The Big Bang is not random

[servantx]

Randomness cannot create order. You can try that with a computer or calculator.

When I look at the sky, seeing the stars, the Sun and the Moon moves in the way that can be calculated by computer, look at the calender.

And I know that, this galaxy did not come out suddenly in random Big Bang, for if it starts in random possibility, everything in this world will remain in random out of order, but indeed many things in this world can be calculated (look all scientistist, they all use computer to calculate different things), as long as the nature can be calculated in numbers (include DNA), it is a sign that this ordered world is made in order.

So the plants grow by season by season, the stars move around years by years, IN ORDER, by seeing this awesome creation of the world, I see there is a creator. And it is an intelligent design.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Randomness cannot create order. You can try that with a computer or calculator.

When I look at the sky, seeing the stars, the Sun and the Moon moves in the way that can be calculated by computer, look at the calender.



And I know that, this galaxy did not come out suddenly in random Big Bang, for if it starts in random possibility, everything in this world will remain in random out of order, but indeed many things in this world can be calculated (look all scientistist, they all use computer to calculate different things), as long as the nature can be calculated in numbers (include DNA), it is a sign that this ordered world is made in order.



So the plants grow by season by season, the stars move around years by years, IN ORDER, by seeing this awesome creation of the world, I see there is a creator. And it is an intelligent design.

So you are going to reject thousands of years worth of knowledge about God's creation and how it works because of you own personal, made-up, definition of "random"?

 

[servantx]

So you are going to reject thousands of years worth of knowledge about God's creation and how it works because of you own personal, made-up, definition of "random"?

No, I am saying that because this world is in order so the Big Bang Theory is wrong.

I believe in Creation, but not 6 "24-hours" day creation because in Day 1 the Sun was not set yet.

Also, there is a possible cosmic explosion at the beginning because God said "let there be light, and there was light", a cosmic explosion can be the light source as result of God's command.

by the way, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Randomness cannot create order. You can try that with a computer or calculator.

When I look at the sky, seeing the stars, the Sun and the Moon moves in the way that can be calculated by computer, look at the calender.

And I know that, this galaxy did not come out suddenly in random Big Bang, for if it starts in random possibility, everything in this world will remain in random out of order, but indeed many things in this world can be calculated (look all scientistist, they all use computer to calculate different things), as long as the nature can be calculated in numbers (include DNA), it is a sign that this ordered world is made in order.

So the plants grow by season by season, the stars move around years by years, IN ORDER, by seeing this awesome creation of the world, I see there is a creator. And it is an intelligent design.

actually, randomness can create order.
google genetic algorithms or the game of life or Thomas Ray's tierra for example examples of exactly how.

 

[servantx]

actually, randomness can create order.
google genetic algorithms or the game of life or Thomas Ray's tierra for example examples of exactly how.

But genetic algorithms need biological process of "reproduction" in order to work, Would you please explain how did this galaxy's planets and stars start and/or "reproduce" in random and turns into regular orderly orbits?

I do not understand.

 

[shernren]

What exactly are you trying to say? There are two kinds of "wrong" on this forum that some people don't really learn to distinguish: scientifically wrong, and theologically wrong.

The Big Bang is not theologically wrong unless you can show me conclusively that God would not have used a Big Bang.

The Big Bang is not scientifically wrong unless you can show me a scientific phenomenon that the Big Bang cannot explain but another pet scientific creationist theory can.

Up to you now. Ball's in your court.

 

[notto]

No, I am saying that because this world is in order so the Big Bang Theory is wrong.

Where does the Big Bang theory say anything about lack of order?
Please be specific and point us to the origin of your claim.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

But genetic algorithms need biological process of "reproduction" in order to work, Would you please explain how did this galaxy's planets and stars start and/or "reproduce" in random and turns into regular orderly orbits?

I do not understand.

your answer demonstrates that you did not research what GAs are.


Pastor Braum told me that everyone has a right to their opinion but that no one has a right to demand that i take their opinion seriously unless they have done their homework.

if you wish you learn, you must study.

i'll be glad to discuss the issue with you, after you demonstrate that you are interested enough to actually go out and learn from the posters here.

sorry for the stridence but i am tired of people who don't do their homework and demand my attention to their words.

....

 

[servantx]

your answer demonstrates that you did not research what GAs are.


Pastor Braum told me that everyone has a right to their opinion but that no one has a right to demand that i take their opinion seriously unless they have done their homework.

if you wish you learn, you must study.

i'll be glad to discuss the issue with you, after you demonstrate that you are interested enough to actually go out and learn from the posters here.

sorry for the stridence but i am tired of people who don't do their homework and demand my attention to their words.

....

