If the universe is <10,000 old....

[Assyrian]

It is really a issue of teaching. How do you teach the origin of the universe to people who have no real concept of anything beyond the universe they live in, the expansion of space time to people to whom time is regular and can be measured by a watch and distance can be measured with a tape measure. An explosion is a reasonable illustration to start with, but as with any simple illustrations for beginners you need to go beyond it to begin to learn what the Big Bang is really about. Because the Big Bang wasn't an explosion.

 

[Martyrs44]

Well even though you didn't directly try to answer my question you actually did. I asked if you knew the difference between an explosion like dynamite in a junk yard and an "explosion" like the big bang. You responded by saying it is a "violent expansion of gas".

Thank you for clarifying that you don't know the difference.

I didn't say it, the dictionaries I quoted said it. I gave those sources. There were at least seven of them including the Oxford Dictionary of Physics (very pro-evolution).

It seems, sir, that trying to get an honest response from you is sort of like trying to sqeeze blood out of a turnip.

 

[Martyrs44]

'Because the big bang was certainly not an explosion'.

Oh? Perhaps he missed:

Quote: "The cosmic explosion that marked the origin of the universe according to the big bang theory." (The Free Dictionary)

Quote: "a theory that deduces a cataclysmic birth of the universe (big bang) from the observed expansion of the universe." Dictionaryreference.com.

Quote: "The explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter that, according to some cosmological theories, gave rise to the universe between 12 and 20 billion years ago. The American Heritage® Science Dictionary

Quote: "the cosmic explosion that marked the beginning of the universe according to the big bang theory" Mirriam Webster.

Quote: " The explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter that, according to some cosmological theories, gave rise to the universe" Scienceyourdictionary.com

Quote: "Model of the origin of the universe, which holds that it emerged from a state of extremely high temperature and density in an explosive expansion 10 billion&#8211;15 billion years ago. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994-2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

And from the Capitol of evolution in the world, Oxford University: "The cosmological theory that all the matter and energy in the universe originated from a state of enormous density and temperature that exploded at a finite moment in the past." The Oxford Dictionary of Physics, 5th edition, 2005.

So should we believe those who gave us the definitions or the Big Bang promoters on Christian Forums?

 

[philadiddle]

'Because the big bang was certainly not an explosion'.

Oh? Perhaps he missed:

Quote: "The cosmic explosion that marked the origin of the universe according to the big bang theory." (The Free Dictionary)

Quote: "a theory that deduces a cataclysmic birth of the universe (big bang) from the observed expansion of the universe." Dictionaryreference.com.

Quote: "The explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter that, according to some cosmological theories, gave rise to the universe between 12 and 20 billion years ago. The American Heritage® Science Dictionary

Quote: "the cosmic explosion that marked the beginning of the universe according to the big bang theory" Mirriam Webster.

Quote: " The explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter that, according to some cosmological theories, gave rise to the universe" Scienceyourdictionary.com

Quote: "Model of the origin of the universe, which holds that it emerged from a state of extremely high temperature and density in an explosive expansion 10 billion–15 billion years ago. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994-2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

And from the Capitol of evolution in the world, Oxford University: "The cosmological theory that all the matter and energy in the universe originated from a state of enormous density and temperature that exploded at a finite moment in the past." The Oxford Dictionary of Physics, 5th edition, 2005.

So should we believe those who gave us the definitions or the Big Bang promoters on Christian Forums?

And what do you think that explosion was in contrast to how we use the word "explosion" in everyday life? Are there differences between the expansion of space that the heating up of TNT? What are those differences?

Is it possible that "explosion" is a good starting point for an explanation, but the actual physics behind it are quite different than what we would normally consider an explosion?

We all know that you have many sources that use the word "explosion". Try answering the above questions and you'll see why we are harping on that word.

 

[philadiddle]

I didn't say it, the dictionaries I quoted said it. I gave those sources.
It seems, sir, that trying to get an honest response from you is sort of like trying to sqeeze blood out of a turnip.

Like I said, if you are learning science from a dictionary then you are in way over your head. You should take the time to learn what the actual science is behind the big bang, not the layman's definition in a dictionary.

It seems, sir, that trying to get an honest response from you is sort of like trying to sqeeze blood out of a turnip.

What is it you are trying to get me to say that you think would be the honest response? I'm genuinly curious about this, I hope you answer this question.

 

[sfs]

And what do you think that explosion was in contrast to how we use the word "explosion" in everyday life? Are there differences between the expansion of space that the heating up of TNT? What are those differences?

Is it possible that "explosion" is a good starting point for an explanation, but the actual physics behind it are quite different than what we would normally consider an explosion?

We all know that you have many sources that use the word "explosion". Try answering the above questions and you'll see why we are harping on that word.

Exactly.

"Was the Big Bang an explosion?
No, the Big Bang was not an explosion. We don't know what, exactly, happened in the earliest times, but it was not an explosion in the usual way that people picture explosions."
NASA

 

[Martyrs44]

Like I said, if you are learning science from a dictionary then you are in way over your head. You should take the time to learn what the actual science is behind the big bang, not the layman's definition in a dictionary.

