Objections to the big bang?

[philadiddle]

My objection to the big bang theory and response to your questions are as I have stated. I do not know what it is about my statement that you do not understand (hence your question above) or how better to explain it than I already have. Perhaps after careful re-reading of my response, you can ask a more specific question about it.

I understand your statement, but there isn't really an objection in it anywhere.

First you mention the Hundred Flowers campaign as if that reference could be related, but I'm guessing you just read about it and want to appear well read, so off the bat we have fluff without meaning.

Then you say that the red shift implies that the big bang happened, but that we are unsure of the first few moments. But so what? Does being unsure of the first few moments discount the whole thing? Is that your only objection?

Then you go on to say that they should be honest and say "we don't know" which, when it comes to the first few moments, that is exactly what they say, they say "we don't know". And you think that leaves room for the supernatural because you don't want finite steps in our origins to eliminate supernatural causes. You are glad that there is an unknown component (the first few moments) so that you can add God to it. But how is that an objection to the big bang?

If you want to better explain it then just explain it. Don't try to hide behind some first year university student image by throwing a bunch of fancy phrases together in order to look smart at the expense of not actually saying anything.

So my question still stands, what exactly is your objection to the big bang? Is it just the fact that we are unsure of the first few nanoseconds?

EDIT - Just read through your exchange with Gluadys, I see that you don't actually have an objection, you just misunderstand how philosophy is applied to science.

 

[DCJazz]

If the Big Bang Theory happened, it was because of God.
If it didn't happen, but the universe was created using a different method, then same result.

I personally don't believe the BBT happened, since what I know is that God is the creator no matter what.

 

[Keachian]

If the Big Bang Theory happened, it was because of God.
If it didn't happen, but the universe was created using a different method, then same result.

I personally don't believe the BBT happened, since what I know is that God is the creator no matter what.

Well that's an interesting stance, because it's basically the same as my own stance except I accept modern cosmology.

What has been the driving behind your belief that the BB didn't happen even though you assert that however the universe arrived at how it is now is because of God's grace and sovereignty?

 

[samaus12345]

Progmonk. The big bang alleges to have happened 13.75 billion years ago. Assuming there is objects emitting light more than that light year distance away how do you explain that? Creation also has the same paradox which there are numerous 'models' but to the person defending the BBT please explain.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Progmonk. The big bang alleges to have happened 13.75 billion years ago. Assuming there is objects emitting light more than that light year distance away how do you explain that? Creation also has the same paradox which there are numerous 'models' but to the person defending the BBT please explain.

Simply put, C is not a limit to expansion.

Imagine the universe expanding outwards at a speed of C for 13billion years. From the centre of the expansiuon, the universe would appear 13 Billion light years in every direction, right?

Ok, but now imagine an observer from the edge of the universe looking to the far side, the observer would see a distance of 26 odd billion lightyears, right? 26 billion light years in 13 billion years. So its sorta like that.

 

[Keachian]

I agree with this;

Simply put, C is not a limit to expansion.

Imagine the universe expanding outwards at a speed of C for 13billion years. From the centre of the expansiuon, the universe would appear 13 Billion light years in every direction, right?

Ok, but now imagine an observer from the edge of the universe looking to the far side, the observer would see a distance of 26 odd billion lightyears, right? 26 billion light years in 13 billion years. So its sorta like that.

though I'll also add an adenum, that since the universe started as a singularity we are the centre of the visible universe and that everything is moving away from everything else. Expanding in every direction it only makes sense that there are things which lie outside of our observable sphere. In much the same way that we can only see things x LY away as they were x years ago, something which is further away will not be able to be seen, not to mention the expansion is still continuing.

 

[samaus12345]

Ok Someone please explain our periodic table i will need references please only link ones you have read (not just copy paste blindly please i dont do that to people i ask in return not to do it to me). Wiki-

"The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium."

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Ok Someone please explain our periodic table i will need references please only link ones you have read (not just copy paste blindly please i dont do that to people i ask in return not to do it to me). Wiki-

"The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium."

What exactly do you want to know about the periodic table?

 

[Keachian]

Ok Someone please explain our periodic table i will need references please only link ones you have read (not just copy paste blindly please i dont do that to people i ask in return not to do it to me). Wiki-

"The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium."

Solar fusion? You have a problem with solar fusion?

 

[samaus12345]

" i will need references please only link ones you have read (not just copy paste blindly please i dont do that to people i ask in return not to do it to me)."

 

[Keachian]

God did it, there's a fine starting point if I ever saw one

 

[Look Up]

I understand your statement, but there isn't really an objection in it anywhere.