No, I actually did some researches before asking that question yesterday.

"Genetic Algorithm is a model of machine learning which derives
its behavior from a metaphor of some of the mechanisms of EVOLUTION
in nature. "

Basically it is applying an algorithm (order), putting onto an initialized "random" units.

The algorithm itself is not "random" but "intellegence" with orders (It is A.I.).


This is the computer pseudo code of Genetic Algorithm.

PSEUDO CODE
Algorithm GA is

// start with an initial time
t := 0;

// initialize a usually random population of individuals
initpopulation P (t);

// evaluate fitness of all initial individuals of population
evaluate P (t);

// test for termination criterion (time, fitness, etc.)
while not done do
// increase the time counter
t := t + 1;

// select a sub-population for offspring production
P' := selectparents P (t);

// recombine the "genes" of selected parents
recombine P' (t);

// perturb the mated population stochastically
mutate P' (t);

// evaluate its new fitness
evaluate P' (t);

// select the survivors from actual fitness
P := survive P,P' (t);
od
end GA.



Now back to the "random" I discussed earler. The big bang is usually defined as a random, chance event. Without an intellgence of "order" it cannot bang by itself in random chances.

Now, our galaxy is rotating at a speed that only permits from 45 to 60 rotations since the big bang. Which is not a long enough time for it to achieve its spiral shape.

 

[servantx]

What exactly are you trying to say? There are two kinds of "wrong" on this forum that some people don't really learn to distinguish: scientifically wrong, and theologically wrong.

The Big Bang is not theologically wrong unless you can show me conclusively that God would not have used a Big Bang.

The Big Bang is not scientifically wrong unless you can show me a scientific phenomenon that the Big Bang cannot explain but another pet scientific creationist theory can.

Up to you now. Ball's in your court.

Big Bang is theologically wrong because it is defined as a random, chance event while theologically there is a Creator/intelligent who started it, not by random.

Big Bang is scientifically wrong because Our galaxy is rotating at a speed that only permits from 45 to 60 rotations since the big bang. Which is not a long enough time for it to achieve its spiral shape.


Also, here is an interesting scientistific point about the Creation between Earth and the Sun.

"Even our earth is thought to be 5 billion years old, and is expected to exist for another 5 billion years before the sun expands and swallows it up. The atoms and molecules of the earth are thought to have been generated in previous stars that went through several cycles of supernovae. Even though supernovae are thought to last only fraction of our sun's lifetime, it is highly improbable that there is sufficient time for these cycles to have occurred since a big bang."

Comparing to the biblical creation, God said he "set" the Sun to the current position (notice: putting a thing on a place means setting the location between the two relative objects, in this case, between Sun and Earth)

Genesis 1:17-18

17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.


Now comparing the Science and the Bible, they match.

 

[tel0004]

I support the big bang theory, read my signature

 

[LewisWildermuth]

No, I am saying that because this world is in order so the Big Bang Theory is wrong.

I believe in Creation, but not 6 "24-hours" day creation because in Day 1 the Sun was not set yet.

Also, there is a possible cosmic explosion at the beginning because God said "let there be light, and there was light", a cosmic explosion can be the light source as result of God's command.

by the way, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

Okay, could you tell me the definition of random you are using and exactly how it would show the big bang theory to be wrong?

 

[servantx]

Okay, could you tell me the definition of random you are using and exactly how it would show the big bang theory to be wrong?

The definition of random I am using is that big bang theory states that it started by "random chance" processes by itself instead of any external causes.


Big Bang is theologically wrong because it is defined as a random, chance event while theologically there is a Creator/intelligent who started it, not by random.

Big Bang is scientifically wrong because Our galaxy is rotating at a speed that only permits from 45 to 60 rotations since the big bang. Which is not a long enough time for it to achieve its spiral shape.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Okay, you seem to have a problem with the word "random".



How about if we change the sentence you seem to have a problem with to state:



The big bang theory states that it started by an event that we do not have enough knowledge about to predict or state what it is.



Would that be better?



As far as the galaxies shape, I think you will find that the whirlpool that forms in you sink is round in shape in far fewer revolutions than 60, why should the galaxy be any different?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The definition of random I am using is that big bang theory states that it started by "random chance" processes by itself instead of any external causes.


Big Bang is theologically wrong because it is defined as a random, chance event while theologically there is a Creator/intelligent who started it, not by random.

Big Bang is scientifically wrong because Our galaxy is rotating at a speed that only permits from 45 to 60 rotations since the big bang. Which is not a long enough time for it to achieve its spiral shape.

it might be easier if you told us where you got this definition, so we can read the context of the statement. then you can explain what these processes are(involved in the BB) and then how you disagree with that writer about how they are random. as is we have precious little to understand about what you mean.