Sir, you don't know what you're talking about. I have been involved in science nearly all of my adult life and I once believed in evolution. I know the teaching well. I once defended it, and I know both the defintions and practical applications. I also know that you being a neo-Darwinian you don't care about defintions unless they agree with your prejudices; prejudices by which you are influenced by the status quo/present frame of mind of modern neo-D's. That's just the way it works.

What is it you are trying to get me to say that you think would be the honest response? I'm genuinly curious about this, I hope you answer this question.

Do you have to be led by the hand?

(1)Give observable evidence that the Big 'BANG' was not, quote: a "cataclysmic birth of the universe (big BANG) from the observed expansion of the univers," and that, quote: "with production of heat and violent expansion of gas."

(2) Tell the readers why we should all believe you and your like-minded comrades and not the scientists who wrote the defintions Encylopedia Britannica nor the Oxford Dict. of Physics as it concerns this matter.

So I require these two things of you. Don't avoid the issues like you usually do but answer directly and forthrightly, please.

 

[Martyrs44]

I realize that only creationist 'explosions' cause utter destruction, chaos, and damage. Only evolutionist explosions create galaxies, solar systems, and life.

How stupid of me to not see that earlier, Professor Dawkins.

 

[philadiddle]

Sir, you don't know what you're talking about. I have been involved in science nearly all of my adult life and I once believed in evolution. I know the teaching well. I once defended it, and I know both the defintions and practical applications. I also know that you being a neo-Darwinian you don't care about defintions unless they agree with your prejudices; prejudices by which you are influenced by the status quo/present frame of mind of modern neo-D's. That's just the way it works.

Sir, you don't know what you're talking about. I have been involved in science nearly all of my adult life and I once believed in creationism. I know the teaching well. I once defended it, and I know both the defintions and practical applications. I also know that you being a creationist you don't care about defintions unless they agree with your prejudices; prejudices by which you are influenced by the status quo/present frame of mind of modern creationists. That's just the way it works.

Do you have to be led by the hand?

(1)Give observable evidence that the Big 'BANG' was not, quote: a "cataclysmic birth of the universe (big BANG) from the observed expansion of the univers," and that, quote: "with production of heat and violent expansion of gas."

What is your point here? What does cataclysmic mean to you? Why do you insist it is the expansion of gas when it started off as the expansion of plasma which then cooled to gas?

Here is some observational evidence: Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(2) Tell the readers why we should all believe you and your like-minded comrades and not the scientists who wrote the defintions Encylopedia Britannica nor the Oxford Dict. of Physics as it concerns this matter.

I'm not asking anyone to believe me. I'm asking people to learn what the science actually is.

So I require these two things of you. Don't avoid the issues like you usually do but answer directly and forthrightly, please.

Interesting you would say that since you didn't answer my questions.

 

[philadiddle]

I realize that only creationist 'explosions' cause utter destruction, chaos, and damage. Only evolutionist explosions create galaxies, solar systems, and life.

How stupid of me to not see that earlier, Professor Dawkins.

And what reasons do scientists have for thinking the big bang created galaxies? Is it because there are differences between the expansion of space/time and the lighting of a gas tank? Or are they basically the same thing? Your comment above indicates that you think they are pretty much the same because we use the word "explosion" in the dictionary definition for laymen.

 

[Martyrs44]

Sir, you don't know what you're talking about. I have been involved in science nearly all of my adult life and I once believed in creationism. I know the teaching well. I once defended it, and I know both the defintions and practical applications. I also know that you being a creationist you don't care about defintions unless they agree with your prejudices; prejudices by which you are influenced by the status quo/present frame of mind of modern creationists. That's just the way it works.

I am the one who gave the definitions. YOU are the one who is denying what those of your persuasion said about them. And you somehow think that that tactic is going to gain you credibility with anyone who is independently reading this thread who just might be honestly searching for the truth..unlike you?

What is your point here? What does cataclysmic mean to you? Why do you insist it is the expansion of gas when it started off as the expansion of plasma which then cooled to gas?

Hint: (as if you haven't already been given such hints at least twice before) it is described by those who wrote the definitions in terms of 'violence'. Def: ' a violent change or upheaval'.

Here is some observational evidence: Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encylopedia.

Been there. Done that. I didn't ask for 'theory' or guesses, I asked for direct observation. They gave none nor could they even illustrate from nature that it could even occur in the first place. Interesting that you will take their word for it but you won't take God's Word for it.

I'm not asking anyone to believe me. I'm asking people to learn what the science actually is.

Then when you learn real science, get back with me.

Interesting you would say that since you didn't answer my questions.

I see that tongue. How old are you, please?

 

[NGC 6712]

The term explosion is a misnomer. The Big Bang was not an explosion in the normal sense of the word. Popular accounts often refer to it in those terms and even some science texts/dictionaries use the word but that is dumbing down or laziness.

I saw someone earlier use a quote off the WMAP website. I am a cosmologist and was one of the chief researchers on the WMAP team. You will find no cosmologist who when talking to a technically astute audience use the word explosion except perhaps in the most flippant of comments.

