Explain the Big Bang

[Nick665]

Very pathetic but expected.
You see you dont believe in God because you dont have any proof,yet you believe in the big bang but have no proof to back it up.
I hope you can be mature enough to reply with "maturity" this time.You need it.

Any answer that has Xenu in it cannot be pathetic . By definition Xenu is an answer , and it offers enough of a maturity. You have to be mature to understand Xenu.


Look, there you go, thats Xenu.

Here is what I believe. An entity made of energy

 

[TheReasoner]

God is not outside of science. He created it and used it to create us. Jesus said that in the last days "Knowledge will increase". This knowledge being the knowledge of how God created us. He said that shortly after this, he will return and show just how powerful he is.

Okay... You say God is not ouside science, yet you mock and act derisively as well as displaying a severe lack of understanding, humility, respect and general decency. You say God is not antithetical to science, and then you go on saying the exact opposite by attacking the best, most tested most secure theories the scientific world has. Which means you're contradicting yourself and telling everyone around you that God IS antithetical to science, and that you do not know what you're talking about.

What precisely do you think 'science' is? It appears you dot even know what that is, judging from your posts.

I'll help you out: Science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment "
You've said God created 'it'. He created an abstract idea which encompasses the human desire to study creation, and through this systematic study created us? No. Of course not. I think you mean 'laws of nature', not science. And even if you do, that does not mean you're any more in the clear. You keep displaying a frightening lack of understanding here. Which is rather serious. A good Christian should not attack that which he or she does not know what IS. You're displaying a severe amount of pride and arrogance here: Attacking stuff you don't even know what IS. That is not befitting a believer.

 

[TheReasoner]

The arrogance exhibited by cdesign proponentsists always gives me a chuckle.

They sure are facepalm inducers. They make me groan, not chuckle though. I've never been a fan of arrogance coupled with ignorance. Though that is usually where you find it. Or so it would seem.

 

[mzungu]

I hate to burst be the bearer of bad empirical news, but actually BB theory is based on 'faith' in the "unseen" (in the lab) every bit as much as any theory of God. In fact inflation, DE and DM are more impotent in the lab than your average deistic concept of "God". In most theistic concepts of God, "God" can typically have an effect on nature, and can have an effect on humans today, here and now. Inflation is dead, so it's never going to influence anything in the lab, and "space" never expands in the lab, so that belief is also an "act of faith" in something that has never been empirically demonstrated.

FYI, all of the inflation and DE claims are predicated upon "faster than light speed expansion" concepts. Furthermore they are not based upon empirical data, they are based upon a highly subjective "INTERPRETATION" of the redshift phenomenon, not "direct empirical evidence". Until you can get "space" to expand in a lab, it's an "act of faith" in their "interpretation" of the redshift phenomenon, nothing more. In fact, only two theories created by man require that the universe expand faster than light, YEC and Lambda-magic theory.

So I cannot prove you were once a sperm because I cannot reconstruct your past in a lab? Your thinking is so flawed that it does not warrant a reply. Sorry to burst your bubble but BB has been proven by prediction of the cosmic microwave background radiation and the Red shift......... Oh what's the use! But here eat your heart out:
http://www.ecpulse.com/en/topstory/2011/07/18/events-hidden-in-time/

​

 

[TheReasoner]

It's interesting how the only person on this thread to give a decent description of the Big Bang was a Christian. The Atheists just dodged the question saying that it's "too complicated" to explain and that I should look elsewhere. I have looked elsewhere and know exactly what the scientists believe.

I sincerely doubt that. It IS too complicated if you want the full story. You'd need a relevant education. Which it is plain to see you do not have. No fault in that. The fault lies in claiming all the junk you claim as if you held multiple nobel prizes. That is arrogant and unbefitting a christian.

If you HAVE read what the theory encompasses it must either have been in some extremely simple book for kids or for people without a background in physics and/or other relevant field. Thing is norswede that does not give you enough of a background to even come close to understanding the theory half as well as is needed to say whether it is believable or not.