 

[servantx]

it might be easier if you told us where you got this definition, so we can read the context of the statement. then you can explain what these processes are(involved in the BB) and then how you disagree with that writer about how they are random. as is we have precious little to understand about what you mean.

goto:www_msnbc_msn_com/id/6348252/

(please replace "_" to "." on the url, this forum does not allow me to post links)

"In a universe of finite entropy, some scientists have proposed that a random fluctuation could trigger inflation. This, however, would require the molecules of the universe to fluctuate from a high-entropy state into one of low entropy — a statistical long shot."

I disagree with it because that random process of starting a bang has possibility of near zero.

As you see in the pseudo code of Genetic Algorithm, the random natural process of evolution model needs:

Initializing "time", starting from Time 0

When there is no time at the beginning "before Time 0", it is eternal (God is in eternal state), and without time, there is no process.

When there is no time, there is no chances. Therefore no random natural process can be possible to start a bang.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Well servantx, could you please reply to this?

Okay, you seem to have a problem with the word "random".



How about if we change the sentence you seem to have a problem with to state:



The big bang theory states that it started by an event that we do not have enough knowledge about to predict or state what it is.



Would that be better?



As far as the galaxies shape, I think you will find that the whirlpool that forms in you sink is round in shape in far fewer revolutions than 60, why should the galaxy be any different?

 

[notto]

No, I am saying that because this world is in order so the Big Bang Theory is wrong.

Why do you come to the conclusion that a process that started with a random fluctionation can't create order?

Where does the big bang theory state anything about a lack of order?

You seem to be mixing the terms random, chance, and order.

 

[servantx]

Okay, you seem to have a problem with the word "random".



How about if we change the sentence you seem to have a problem with to state:



The big bang theory states that it started by an event that we do not have enough knowledge about to predict or state what it is.



Would that be better?



As far as the galaxies shape, I think you will find that the whirlpool that forms in you sink is round in shape in far fewer revolutions than 60, why should the galaxy be any different?

There is possibility that the bang could be there, but for sure not by a random chance as the theory suggested.

And about the galaxy shape, the sink example has a force to absorb units inward into the centre of the sink, which is different from the bang which is expanding the units outward in a spiral circle, scientists studied by seeing the shift of the spectum of the stars, red shift means going outward, and hence they found the moving speed of the stars in this galaxy, and the rate of expansion of it's size. When you have a big bang, (explosion), the particles, stars and planets goes out randomly (like an atomic bomb), it needs to take a long time with a huge gravitational force to turn it into spiral shape like current. Scientist tried to calculate it and they found that even up to 40 to 60 rotations the galaxy cannot draw the stars and planets from random places resulted from the bang into achieving its spiral shape with gravitation.

Think about this, if you put a small amount of small stones and sand into a half filled water bottle, and then you shake the bottle in circle slowly to create a spiral shape on the surface of water inside the bottle, how long does it take to make the spins so that the items inside the water move in circle? Remember this galaxy turns very very slowly, not enough time from the bang to achieve it's current shape.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

There is possibility that the bang could be there, but for sure not by a random chance as the theory suggested.

You keep on saying this but provide no evidence or reason why it is so. Why should I believe you with no evidence?

And about the galaxy shape, the sink example has a force to absorb units inward into the centre of the sink, which is different from the bang which is expanding the units outward in a spiral circle, scientists studied by seeing the shift of the spectum of the stars, red shift means going outward, and hence they found the moving speed of the stars in this galaxy, and the rate of expansion of it's size. When you have a big bang, (explosion), the particles, stars and planets goes out randomly (like an atomic bomb), it needs to take a long time with a huge gravitational force to turn it into spiral shape like current. Scientist tried to calculate it and they found that even up to 40 to 60 rotations the galaxy cannot draw the stars and planets from random places resulted from the bang into achieving its spiral shape with gravitation.

Think about this, if you put a small amount of small stones and sand into a half filled water bottle, and then you shake the bottle in circle slowly to create a spiral shape on the surface of water inside the bottle, how long does it take to make the spins so that the items inside the water move in circle? Remember this galaxy turns very very slowly, not enough time from the bang to achieve it's current shape.

But in your exampse the rocks have to overcome the gravity of the Earth, a force working to keep them still. There is no such force to keep the stars from moving. Even a body as small as the Earth can cause the sun to wobble in space.

You also seem to not have studied the Big Bang Theory much either, otherwise you would have never called it an explosion.

Your examples are lacking, you display ignorance of even the basics of the Big Bang theory, you provide no evidence that your conclusion is correct. Again, why should I believe a word you say about things you seem to have no grasp of?