The Big Bang Theory

[Cabal]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


Okay I cant keep this up anymore, sorry guys, Yes, this is a prank message. I got board with debating Creationist after awhile and I just wanted to see what it be like on other side for a change.

Did I fool any one?

Sorry to get off subject.

Dude! I need to get my Poe filters checked....

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


Okay I cant keep this up anymore, sorry guys, Yes, this is a prank message. I got board with debating Creationist after awhile and I just wanted to see what it be like on other side for a change.

Did I fool any one?

Sorry to get off subject.

im sorry, did i smell it too soon?

 

[Chalnoth]

We weren't there to see it; but I'll bet "there was light!"

The earliest epoch of the universe which we can observe, inflation, was completely empty except for the field that drove inflation. There was no light, no other matter of any kind. Just this one, very high-energy field. When that field decayed, then came an extremely hot soup, so hot that today we don't yet understand physics well enough to say precisely what it was. But what we can say is that it was full of all sorts of particles, including photons (light).

But regardless of these rather small inaccuracies of the statement early in Genesis, "Let there be light," what precedes that statement makes no sense whatsoever in the early universe.

Consider what it says in Genesis 1:
" 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."


Note the first statement: God created the heaven and the earth.


This makes no sense! Even though you might call the post-inflation hot soup "light" in some sense, there was nothing at all that might be called the earth at that time! It simply makes no sense! All that existed within our region of the universe was this obscenely smooth, uniform field that drove inflation.


The words "face of the deep" and "face of the waters" also make no sense whatsoever at this epoch of the universe: there was no water, or any fluid that was anything like water, and there was no boundary that might be called a "face".


Finally, there was no "let there be" going on: the "light" came from a fully naturalistic process, the decay of the inflaton field. To say "let there be light" here would be like timing a stop light and saying "Turn green!" at just the right time, and expect your friends to be amazed when you get the timing right.


Things only get worse when you try to shoehorn the rest of this primitive creation myth into science.

 

[juvenissun]

Note the first statement: God created the heaven and the earth.


This makes no sense! Even though you might call the post-inflation hot soup "light" in some sense, there was nothing at all that might be called the earth at that time! It simply makes no sense! All that existed within our region of the universe was this obscenely smooth, uniform field that drove inflation.

Why no sense? Can physics define "heaven" or "heavens"? If not, why do you say it makes no sense?

What you can say is: you do not understand. Just like you said that physics is not understood at many places in the universe. The physics at interior of the sun is probably enough to humble all physicists.

This is not a science problem, it is an attitude problem. Why don't you say the black hole "makes no sense"? Or our sun "makes no sense"?

 

[Chalnoth]

Why no sense? Can physics define "heaven" or "heavens"? If not, why do you say it makes no sense?

What you can say is: you do not understand. Just like you said that physics is not understood at many places in the universe. The physics at interior of the sun is probably enough to humble all physicists.

This is not a science problem, it is an attitude problem. Why don't you say the black hole "makes no sense"? Or our sun "makes no sense"?

Because it's describing nothing that resembles the state of the early universe.

Look, what it's describing is plain and clear. First, God made the heavens (the sky) and the earth (which was, at that time, nothing but sea). God, moving over the face of this great sea, decided some light would be a good thing, and made it so.

That is what Genesis 1 is saying, and that description is nothing whatsoever like a description of the early universe.

 

[Paconious]

Why no sense? Can physics define "heaven" or "heavens"? If not, why do you say it makes no sense?

Are you speaking of the stratosphere? The ozone layer? or a mythical place where fairys and deitys rule the world? Two out of three make total sense.

What you can say is: you do not understand. Just like you said that physics is not understood at many places in the universe. The physics at interior of the sun is probably enough to humble all physicists.

Indeed it is. the sun is the biggest nuclear reactor that man will ever come across. But man can understand and is in fact building a little sun of his own. The international Tokomak (sp?) will humble us all.

 

[Belk]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


Okay I cant keep this up anymore, sorry guys, Yes, this is a prank message. I got board with debating Creationist after awhile and I just wanted to see what it be like on other side for a change.

Did I fool any one?

Sorry to get off subject.

Dang it! You got me. Well played sir.

 

[BananaSlug]

The various misspellings gave it away but he still played a good creationists.

 

[juvenissun]

Because it's describing nothing that resembles the state of the early universe.

Look, what it's describing is plain and clear. First, God made the heavens (the sky) and the earth (which was, at that time, nothing but sea). God, moving over the face of this great sea, decided some light would be a good thing, and made it so.

That is what Genesis 1 is saying, and that description is nothing whatsoever like a description of the early universe.

I use your word: sky. If there were sky, then there was place where it was not sky.

Want to try again?

 

[Chalnoth]

I use your word: sky. If there were sky, then there was place where it was not sky.

Want to try again?

Not in the early universe. In the very early universe, the entire region which now makes up everything that we can see was a smooth, uniform stretch. There was no division between one sort of place and another: it was all the same.

 

[edrogati]

Because it's describing nothing that resembles the state of the early universe.

Look, what it's describing is plain and clear. First, God made the heavens (the sky) and the earth (which was, at that time, nothing but sea). God, moving over the face of this great sea, decided some light would be a good thing, and made it so.

That is what Genesis 1 is saying, and that description is nothing whatsoever like a description of the early universe.