 

[mzungu]

It's interesting how the only person on this thread to give a decent description of the Big Bang was a Christian. http://www.thereligionofdarwinism.com/darwinisms unscientific formula.html

Here; This is as simple an explanation as one can get (from: http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/The Big Bang Theory.htm):

[SIZE=+4]The Big Bang Theory[/SIZE]
"The evolution of the world can be compared to a display of fireworks that has just ended; some few red wisps, ashes and smoke. Standing on a cooled cinder, we see the slow fading of the suns, and we try to recall the vanishing brilliance of the origin of the worlds."Lemaitre

An overwhelming weight of evidence has convinced cosmologists that the universe came into existence at a definite moment in time, some 13 billion years ago, in the form of a superhot, superdense fireball of energetic radiation. This is known as the Big Bang theory. Until the arrival of the Big Bang theory the universe was believed to be essentially eternal and unchanging, represented by the Steady State model. The first clear hint that the universe might change as time passes came in 1917 when Albert Einstein developed his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein realised that his equations said that the universe must be either expanding or contracting, but it could not be standing still, because if it were then gravity would attract all the galaxies towards one another. This was, at the time, a revolutionary concept, so revolutionary that Einstein refused to believe it and introduced his infamous 'cosmological constant' into the equations so that the sums agreed that the universe could be static. He later claimed it was the biggest blunder of his career. It was in 1920 that Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding by measuring the light from distant galaxies. This discovery was followed in 1927 by Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian astronomer, who was the first person to produce a version of what is now known as the Big Bang model.
It is necessary to understand that the Big Bang did not begin as a huge explosion within the universe, the Big Bang created the universe. A popular misconception is that it happened within the universe and that it is expanding through it. This causes people to wonder where in the universe it started, as if by running the clock backwards we would reach the point where all the galaxies come together in the centre of the universe. The universe does not have a centre, any more than the surface of a sphere has a centre, there is no preferred place that could be termed the centre. I know this sounds odd, it must have a centre, mustn't it? The problem we have here is we are trying to visualise the universe in the standard 3 dimensions that we are familiar with and therefore expect to find a centre to an expanding sphere. The universe, however, is not an expanding 3 dimensional sphere, it contains also the dimension of time (see 'What is Time?') and many other dimensions as well. By way of an illustration imagine a balloon with dots painted on the surface to represent the galaxies. If the balloon is now inflated we can see that all the dots are moving away from one another, just as the galaxies are in the real universe, and we can also see that on the surface of the balloon there is no centre point from which all the galaxies are moving away from. I am not suggesting that we are existing on the 'outside' of an expanding bubble, only that we cannot visualise the entire expanding universe.
Let's begin with a brief look at how the Big Bang describes the creation and evolution of the universe before moving on to some of the evidence to support the theory and the problems associated with the theory.

The Big Bang theory
The standard model of the Big Bang theory proposes that the universe emerged from a singularity, at time zero, and describes all that has happened since 0.0001 (10-4) of a second after this moment of creation. The temperature of the universe at that time was 1,000 billion degrees Kelvin (1012) and had a density that of nuclear matter, 1014 grams per cubic centimetre (the density of water is 1 gram per cubic centimetre). Under these extreme conditions, the photons of the 'background' radiation carry so much energy that they are interchangeable with particles. Photons create pairs of particles and antiparticles which annihilate one another to make energetic photons in a constant interchange of energy in line with Einstein's equation E = mc2. Because of a small asymmetry in the way the fundamental interactions work, slightly more particles were produced than antiparticles - about one in a billion more particles than antiparticles.
When the universe had cooled to the point that photons no longer had the energy required to make particles, all the paired particles and antiparticles annihilated, and the one in a billion particles left over settled down to become stable matter.
One-hundredth of a second after time zero the temperature had fallen 90% to 100 billion K. By one-tenth of a second after time zero the temperature was down to 30 billion K. The temperature after 13.8 seconds was down to 3 billion K, and by three minutes and two seconds had cooled to 1 billion K, only 70 times hotter than the centre of the Sun today. At this temperature nuclei of deuterium and helium could be formed and stick together despite collisions with other particles.
During the fourth minute after time zero reactions took place that locked up the remaining neutrons in helium nuclei, as described by Gammow et al in 1940 and Fred Hoyle and others in the 1960's. This epoch ended with just under 25% of the nuclear material converted into helium, and the rest left behind as lone protons - hydrogen nuclei.
By just over 30 minutes after time zero, all of the positrons had annihilated with almost all of the electrons - with again one in a billion left over - to produce the background radiation proper, and the temperature had dropped to 300 million K, and the density was only 10% of that of water. At this temperature stable atoms were still not able to form.
The interactions between electrons and photons continued for 300,000 years, until the universe had cooled to 6000 K, roughly the temperature of the surface of the Sun, and the photons were becoming too weak to knock electrons off atoms.
Over the next 500,000 years the background radiation decoupled, and had no more significant interaction with matter. The Big Bang was in effect over, and the universe left to expand and cool. About 1 million years after time zero, stars and galaxies could begin to form. Nucleosynthesis inside stars convert hydrogen and helium to make heavier elements, eventually giving rise to our Sun, the Earth and ourselves.
This is only a very brief overview of the main points describing the evolution of the universe, a number of books have been published that describe just the first four minutes or less!
So how does it all stack up? How much evidence do we actually have to support the Big Bang model of the universe?