 

[philadiddle]

I am the one who gave the definitions. YOU are the one who is denying what those of your persuasion said about them. And you somehow think that that tactic is going to gain you credibility with anyone who is independently reading this thread who just might be honestly searching for the truth..unlike you?

Hint: (as if you haven't already been given such hints at least twice before) it is described by those who wrote the definitions in terms of 'violence'. Def: ' a violent change or upheaval'.

Been there. Done that. I didn't ask for 'theory' or guesses, I asked for direct observation. They gave none nor could they even illustrate from nature that it could even occur in the first place. Interesting that you will take their word for it but you won't take God's Word for it.

Then when you learn real science, get back with me.

I see that tongue. How old are you, please?

Since you're starting to get mad let's just take a step back here and better define what it is that's being said.

What are some specific reasons that you have for rejecting the big bang? I'm not looking for a link to a huge list of arguments, I'm looking for one or two things in your own words that you are willing to defend.

 

[Martyrs44]

Since you're starting to get mad let's just take a step back here and better define what it is that's being said.

What are some specific reasons that you have for rejecting the big bang? I'm not looking for a link to a huge list of arguments, I'm looking for one or two things in your own words that you are willing to defend.

Before I do tell me how old you are.

I wish to know just what I am dealing with and why the attitude.

P.S. I am not angry....yet.

 

[Trogool]

Before I do tell me how old you are.

I wish to know just what I am dealing with and why the attitude.

P.S. I am not angry....yet.

Are you having some kind of difficulty reading the number on his profile? Also, this is a rather silly demand from someone who doesn't have his own age displayed.

 

[Martyrs44]

The term explosion is a misnomer. The Big Bang was not an explosion in the normal sense of the word. Popular accounts often refer to it in those terms and even some science texts/dictionaries use the word but that is dumbing down or laziness.

The dumbing down and laziness is on the part of neo-Darwinians who don't even know the history of their own movement as it relates to terms and definitions; terms and defintions that have radically changed since I defended evolution in the 1960's.

Ex: like the classic defintion of evolution that I learned long ago which has been dumbed down to 'a change in allele frequency.' Whoopee. That's like defining a house as 'a pile of bricks, boards, and glass assembled'. No wonder the kids in our public schools and colleges are so ignorant of the issues. They've been made stupid by those of your persuasion.

I saw someone earlier use a quote off the WMAP website. I am a cosmologist and was one of the chief researchers on the WMAP team. You will find no cosmologist who when talking to a technically astute audience use the word explosion except perhaps in the most flippant of comments

Except the seven secular and/or pro-evolution sources I quoted above (including Oxford and Encyc. Britannica) and many more that I can quote that differ with your position.

So do it, professor. Show us an example of a smooth big 'bang' that somehow made matter, and then quietly, smoothly developed all that we now see in the heavens. And how nebular gases developed stars...or better yet planets. Give us an observable example as to how dissipating gases were pulled by gravitational forces into stellar objects we now see in the heavens. I don't want clever artwork. I am asking for observed natural processes that made stars or planets. Until then I will believe my Creator and His Word that He did it all just as He said He did in Genesis.

P.S. why did you avoid my challenge to you on the other thread concerning the formula for the lunar recession rate? Is it because you saw that I documented it was George Darwin who gave us the formula that concluded a 1.3 billion yr age limit to the moon and not creationists? Tell me please.

 

[Martyrs44]

Are you having some kind of difficulty reading the number on his profile? Also, this is a rather silly demand from someone who doesn't have his own age displayed.

No. I just want him to say it. His behavior merits no more respect than one could give to an 18 yr old with an attitude.

But why is this any of your concern? Let him answer for himself.

 

[philadiddle]

Before I do tell me how old you are.

I wish to know just what I am dealing with and why the attitude.

P.S. I am not angry....yet.

My age is displayed. Reread post 311 before you accuse others of having an attitude.

Looking forward to hearing your reasons for rejecting the big bang that working scientists seem to be oblivious to.

 

[philadiddle]

I am asking for observed natural processes that made stars or planets.

Just to be clear, are you looking for a direct observation of the entire process that takes millions of years, or are you looking for observed instances of the different stages and the chemistry/physics that supports the model?

Until then I will believe my Creator and His Word that He did it all just as He said He did in Genesis.

That's an interesting double standard. Science must explain EVERY SINGLE DETAIL and since it doesn't it was a miracle that we know nothing about other than that it happened.

 

[Martyrs44]

My age is displayed. Reread post 311 before you accuse others of having an attitude.

Done. And?

Looking forward to hearing your reasons for rejecting the big bang that working scientists seem to be oblivious to.

Son, are you even vaguely aware that there are a host of noted astronomers who DO not believe in the 'big bang'?

Halton Arp, the Burbidges, Tift, Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, Napier, Guthrie, etc. to name just a few.

Warning: if you display that snotty teen attitude even once more then we will part company as far as any communication between us. Is that clear? Be a gentleman.