• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The Big Bang Theory

edrogati

Active Member
Aug 4, 2008
232
34
50
Milton, Vermont
✟25,804.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Instead they appear to have been more concerned with the meaning of the passages than their factual content, which indicates that they didn't actually think there was any factual content to be had."

This is the conclusion that I don't think follows logically, just to clarify.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
"Instead they appear to have been more concerned with the meaning of the passages than their factual content, which indicates that they didn't actually think there was any factual content to be had."

This is the conclusion that I don't think follows logically, just to clarify.
Well, the only other alternative is that they were idiots who couldn't see an obvious contradiction when it was staring them in the face. I'd say that they didn't care is the far more optimistic explanation.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
IIRC, it was about 300,000 years after the beginning that the universe lost its opacity and the CMB occurred.

How do we know the photon at that time was not x-ray but visible light?
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
How do we know the photon at that time was not x-ray but visible light?
Because we can see those same photons today, and have measured the components of the universe. At a temperature of 2.7K, the photons would have been bright in the visible range (around 3000-4000K) when the universe was a thousand times smaller. Given that we now know quite a lot about how the universe has expanded, through measurements of the CMB, supernovae, and the distribution of galaxies, it is now just a matter of simple computation to state when the universe was at that temperature, which was around 300,000 years after inflation ended.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Because we can see those same photons today, and have measured the components of the universe. At a temperature of 2.7K, the photons would have been bright in the visible range (around 3000-4000K) when the universe was a thousand times smaller. Given that we now know quite a lot about how the universe has expanded, through measurements of the CMB, supernovae, and the distribution of galaxies, it is now just a matter of simple computation to state when the universe was at that temperature, which was around 300,000 years after inflation ended.

That is exactly what I am asking. Is the universe only "thousands" times smaller at 12, or even say, 8 billion years ago (when did the inflation end?)? It does not sound right.

Can the equation of calculation be shown?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,059
52,630
Guam
✟5,145,703.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You have my respect, for believing in the truth not lies like those Christians do.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but to an unregenerate scientist, "truth" is for the courtroom. To call the Big Bang Theory (or anything) "truth" is mislabeling it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wiccan_Child
Upvote 0

edrogati

Active Member
Aug 4, 2008
232
34
50
Milton, Vermont
✟25,804.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, the only other alternative is that they were idiots who couldn't see an obvious contradiction when it was staring them in the face. I'd say that they didn't care is the far more optimistic explanation.
Do we have any conclusive proof that they were written down at the same time by the same source? Sometimes contradictions arise when things are written at different times or by different people or both. If it was the same person at the same time, I might agree with you on the idiocy. The two together don't make much sense. However, as far as I've heard, there are numerous scholars that cite different origins for the two accounts and not necessarily just Christian Creationist ones.

On a different note and I know that I've tried to make this point before, I think that details were important to the writer or writers at some level, even with the first two chapters of Genesis being in disagreement. It's evidenced in each chapter if each is counted to stand on its own. Why go into such detail about sequence and content if the words were just meant to be metaphorical? It seems intended to set out a chronological order, whether it's 24 hour days or something else, and to describe specific events. Why do that if it's just a "celebration" as someone else said? Song of Solomon, as that person cited, is very obviously metaphorical and poetic, using various figures of speech to describe lovers. Genesis 1 doesn't use scientific language or concepts, but it doesn't seem to use much metaphor or symbolism either.

The bottom line is that I agree on the apparent contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. However, I don't agree that the account was intended to be anything less than a historical account, even if the language used to describe that history is less precise than may be wanted and describes a version of history that is hard to reconcile with modern scientific findings. The language just doesn't read like a poem, a parable or anything like that, at least not in the first chapter.