Einstein's Theory of Relativity. This is a theory of spacetime, offering a complete mathematical description of the universe. Relativity, along with Quantum Mechanics, (see "What is Quantum Mechanics?") is considered to be the most complete and accurate theory ever devised, mathematically describing such diverse phenomenon as the constant speed of light and the formation of black holes. Einstein's equations tell us - apart from many other things - that the universe is expanding, and that by going back in time there must have been a time when all the galaxies were very close together. And further back when all the stars must have been touching each another, merging to make one great fireball as hot as the inside of a star at 15 million degrees Kelvin (Kelvin is absolute zero temperature). Einstein's equations actually go further back than that, to a time when all the matter and energy of the universe emerged from a single point of zero size, a singularity. This is how the Big Bang theory describes the birth of the universe.

Expansion of the universe. One of the reasons the universe is believed to be expanding is because of the phenomenon known as 'red shift'. Light, or other electromagnetic radiation from an astronomical object may be stretched, (due to a number of reasons) making its wavelength longer. Because red light has a longer wavelength than blue light, the effect of this stretching on features in the optical spectrum is to move them towards the red end of the spectrum. If then the optical spectrum of a distant galaxy shows features that are shifted towards the red end of the spectrum (red shifted), it can be due to one or more of the following three reasons:
1) Motion. The galaxy is moving away from us, this is known as the Doppler effect. The same effect can be detected in sound. When a police car is speeding towards us the sound waves made by its siren are 'squashed' and the pitch sounds higher. As it passes us and starts to move away the sound waves are 'stretched' and the pitch sounds lower. In the 1920's Edwin Hubble observed that all galaxies (apart from a few local ones attracted towards our own and showing blueshift) show red shift. This indicates that the galaxies are all flying away from us, as in a Big Bang explosion.
2) Expansion of the universe. Einstein's famous equations show that the universe should be expanding, not because the galaxies were moving through space, but because the 'empty' space between them (spacetime) is expanding. This cosmological redshift results because the light from the distant galaxies is stretched by the amount that space expands while the light is en route to us. This also reveals that the Earth is not at the centre of the universe with all the galaxies moving away from us, but that due to the expansion of the universe, all the galaxies are moving away from each other, like painted dots on a balloon moving apart as it is inflated.
3) Gravity. This is also explained by Einstein's general theory. Light moving outwards from a star is moving 'uphill' in the star's gravitational field, and loses energy as a result. Because light cannot slow down - it always travels at the same speed - when it loses energy its wavelength increases, in other words, it is redshifted. It does however, require a very powerful gravitational field for this effect to be measurable, such as created by a white dwarf star.
All three kinds of redshift can be at work at the same time. If we had telescopes sensitive enough to see light from a white dwarf star in a distant galaxy, the overall redshift in that light would be due to a combination of Doppler, cosmological and gravitational redshifts.
The fact that we can measure redshift in the light from distant galaxies tells us that the galaxies are receding from us, and from each other. It only takes a little logical deduction to conclude that as they are now all receding from one another, then at some finite point in the past (believed to be around 13 billion years or so) they must have all been at the same point.

Microwave Background Radiation. The universe is filled with a sea of radiation at a temperature of just over 2.7 degrees Kelvin, detectable at microwave radio frequencies both by Earth based radio telescopes and by instruments onboard artificial satellites. This is interpreted as direct evidence of the Big Bang fireball in which the universe was born, being the remnant of the superhot radiation from the fireball that has cooled down as the universe expanded. The discovery of the background radiation is therefore the most important observation made in cosmology since the discovery by Edwin Hubble that the universe was expanding. The existence of the background radiation, and its temperature, was accurately predicted by the Big Bang theory. When it was later discovered, by chance as it happens, this was yet another confirmation of the theory.

Nucleosynthesis of the light elements.
As the universe expanded and cooled, so the process of matter building began that led to the formation of stars, planets, galaxies etc. The process began with the simplest element, hydrogen, then helium, and then eventually onto more complex elements. The observed abundance of hydrogen, the simplest element and the most common in the universe, followed by helium, is yet further confirmation of the Big Bang theory.
The study of stars reveals how their internal nuclear interactions cause simple atoms, such as hydrogen and helium, to create more complex elements. Stars are in fact gigantic matter producing factories, converting hydrogen and helium into carbon and heavier elements by the process of nucleosynthesis deep within their interiors. If stars did not exist, we would not be here, our own atoms that make us, were formed by the stars, and by the supernovas at the death of certain size stars. All as described by the Big Bang theory.