First you mention the Hundred Flowers campaign as if that reference could be related, but I'm guessing you just read about it and want to appear well read, so off the bat we have fluff without meaning.

Then you say that the red shift implies that the big bang happened, but that we are unsure of the first few moments. But so what? Does being unsure of the first few moments discount the whole thing? Is that your only objection?

Then you go on to say that they should be honest and say "we don't know" which, when it comes to the first few moments, that is exactly what they say, they say "we don't know". And you think that leaves room for the supernatural because you don't want finite steps in our origins to eliminate supernatural causes. You are glad that there is an unknown component (the first few moments) so that you can add God to it. But how is that an objection to the big bang?

If you want to better explain it then just explain it. Don't try to hide behind some first year university student image by throwing a bunch of fancy phrases together in order to look smart at the expense of not actually saying anything.

So my question still stands, what exactly is your objection to the big bang? Is it just the fact that we are unsure of the first few nanoseconds?

EDIT - Just read through your exchange with Gluadys, I see that you don't actually have an objection, you just misunderstand how philosophy is applied to science.

The "Hundred Flowers campaign" can be quickly found on Google. In it, Mao Zedong asked for criticism, then cracked down on the critics. I hoped this was not the case on this thread. I then attempted to give an honest answer, difficult as it was for me. Please stop insulting me for my answer to the question you posed.

Otherwise I think it best to refer your questions to the discussion Gluadys and I have had. Perhaps as of the "EDIT" you had not read my clarification to the effect that I do indeed have an objection to the Big Bang Theory a I believe it is often conceived. Gluadys and I discussed differences of definition too.

 

[samaus12345]

Progmonk where did carbon come from? And how/why is it incorporated into living things?

 

[Keachian]

Progmonk where did carbon come from? And how/why is it incorporated into living things?

God did it

 

[samaus12345]

yes i agree lol , what i was getting it is that per wiki the big bang produced H, He and Li, so you need stars forming out of only those 3 elements that can then synthesize/ come up with the rest? i was interested in the details of that?

 

[Keachian]

yes i agree lol , what i was getting it is that per wiki the big bang produced H, He and Li, so you need stars forming out of only those 3 elements that can then synthesize/ come up with the rest? i was interested in the details of that?

God's grace, providence and creativity working through solar fusion from my understanding, that's probably as far as I can go without also going to wiki or some other teaching resource.

 

[samaus12345]

Big Bang theory

"The evidence for a big bang having taken place about 15 to 20 billion years ago is overwhelming, so I naturally believe that it is the case. "

well open shut case

Also documented history goes back ~6000 years, if say people were here for 50,000 years how do you personally account for them not writing for 44,000 years?

 

[Keachian]

Big Bang theory

"The evidence for a big bang having taken place about 15 to 20 billion years ago is overwhelming, so I naturally believe that it is the case. "

well open shut case

I think it was a rather tactful response to what the emailers actual question was and by that I don't mean the bit you quoted but rather the bit talking about the why of the Big Bang.

Also documented history goes back ~6000 years, if say people were here for 50,000 years how do you personally account for them not writing for 44,000 years?

I assume you mean writing, no writing has only a history of about 5,000 years, but is writing the only form of communication, no, there's also artistry and verbal language which both are thought to greatly preceed actual writing, to be quite honest the need for writing only really came as economics developed to the point where promises were wanted to have some form of record in the bartering system and then was developed into the transmission of ideas that we see today. Writing is a bit of a leisure activity, writing what has happened over a time period even more so.

 

[samaus12345]

"the present is the key to the past" Man is writing today. Based on that philosophy man has always been writing. Yes i agree in this situation "the present is the key to the past". How are fossil formed? I know what i was indoctrinated into which took about 15 mins of logical thought to realise it was a FAIRYTALE but how do you think fossils are formed?

 

[Keachian]

"the present is the key to the past" Man is writing today. Based on that philosophy man has always been writing. Yes i agree in this situation "the present is the key to the past".

Well considering we go to great lengths to teach our children to read and write and have only consistently been doing so over the past 4 or 5 hundred years, I'm not sure how you can make the claim that it is natural for humans to write, it is natural for humans to communicate and that's a part of writing to be sure, but that is not something which separates us from animals either.

How are fossil formed? I know what i was indoctrinated into which took about 15 mins of logical thought to realise it was a FAIRYTALE but how do you think fossils are formed?

I don't understand why you keep talking about the actions of God as fairytales, and you seem to think that I'm the one dismissing God's work as fairytale.