I'm not a YEC. It would be a major stretch to call me even an OEC. But I believe that God created the universe and that Genesis is history, no matter how imprecise or illogical that history is. The Sun, Moon and stars exist. There are plants and animals. The idea of mankind coming from materials that can be found on or in the surface layer of the Earth is sound, as far as I understand it. I don't mean an individual human, but rather the human race and even if you're starting at some common ancestor, the root of all life and the ultimate origin of humanity is there. And all of those things are described as taking place in that order in Genesis 1, regardless of how someone might read it otherwise for the purpose of finding fault with it.

I've described a theory for how to read the account and find things listed in that order. It came from Hugh Ross. Judging from the responses I've gotten, just as much fault is being found with him, his organization and their theories as any other theory out there attempting to reconcile faith and science. I have my answer to my original post. Thanks all.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
That is exactly what I am asking. Is the universe only "thousands" times smaller at 12, or even say, 8 billion years ago (when did the inflation end?)? It does not sound right.

Can the equation of calculation be shown?
Well, that's because the expansion has slowed with time. The expansion rate H (usually provided in units of km/sec/Megaparsec) is given by the following equation:

H^2 = H_0^2 * (Om / (a^3) + Or / (a^4) + Olambda)

Here are the other variables in the above equation:
H_0 = expansion rate today (about 70km/sec/Mpc).
Om = proportion of energy density today made up by matter (normal + dark, about 0.25).
Or = proportion of energy density today made up by radiation (about 10^-5)
Olambda = proportion of energy density today made up by dark energy (about 0.75)

a = scale factor of the universe. a = 1 today. a = 0.5 when the universe was half its current size, and so on.

For a bit of understanding why the above factors are the way they are, the above equation has to do with how things are diluted out. In general, the expansion rate goes as the energy density:
H^2 = 8*pi*G/3*rho

...where rho is the total energy density of the universe. So how the expansion rate changes with time depends upon how the energy density of the universe changes with time. So how do the various things dilute?

Well, normal matter is easy. Normal matter just goes by the volume. Increase the volume by a factor of a^3, and the density of the matter drops by a factor of a^3. Nice and easy: just divide by a^3.

Radiation is a tiny bit more difficult, because it doesn't just dilute. It also redshifts. So not only do the number of photons per volume drop by a^3, but the energy of each individual photon also drops by a factor of a. So the total drop in energy density is a^4.

And, if we assume that the dark energy is a cosmological constant (not yet known, but good enough for purposes of this calculation), then it doesn't dilute at all. Its energy density stays the same.

So here's the picture: in the very early universe, it was dominated by radiation. This stuff dilutes very rapidly, however, as a^4, and so it goes to small values pretty quickly. But during this epoch, the expansion rate of the universe would have been at its fastest.

Later, matter dominates. Again, the expansion rate is fast, but it's slowing. It doesn't slow quite as rapidly as radiation, but the matter still dilutes, and it still slows down.

Still later, dark energy comes to dominate. Here the dilution stops. Once all the matter and the radiation are diluted away to essentially nothing, we're left with a constant energy density, which is a constant expansion rate.

You may be a bit confused now about a particular point: why do we call it acceleration? It's because of what the scale factor (a) does in such a situation. The definition of the expansion rate is as follows:

H = 1/a * (da/dt).

So, if H = constant, then we have the differential equation:

da/dt = a*H

...in which case, the solution is:

a(t) = e^Ht

...which is exponential expansion! A constant expansion rate, then, leads to a scale factor which increases in scale at an accelerated pace. Looking carefully at the above equations shows that in the very early universe, the scale factor 'a' was increasing at an extremely rapid pace in the early universe, but under the influence of the dilution of radiation and later matter, it slowed down dramatically. Until, that is, the recent accelerating phase, where we're dominated by dark energy.