Formation of galaxies and large-scale structure
the Big Bang model provides a framework in which to understand the collapse of matter to form galaxies and other large-scale structures observed in the universe today. At about 10,000 years after the Big Bang, the temperature had fallen to such an extent that the average density of the universe began to be dominated by massive particles, rather than by light and other radiation. This change meant that the gravitational forces between the particles could begin to take effect, so that any small perturbations in their density would grow. These small perturbations led to the formation of galaxies.
These are the principle observed phenomenon that go to support the Big Bang theory. Is it proof enough? Do we have a universe that was born out of a singularity, that is expanding and cooling, and is therefore finite in both age and size? See Can anything 'real' be infinite? for an explanation of a finite universe.

 

[GA777]

The arrogance exhibited by cdesign proponentsists always gives me a chuckle.

/QUOTE]

Look whose talking.

And: You're God's ambassador, the only link some people may have to who God is. And for those reasons it is very important you do not drive them away by saying "A is FALSE and B is TRUE; Therefore God is real!" when they may know extremely well that A is in fact very true, regardless of what B is. Do you follow what I said?
To put it in simpler terms:
We are called to love, to be humble, to be merciful. Not to make strong claims about things we know little about, or could be wrong about.
God loves you, and He loves them. That is our core message. Science is not something we need to fight. Or stand up against. It is only the study of what God made. How can that ultimately lead anyone astray? Only one way I know of would do that with any great success: If those who believe say that science and God are enemies. If that happens - and it does - then science will win the hearts of man. Because science can be tested. And science gives people things that are tangible and real to them.

The Big Bang does NOT conflict with God's existence. You really should not put them up against one another, because they are not opposites. And in essence what you are doing is NOT weakening anyone's faith in science, but many people's openness to Christianity.

I never said that if one is true , the other isnt.

And about the big bang,depends which one you meant,because countless people and TV documentaries and even some scientists keep saying that the so called 'bing bang" started with an explosion. I dont know much about the subject,but I'm just stating what many used to say about the big bang.

 

[dad]

An overwhelming weight of evidence has convinced cosmologists that the universe came into existence at a definite moment in time, some 13 billion years ago, in the form of a superhot, superdense fireball of energetic radiation. This is known as the Big Bang theory.

Actually nothing led them but pure rejection of creation, and 100% lack of anything else.

Until the arrival of the Big Bang theory the universe was believed to be essentially eternal and unchanging, represented by the Steady State model. The first clear hint that the universe might change as time passes came in 1917 when Albert Einstein developed his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein realised that his equations said that the universe must be either expanding or contracting, but it could not be standing still, because if it were then gravity would attract all the galaxies towards one another. This was, at the time, a revolutionary concept, so revolutionary that Einstein refused to believe it and introduced his infamous 'cosmological constant' into the equations so that the sums agreed that the universe could be static. He later claimed it was the biggest blunder of his career. It was in 1920 that Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding by measuring the light from distant galaxies.

Nope. That is a belief that the far universe obeys earth laws...i.e. redshift etc.

This discovery was followed in 1927 by Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian astronomer, who was the first person to produce a version of what is now known as the Big Bang model.

Gibberish. A person followed belief? Whoopee doo.

It is necessary to understand that the Big Bang did not begin as a huge explosion within the universe, the Big Bang created the universe. A popular misconception is that it happened within the universe and that it is expanding through it. This causes people to wonder where in the universe it started, as if by running the clock backwards we would reach the point where all the galaxies come together in the centre of the universe

You run the present state backward. Nothing else. That us foolish, ungodly, unproven, unsupportable, and unbiblical.

. The universe does not have a centre, any more than the surface of a sphere has a centre,

Ignorant specualtion, based on a belief that the universe is in the earth state of the present.

there is no preferred place that could be termed the centre. I know this sounds odd, it must have a centre, mustn't it? The problem we have here is we are trying to visualise the universe in the standard 3 dimensions that we are familiar with and therefore expect to find a centre to an expanding sphere.

Stop envisioning belief based nonsense.

The universe, however, is not an expanding 3 dimensional sphere, it contains also the dimension of time (see 'What is Time?') and many other dimensions as well.

Utter rubbish and total speculation.

By way of an illustration imagine a balloon with dots painted on the surface to represent the galaxies. If the balloon is now inflated we can see that all the dots are moving away from one another, just as the galaxies are in the real universe, and we can also see that on the surface of the balloon there is no centre point from which all the galaxies are moving away from.

Fiction. This is belief based projection.