I've heard one theory that puts a different spin on it. It says basically that the first verse of Genesis is all of the description there is about the origin of the earth, moon and stars, including the sun and from there on, the account describes what things would look like to an observer moving over the surface of the great sea, as you put it. The atmosphere of the earth was at first opaque, so nothing was visible, it was formless and void. Gradually, the atmosphere became translucent as in "let there be light". Skipping a bit, the idea is then that the moon, sun and the other stars were not created later than the light was, but that they became visible through an increasingly transparent atmosphere. There's more to the theory, I guess, but that's the basics of a different view that someone has (not I) come up with.

 

[huldah153]

Well, if you've read any of my posts on this subject, you can tell I am a strong believer in the Big Bang Theory.

I think that it's very similar to evolution in the sense that it's very misunderstood scientific theory (he name itslef and give people wrong ideas of what it is). I'll admit there are a few unknowns about it here and there, but for the most part it's pretty solid.

So what do you guys think about this?

It seems that in order to have a Big Bang, we also have to have dark matter, which is a fact-deprived religious dogma of its own. I think that humans tend to overestimate their ability to understand the universe.

Some Christians believe that the Big Bang has theistic implications, but I don't see it as anything other than a naturalistic process derived from nothing.

 

[juvenissun]

Not in the early universe. In the very early universe, the entire region which now makes up everything that we can see was a smooth, uniform stretch. There was no division between one sort of place and another: it was all the same.

The "heavens and earth" and the "early universe" are two different things. The beginning of this universe may not be the beginning of time, thus, is not the beginning of the "heavens and the earth"

 

[Chalnoth]

I've heard one theory that puts a different spin on it. It says basically that the first verse of Genesis is all of the description there is about the origin of the earth, moon and stars, including the sun and from there on, the account describes what things would look like to an observer moving over the surface of the great sea, as you put it. The atmosphere of the earth was at first opaque, so nothing was visible, it was formless and void. Gradually, the atmosphere became translucent as in "let there be light". Skipping a bit, the idea is then that the moon, sun and the other stars were not created later than the light was, but that they became visible through an increasingly transparent atmosphere. There's more to the theory, I guess, but that's the basics of a different view that someone has (not I) come up with.

It still doesn't make any sense, though, because there was no earth in the early universe. The Earth formed after the Sun, and was at first incredibly hot, too hot for liquid water to exist on its surface. So it doesn't make sense there either.

Look, the fact of the matter is that if you're willing to completely overlook the facts, you can shoehorn any creation myth into reality. But if you pay attention to the facts, then no creation myth actually fits to any reasonable degree of accuracy.

If God actually wrote your book, for example, why are there no pearls of wisdom that nobody could have known about at that time, such as "the Sun is a star"?

 

[Chalnoth]

The "heavens and earth" and the "early universe" are two different things. The beginning of this universe may not be the beginning of time, thus, is not the beginning of the "heavens and the earth"

No, the beginning of the "heavens and the earth" took place much, much later.

 

[Chalnoth]

It seems that in order to have a Big Bang, we also have to have dark matter, which is a fact-deprived religious dogma of its own. I think that humans tend to overestimate their ability to understand the universe.

Heh. You wish. Here, dark matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

In this observation, the collision of two galaxy clusters separated the normal matter from the dark matter. And when we look at the distortion of background galaxies, lo and behold, we find that that distortion is centered around where the dark matter would be, not around the normal matter.

So you're wrong.

 

[huldah153]

Heh. You wish. Here, dark matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

In this observation, the collision of two galaxy clusters separated the normal matter from the dark matter. And when we look at the distortion of background galaxies, lo and behold, we find that that distortion is centered around where the dark matter would be, not around the normal matter.

So you're wrong.

Wikipedia refers to dark matter as hypothesis, meaning it's not a fact.

But interestingly enough, I have also read that the Bullet Cluster contradicts the Big Bang.

 

[Chalnoth]

Wikipedia refers to dark matter as hypothesis, meaning it's not a fact.

Oh, it's pretty much confirmed today. There are still some people that claim that MOND can explain current observations, but those are getting more and more ridiculous all the time. However, nobody who has any reasonable knowledge of modern astrophysics doubts the big bang. It's far, far too strongly evidenced for that.

But interestingly enough, I have also read that the Bullet Cluster contradicts the Big Bang.

Halton Arp is a nut that has no clue what he's talking about. In this case, the article doesn't even offer a semblance of an argument as to why the Bullet Cluster "contradicts the Big Bang". Arp is just making the same tired old specious claims about redshift being unreliable (a patently absurd claim) and statistical closeness of "near" and "far" objects (which is due to selection effects: astronomical pictures are often reused, and so far away objects are often found near closer objects that were the original target of the study). His argument is entirely "Your assumptions are invalid!" instead of any positive evidence for his own theories.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Obvious poe was so obvious. Fail.

 

[edrogati]

It still doesn't make any sense, though, because there was no earth in the early universe. The Earth formed after the Sun, and was at first incredibly hot, too hot for liquid water to exist on its surface. So it doesn't make sense there either.

I didn't make the assertion that the earth was created in the early universe. I didn't assert that the Earth formed before the Sun. I didn't say that the water was there at first. I'm not sure why you're replying to my post to make these contentions.

Look, the fact of the matter is that if you're willing to completely overlook the facts, you can shoehorn any creation myth into reality. But if you pay attention to the facts, then no creation myth actually fits to any reasonable degree of accuracy.

We had an opaque atmosphere at one point. It became translucent. It is now largely transparent. All of these things were in the theory I cited. And the only "shoehorn" activity I undertook was to say that the rest of the creation account after "the spirit hovered over the face of the waters" continues on from that viewpoint.

If God actually wrote your book, for example, why are there no pearls of wisdom that nobody could have known about at that time, such as "the Sun is a star"?

I'm not going to get into another one of these God proof threads.