So, if you want to know the time to any given scale factor, all you need to do is integrate time:

t = integral from 0 to t (dt)

We can then use a simple change of variables knowing that H = 1/a * da/dt, to get:
dt = a*da/H

...to get the time to any point a is:

t = integral from 0 to a (a*da/H)

It then just becomes an exercise in performing a numerical integral, using the above definition of H given the known energy densities of the universe at the current time. For example, integrating the above equation (with the most accurate values for these parameters that we have) from 0 to 1 gives t = 13.7 billion years (since a = 1 now). Integrating from 0 to 0.001 gives t = 380,000 years (when a = 0.001, the universe was 1/1000th the size in each direction).
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Do we have any conclusive proof that they were written down at the same time by the same source? Sometimes contradictions arise when things are written at different times or by different people or both. If it was the same person at the same time, I might agree with you on the idiocy. The two together don't make much sense. However, as far as I've heard, there are numerous scholars that cite different origins for the two accounts and not necessarily just Christian Creationist ones.
Well, yes. That's exactly what happened. Genesis is itself an anthology, and even in the English translations this fact just leaps out at the reader. The content of the various works that make up Genesis were put together into one book, retaining all of their contradictions.

This reads, then, like the work of an historian of sorts, a person (or persons) who wished to preserve a set of cultural tales for posterity.

Why on Earth do people assume that this makes it the word of God? These are just a bunch of fables passed down through the generations, and finally put into a single tome, for crying out loud!
 
Upvote 0

ChordatesLegacy

Senior Member
Jun 21, 2007
1,896
133
65
✟25,261.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Good point. It rarely happened, but it does this time. Thank you.

So we could have "plant" that lives without light as long as the "ground" is fertile. It means, there could be plant(s) without the sun(light). We have many such examples on the Earth.

No; all plants photosynthesis, at deep sea vents the species are all fauna (animal not plant).

We have to be careful not to put our preconceived ideas on to what form and structure, life forms may take elsewhere in the Solar System of greater Universe
 
Upvote 0
T

tanzanos

Guest
You should not be blending the word of God with the cult of Sciences. We do not make God in our own head. Scientist can’t seem to make up there own minds, did we come from an explosion or did we come from monkeys. I find the whole theory laughable.

You should have said: " did we come from our parents or did we come from our grandparents".
In order for you to exist; matter has to exist, therefore the universe has to precede life. Not very difficult to understand!

The Big bang and evolution are two completely different theories. Secondly why don't you state which parts do you find laughable? I suspect you have read neither!

:confused::confused:
 
Upvote 0

edrogati

Active Member
Aug 4, 2008
232
34
50
Milton, Vermont
✟25,804.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, yes. That's exactly what happened. Genesis is itself an anthology, and even in the English translations this fact just leaps out at the reader. The content of the various works that make up Genesis were put together into one book, retaining all of their contradictions.

This reads, then, like the work of an historian of sorts, a person (or persons) who wished to preserve a set of cultural tales for posterity.

Why on Earth do people assume that this makes it the word of God? These are just a bunch of fables passed down through the generations, and finally put into a single tome, for crying out loud!
The collective experiences of those who have believed in God over the centuries speak to us about him from the pages of a compiled volume called the Bible. Since these people are dead, what we have left is the words that they left behind, the accounts of their lives in their own words and those of others. As these are the words of the people of God and that deity speaks through the words and actions of their lives, in a sense, that collection, the Bible, is the word of God.

As this compilation included the lives of people from numerous nations, time periods and cultural experiences and the same was true of those who recorded those lives, there are bound to be things that are apparently contradictory.

These were cultural stories, yes, but not mere tales or fables, as these were real people, not the Fox and the Hare or the Roman and Greek deities that were devised to explain things such as why the Sun moved across the sky or the phenomenon of lightning. Solomon was a real person, even though his ode to lovers was metaphorical and poetic. Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, even though he told parables and the events of his life and surrounding his life were often fantastic and beyond belief for many, even those that witnessed them (I don't find fault with those who, centuries later, don't believe they happened if those who were alive in Jesus' time didn't either).

OK, the bottom line is this; to those of us who live in an age when science is the judge of reality, finding things in ancient compilations of cultural history that can't easily be explained by that science is understandably problematic. However, dismissing them as false or tales or fables because our understanding of the past has much to be desired is a problematic conclusion as well.
 