The Big Bang theory
The standard model of the Big Bang theory proposes that the universe emerged from a singularity, at time zero, and describes all that has happened since 0.0001 (10-4) of a second after this moment of creation.

Fable.

The temperature of the universe at that time was 1,000 billion degrees Kelvin (1012) and had a density that of nuclear matter, 1014 grams per cubic centimetre (the density of water is 1 gram per cubic centimetre).

No. That is a long series of present state what iffing....all of which is false and unprovable.

One-hundredth of a second after time zero the temperature had fallen 90% to 100 billion K. By one-tenth of a second after time zero the temperature was down to 30 billion K. The temperature after 13.8 seconds was down to 3 billion K, and by three minutes and two seconds had cooled to 1 billion K, only 70 times hotter than the centre of the Sun today. At this temperature nuclei of deuterium and helium could be formed and stick together despite collisions with other particles.

Anyone that believes that should step up and talk to us here! That is unproven antiChrist nonsense.

etc etc the creation remnant background has no relation to your religion.... none.

 

[mzungu]

Actually nothing led them but pure rejection of creation, and 100% lack of anything else.



Nope. That is a belief that the far universe obeys earth laws...i.e. redshift etc.

Gibberish. A person followed belief? Whoopee doo.


You run the present state backward. Nothing else. That us foolish, ungodly, unproven, unsupportable, and unbiblical.


Ignorant specualtion, based on a belief that the universe is in the earth state of the present.


Stop envisioning belief based nonsense.


Utter rubbish and total speculation.



Fiction. This is belief based projection.



Fable.

No. That is a long series of present state what iffing....all of which is false and unprovable.
Anyone that believes that should step up and talk to us here! That is unproven antiChrist nonsense.

etc etc the creation remnant background has no relation to your religion.... none.

Your answers speak for themselves!

 

[TheReasoner]

Actually nothing led them but pure rejection of creation, and 100% lack of anything else.



Nope. That is a belief that the far universe obeys earth laws...i.e. redshift etc.

Gibberish. A person followed belief? Whoopee doo.


You run the present state backward. Nothing else. That us foolish, ungodly, unproven, unsupportable, and unbiblical.


Ignorant specualtion, based on a belief that the universe is in the earth state of the present.


Stop envisioning belief based nonsense.


Utter rubbish and total speculation.



Fiction. This is belief based projection.



Fable.

No. That is a long series of present state what iffing....all of which is false and unprovable.
Anyone that believes that should step up and talk to us here! That is unproven antiChrist nonsense.

etc etc the creation remnant background has no relation to your religion.... none.

I see 'dad' can still teach nobel prize winners about the fields within which they won their prizes. In fact, it seems according to him they are all wrong. He could teach a peacock arrogance.

 

[TheReasoner]

The arrogance exhibited by cdesign proponentsists always gives me a chuckle.

Look whose talking.

Well... There's no evidence for the ID viewpoint. And cdesign followers tend to make extreme mistakes, arrogantly proposed. Your own criticism of BB does not appear to hold water for example. Yet you word yourself with more certainty than I have ever seen even in a lecture hall from the professor giving the lecture. Yet I do not see any substance to your claims.

This needs to be approached with humility, not arrogance. Especially from those who do not have any evidence backing their position. Science deals with what we can see, model and extrapolate from those models. It does not deal with pure speculation and wishful thinking. And it does not make assumptions without evidence. Scientists can make a hypothesis, and then test it. And that could be seen as speculation, but the core here is that said hypothesis needs to be testable, and it needs to be based on observations or mathematical predictions for example.

IDers do not have that. They have a philosophical position they want to pass off as science. It isn't. Science does not deal with purpose or meaning. That's the realm of philosophy. It deals with what is. What is observable, testable and quantifiable. ID is none of those things. Therefore it is not science. We aren't saying there is no God. That is completely irrelevant. It's like we're talking about combustion engines and the chemical composition of ideal fuel for a certain engine design, and someone comes along asking "But what color is the car, and are the seats cushy?". The questions may be important in many ways, but they are completely irrelevant to what is being discussed. This is also the case for ID. It may be we have an intelligent designer. I think we do have a God who made everything - though how I leave to nature to tell us herself. And why, that is not at all the domain of science to answer.

I never said that if one is true , the other isnt.

And about the big bang,depends which one you meant,because countless people and TV documentaries and even some scientists keep saying that the so called 'bing bang" started with an explosion. I dont know much about the subject,but I'm just stating what many used to say about the big bang.

