previsions of the big bang theory i think). Of course these aren't very good arguments if you don't know its connections to the big bang, and you can only know that through science, so if you wan't to know if there's good evidence for the big bang, either you trust physicists or study physics. But anyway, wikipedia explains this very well. And you can always watch documentaries or read books.

 

[TheReasoner]

IF it's not a failure,then there is a divine interference behind it (God did it).Because of the way things are organized in the univese.A simple hazard explosion alike cant form planets and stars alike.

Well, we see that it has resulted in everything around us. It's a huge topic though, and involves a great deal of rather complex physics. You can look at it from many different angles, and study it on many levels. But you are right, it does not conflict with or contradict the existence of God. At all. Personally I think it just helps show how great God is. Just look and see how amazingly complex and wonderful it all is. Far greater than we thought it was a few hundred years back.

Did you know a catholic priest first formulated the theory?

 

[impblack]

If this perfection didnt exist,how would you be living anyways?or should I name you all the conditions required for living?

go ahead

actually the original conditions of the earth and of the universe weren't very good for humans. Only when the conditions were good for life did life existed on earth, and even then many conditions have changed, and much evolution took place. Earth "evolved" a little, and we evolved to live in it.


EDIT: yeah in that i agree, if there's a god (that i don't believe but i could be wrong) that made the universe and it's laws it is a pretty cool god, a better then the one you get if you interpret the bible literally...

 

[TheReasoner]

It's just a theory

Ah. Well, theory doesn't mean what you think it means I'm afraid.

We also speak of the theory of gravity you know. But you and I both know that if you throw a stone up in the air, it will fall down again. That behavior is caused by gravity.

A theory in this sense is actually a model which explains something. First you look at what you want to describe. Then you formulate an hypothesis. This hypothesis you then test, and test, and test. And not just you, but others, too. You basically attack it and try to prove it wrong. If you cannot, then it is elevated to being called 'a theory'.
The big bang has been tested for many decades. We have tried to prove it wrong, but we only stumble upon more that support it. Not stuff that contradicts it.

So, no. It's not "just" a theory. It is a theory as the pull of gravity is a "theory"

 

[TheReasoner]

go ahead

actually the original conditions of the earth and of the universe weren't very good for humans. Only when the conditions were good for life did life existed on earth, and even then many conditions have changed, and much evolution took place. Earth "evolved" a little, and we evolved to live in it.


EDIT: yeah in that i agree, if there's a god (that i don't believe but i could be wrong) that made the universe and it's laws it is a pretty cool god, a better then the one you get if you interpret the bible literally...

Literally as per the definition of the young earth creationists anyway. A literal interpretation like that is inconsistent and conflicts even with itself. Just observe the differences between the two creation parables in Genesis 1 and 2.

 

[MoonLancer]

It'll remain failure until it is proved.It's just a theory

That's all i need to read. People wonder why creationists are laughed at and this is why. Look up scientific theory and you will soon know why.

 

[Split Rock]

If this perfection didnt exist,how would you be living anyways?or should I name you all the conditions required for living?

Why does life require perfection? I thought we were living in a "fallen" state anyway?

It aint proved yet to be considered as a failure.It'll remain failure until it is proved.It's just a theory

LOL. Look around you at all the technology that unproven "just a theory" failures have provided us. Then tell us all that creationism has accomplished (not creationists who have used science, but those who have used creationism to accomplish something). Name a thick book and a thin book.