Upvote 0
The collective experiences of those who have believed in God over the centuries speak to us about him from the pages of a compiled volume called the Bible. Since these people are dead, what we have left is the words that they left behind, the accounts of their lives in their own words and those of others. As these are the words of the people of God and that deity speaks through the words and actions of their lives, in a sense, that collection, the Bible, is the word of God.

As this compilation included the lives of people from numerous nations, time periods and cultural experiences and the same was true of those who recorded those lives, there are bound to be things that are apparently contradictory.
Unfortunately the people who wrote the bible were even more superstitious than
the people who believe the bible today, they knew nothing about the world they lived in,
read some history books that relate to the period, if you knew how they thought you would be amazed,
some of the things they believed would take your breath away.
they thought thunder and lightening and catastrophes were the result of God being angry,
do you really want to believe the same things they believed then?
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
H^2 = H_0^2 * (Om / (a^3) + Or / (a^4) + Olambda)

a = scale factor of the universe. a = 1 today. a = 0.5 when the universe was half its current size, and so on.

H^2 = 8*pi*G/3*rho

H = 1/a * (da/dt).

Thanks for typing all this up. Is there a name for any of these equations?

It seems the factor "a" is critical. I don't really know what it is. It is so called the "size". But is it volume? If it is, then why does it take the third power in the equation for material?
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟23,498.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
No; all plants photosynthesis,
Well, if memory serves there are a few plants proper that don't (including Rafflesia, IIRC). Of course these creatures are parasites and dependent on plants that do photosynthesise.

at deep sea vents the species are all fauna (animal not plant).
Yeah, except for the bacteria and archaea the whole community is based on ;)

Of course the argument was about "plants before the sun" and not "autotrophs before the sun", but still my heart weeps for all the neglected prokaryotes ;)

We have to be careful not to put our preconceived ideas on to what form and structure, life forms may take elsewhere in the Solar System of greater Universe
Totally agreed, even if it's pretty much impossible to avoid.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Well, if memory serves there are a few plants proper that don't (including Rafflesia, IIRC). Of course these creatures are parasites and dependent on plants that do photosynthesise.

Yeah, except for the bacteria and archaea the whole community is based on ;)

Of course the argument was about "plants before the sun" and not "autotrophs before the sun", but still my heart weeps for all the neglected prokaryotes ;)

Totally agreed, even if it's pretty much impossible to avoid.

I think a correct way to read it should be "having plants before OUR sun". Suns are made all the time everywhere since the big bang. Why should plants only appear on the Earth in the solar system?
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟23,498.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I think a correct way to read it should be "having plants before OUR sun". Suns are made all the time everywhere since the big bang. Why should plants only appear on the Earth in the solar system?
Aaaahh! :doh::idea: So I've been missing the point all along?

Yes, that makes perfect sense, though they wouldn't be plants in the taxonomic sense.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Thanks for typing all this up. Is there a name for any of these equations?

It seems the factor "a" is critical. I don't really know what it is. It is so called the "size". But is it volume? If it is, then why does it take the third power in the equation for material?
The equation relating energy density to expansion rate is the the first of the Friedmann equations. That's the only named equation there. It can be derived in a few minutes from Einstein's equations with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy, and in this case zero spatial curvature (didn't feel like unnecessarily complicating things).

The factor "a" is the scale factor of the universe. If you imagine a hypothetical cube in the early universe that expands along with the universe, then each side of the cube expands by a factor of 'a', and the volume increases by a^3.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The factor "a" is the scale factor of the universe. If you imagine a hypothetical cube in the early universe that expands along with the universe, then each side of the cube expands by a factor of 'a', and the volume increases by a^3.

That was my first impression. The "a" is like the length on each side of a cube.

But you explained:
a = scale factor of the universe. a = 1 today. a = 0.5 when the universe was half its current size, and so on
.

Then the "a" would sounds like a volume. If it is volume, then what is the cube of a volume?

Anyway, I will try to check the Friedmann Equation to see if I could understand anything. Thanks.
 
Upvote 0