Simplifications made to help people understand the theory's basic concepts without needing to get extensive knowledge on the subject.
You cannot take this simplification, criticize it and expect the criticism to be valid if applied to the theory itself. It was no explosion, that is simply an analogy. A simplification to help people visualize that which is quite hard to actually visualize. How would you visualize reality becoming bigger, growing from something infinitesimally small, in all four (at least) dimensions.

What I'm saying here is: Be careful! You're doing what amounts to jumping on thin ice when you're attacking BB like you are.

 

[impblack]

It's interesting how the only person on this thread to give a decent description of the Big Bang was a Christian. The Atheists just dodged the question saying that it's "too complicated" to explain and that I should look elsewhere. http://www.thereligionofdarwinism.com/darwinisms unscientific formula.html

He explained what you could learn in a documentary. He didn't explained to you the actual physics, and that's not something you learn in a forum. Anyone could've explained you the theory (some better and some worst, i probably worst, but i did try to explain the evidence...), all they would need to do is give you a wikipedia article. What i said is that if you really wanna talk about the big bang start learning physics. And that, i think you'll understand, is not something someone can explain in one post.

Anyway, that christian is quite an intelligent christian and he usuallt explains things very well, i give him that (i'm talking about faith guardian of course xD)

 

[GA777]

Well... There's no evidence for the ID viewpoint. And cdesign followers tend to make extreme mistakes, arrogantly proposed. Your own criticism of BB does not appear to hold water for example. Yet you word yourself with more certainty than I have ever seen even in a lecture hall from the professor giving the lecture. Yet I do not see any substance to your claims.

This needs to be approached with humility, not arrogance. Especially from those who do not have any evidence backing their position. Science deals with what we can see, model and extrapolate from those models. It does not deal with pure speculation and wishful thinking. And it does not make assumptions without evidence. Scientists can make a hypothesis, and then test it. And that could be seen as speculation, but the core here is that said hypothesis needs to be testable, and it needs to be based on observations or mathematical predictions for example.

IDers do not have that. They have a philosophical position they want to pass off as science. It isn't. Science does not deal with purpose or meaning. That's the realm of philosophy. It deals with what is. What is observable, testable and quantifiable. ID is none of those things. Therefore it is not science. We aren't saying there is no God. That is completely irrelevant. It's like we're talking about combustion engines and the chemical composition of ideal fuel for a certain engine design, and someone comes along asking "But what color is the car, and are the seats cushy?". The questions may be important in many ways, but they are completely irrelevant to what is being discussed. This is also the case for ID. It may be we have an intelligent designer. I think we do have a God who made everything - though how I leave to nature to tell us herself. And why, that is not at all the domain of science to answer.



Simplifications made to help people understand the theory's basic concepts without needing to get extensive knowledge on the subject.
You cannot take this simplification, criticize it and expect the criticism to be valid if applied to the theory itself. It was no explosion, that is simply an analogy. A simplification to help people visualize that which is quite hard to actually visualize. How would you visualize reality becoming bigger, growing from something infinitesimally small, in all four (at least) dimensions.

What I'm saying here is: Be careful! You're doing what amounts to jumping on thin ice when you're attacking BB like you are.

That means what to my point?And whom did I address?


I see now,countless sources on the internet too count it as an "explosion".
And careful of what?Will BB punish me for attacking it?And btw. how can you be so sure that a theory alike would never change anyways?Like many other scientific theories?Technology didnt reach the max yet,and not even in billions years,so ANY theory can still change,especially theories alike.

 

[mzungu]

Perhaps this 3rd part of the BBC documentary called space will make us more humble. This part is called staying alive and watch and appreciate what we have:

Space with Sam Neill Staying Alive part 1 of 3 - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvR3xP0MI-g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lQijaiNl5c&feature=related

 

[TheReasoner]

That means what to my point?And whom did I address?

Not me. But I still feel it pertinent to address the issue. Someone who does not have a degree in the relevant field and challenges - or appears to challenge - the current paradigm without any evidence for his position will not be taken seriously, and that's what IDers normally are and do. Do you think it is anything other than arrogant to make bold claims about things one knows very little about?

I see now,countless sources on the internet too count it as an "explosion".

Yep. And it's a good analogy. But it's still a simplification.

And careful of what?Will BB punish me for attacking it?And btw. how can you be so sure that a theory alike would never change anyways?Like many other scientific theories?Technology didnt reach the max yet,and not even in billions years,so ANY theory can still change,especially theories alike.

Of course it has not reached maximum. It probably never will. No, BB will not punish you. But you may punish yourself by proxy. By making bold claims you cannot back, such as your claims that there is no evidence for BB - a blatant falsehood - you are putting yourself in a bad light. And not only yourself, but Christ as well if you bring Him or Christian faith into it.

Of course the theory can change. It will, too. And in fact I am sure it is. But given what we know it is more than merely unlikely we will reject BB for a theory we have already abandoned in part or whole, as YECers and other creationists often/usually want. We will see a development to something more accurate, not a relapse to something we already know to be less accurate.

Furthermore, that it will change does not mean any alternative is a viable alternative. Nor does it mean that any criticism is valid criticism. Nor that there is no supporting evidence for it - as you have claimed. There IS evidence for it. Solid and plenty, too. The theory is solid, and well supported. So if you want to criticize it you need to acknowledge what it is and what it's strong and weak points are. You should not, and cannot if you want to be taken seriously and not laughed at (sorry, but that will happen) make claims which are blatantly false.

 

[Michael]

So I cannot prove you were once a sperm because I cannot reconstruct your past in a lab?

Er, no. You can easily find sperm existing in the present moment. You can't even tell me where "dark energy" comes from, let alone how to acquire a quantity of it to look at in a lab.

Your thinking is so flawed that it does not warrant a reply. Sorry to burst your bubble but BB has been proven by prediction of the cosmic microwave background radiation

It turns out that static universe theories predicted a CLOSER number than BB theories of the past.

http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Apeiron-V2-p79-84(1995).pdf

FYI, please show me that 'inflation' and "dark energy" have any material effect on matter *BEFORE* you start handwaving at the sky and claiming your invisible friends did it, and "oh ya, here's the math".

and the Red shift.........

Ditto on your claim that "space" does any expanding. The fact you would have to travel faster than light speed to actually 'achieve' that sort of redshift should be your first clue that tired light theories need to be considered?

arXiv.org Search

What evidence do you have that "space" does any "expanding", because matter certainly cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

Facepalm indeed.

 

[Michael]

It does depend on what you mean by empirical. You do observe evidence to suport the big bang

Not really. I personally only see "support" for redshifted photons. How one subjectively interprets that data is another issue altogether, typically involving many subjective "leaps of faith".

BESIDES pointing at the sky, what *OTHER* evidence do you have that 'space' actually 'expands'? How are you physically defining "space" anyway since it's undefined in GR. Only 'spacetime' is defined in GR.

(you do, you have those 3 very famous evidences. the theory might be wrong, but those 3 proofs suport it, a wrong theory still can be suported by evidence). I don't need that god is tested in the lab to believe in it xD

Those "three famous evidences" that you mention aren't really "evidence" at all. They mainstream has never shown any cause/effect link between 'dark energy' and "acceleration" before pointing at the sky and claiming their impotent (on Earth) sky entity did it. Ditto for Guth's dead inflation genie.

Like i said, there's proof that suports the big bang. You can have proof against it, and the theory will be wrong if the proof against it is "stronger" then the other proof.

Tired light theories have been around as long as BB theories. Why do you choose to prefer one "interpretation" of that redshift phenomenon over another, particularly when a movement oriented interpretation requires faster than light speed expansion?

http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Brynjolfsson_A/0/1/0/all/0/1

That's expalined by the fact that it is spacetime that expands (now, you may not believe that it does, but IF it does, it MAY explain that, i think we can agree on that)

I will agree that objects can move and thereby "spacetime" can expand. I do not agree that "space" does any sort of magical expansion tricks. Care to demonstrate that later claim empirically?

That's an excelent question and the answer depends on you opinion of religion.
You see, it is no faith to believe in the big bang. You don't believe it 100% without proof. I could say that i believe in invisible cats in my living room.That would the faith.

Um, following your own analogy, mainstream Lambda-invisible-dark-stuff-theory is like claiming there are invisible cats in space (dark energy), invisible dogs in space (dark matter) and the whole thing was created by an invisible dead gorilla (inflation). Matter and energy as we understand it only make up 4% of the universe, and the rest of it is made of invisible dogs and cats. Baby, that's faith!

If you have a little bit of proof then it is not faith. It's like M theory. Except you can try to detect dark matter in the lab for example. There are devices design for that.

I will grant you that most "dark stuff" theories are related to SUSY theory and it can be studied in lab. It's the least offensive "invisible sky entity" from that perspective. At least there is a HOPE that it could be falsified in the lab. That's impossible for dark energy and inflation genies.

Dark energy would be a prediction of the theory then. I didn't said every aspect of the theory was theoretically based. The theory was created through other scientific theories, so it is theoretically suported, it wasn't observed and then interpreted, the observation came after the theory.

A more "skeptical" view of "dark energy" would be to suggest it's pure metaphysical "gap filler" to prop up an otherwise falsified "bang" theory. It's introduction into Einstein's "blunder" theory is the only thing that lends it even the slightest credibility in terms of science. It's no better however than stuffing invisible genies into that same set of formulas however.

Dark energy (whatever that is i admit we don't really know it) is a predition of the theory.

Er, no. Actually it's a *POSTDICTION* that was stuffed into BB theory after that subjective redshift interpretation of yours/theirs suggested that the universe must be accelerating over time. It was "gap filler' that was added to BB theory about 20 years ago once we made that "discovery/new belief about redshift". It wasn't a 'prediction', it was a "postdiction". Prior to that point we believed that the universe was slowing down over time.

If there's inflation you can easily see why the red shift (and the inflation is explained by the dark energy).

Imagine me pilfering your formulas, changing the terms and claiming "If there is Godflation, the you can easily see why the red shift and the Godflation is explained by the God energy. Don't you expect me to empirically demonstrate that Godflation has a material effect on matter? Don't you expect me to demonstrate that 'God energy' is somehow related to the acceleration of material objects or the 'expansion of space'?

And again, you can't ignore possibilities outside the lab, you sound just like an experimental physicist!

See my comment above. How do you know Godflation and God energy and God matter do not exist? I used exactly the same formulas to produce exactly the same "predictions" as mainstream theory. Now what?

Anyway, you say spacetime can't expand. Why can't it?

I said I have no empirical evidence that it *SPACE* expands. Only objects expand in the lab. "Spacetime" can certainly expand if objects in motion stay in motion. As the objects that makeup space time move further and further apart, spacetime can indeed expand. SPACE however doesn't do anything, it's just empty space.

Look, it's a theory, yes, it can be wrong. I'm not saying it's 100% right, i do agree it has flaws.

Yes, but this just shows that you personally are "detached" emotionally, but it also shows some interesting double standards IMO about the "evidence" you expect to see for an idea. Dead inflation genies in the sky seem to be fine by you, but a living God is something you seem to reject. Why?

Just do me the favor to see that it is not faith, specially because you do have proof in favor of it and you don't have proof against it (saying that there's no lab experiments in favor of dark energy and inflation is not proof against it).

Let's turn that around and explain to me why you lack belief in God again. What "better" explanation can you offer us for the fact that 85 percent of all humans believe in, and claim to experience, a living creator?

 

[Michael]

By making bold claims you cannot back, such as your claims that there is no evidence for BB - a blatant falsehood - you are putting yourself in a bad light. And not only yourself, but Christ as well if you bring Him or Christian faith into it.

IMO you're wrong on both counts. Let me explain:

All BB theories are based *ENTIRELY* on the interpretation of redshift data and the *ASSUMPTION* that inflation, dark energy and dark matter exist, yet not one of them has been empirically demonstrated to actually exist. I belief it is fair to say that there is no *COMPELLING* evidence for a bang theory. Static universe and tired light theories are just as compelling from my subjective standpoint as any "faster than light speed expansion" ideas. I don't think it's a blatant falsehood to claim that there is no overwhelming empirical evidence to support a bang theory.

arXiv.org Search

It all depends on how an individual subjectively interprets these LONG DISTANCE phenomenon, and how one tries to explain that redshift phenomenon.

Only two theories in human history require faster than light speed expansion, YEC and Lambda-magic theory. That in itself should be your first clue IMO that there is something VERY WRONG with a movement oriented *INTERPRETATION* of that redshift data.

Secondly, all "Christians" have a right to their opinions on various topics. It doesn't necessarily reflect badly on Christ, just the individual.

 

[dad]

I see 'dad' can still teach nobel prize winners about the fields within which they won their prizes. In fact, it seems according to him they are all wrong. ..

This is news??

 

[TheReasoner]

Secondly, all "Christians" have a right to their opinions on various topics. It doesn't necessarily reflect badly on Christ, just the individual.

Sure. But there is such a thing as arrogance, and bearing false witness. And that is not good. In fact, both are sinful. The claim was there is NO evidence supporting BB. That is false. You can argue that the evidence has problems, and then we can discuss that. But you cannot say there is no evidence. That would be either a flat out lie, or making an untrue claim without sufficient knowledge. Neither of which is good. In fact I would say that neither is acceptable. We are called to a high standard of integrity and humility both. Do I fall short of that? Yes. We all do. But that does not excuse it, does it?

So my attack is not upon having different opinions. Not at all. It's about making claims without support, and attacking that which one does not have competence to attack. Especially if said attack is done in the name of Christ. Now that - which is a common creationist behavior pattern - I have a HUGE problem with.