To all athiests out there: bring it on

[food4thought]

lucaspa: I appreciate the honesty and willingness to give reasons behind your beliefs, but I do have to disagree because the evidense you propose strongly supports big bang thoery could also be included in the creation model. The problem with the evidense for the big bang theory isn't (for the most part) with the quality of the information (ie- observation), but with the interpretation given to it. It is an immense universe out there, and many alternative explainations are possible for each observation. For instance, there are an estimated 10 to the 25th power stars in the universe, and we have no clue how much radiation could have emmitted from these stars/quasars/black holes/etc in the past. As a matter of fact, we can only assume the ammount of radiation any star but the sun is giving out at this moment... because they are too distant to accurately measure!!!

The most devastating problem with the theory, though, is that it blatantly contradicts two of the most solidly proven laws of physics and chemistry: the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

First law: Conservation- matter and energy are not being created or destroyed. The big bang theory breaks this law into a trillion galaxies right at the start. The big bang says (in a nutshell)"In the beginning there was nothing... then it exploded!?!" The big bang is no different from the creation model on this point, because both resort to a supernatural (that which cannot be explained within natural law) origin of the universe.

Second Law: Entropy- we all know this one... and I think that a few arguments against these facts can be anticipated; like "you can't apply those laws to these things" or " that only applies to a closed system". Well, these laws do apply to the universe, but don't take my word for it, ask any physicist or chemist. And unless you are going to invoke more supernatural reasons for the origin of the universe, you are stuck with the universe and evidense that we can observe and test, meaning that for all we can observe and test, we live in a closed system we call a universe. By the way, in order to have quantum fluctuations in space, there must be space, which Einstein indicated had a beginning (space and time being one physical entity).

Finally, in support of the Bible, you have numerous examples of prophecy being fulfilled, the most obvious one for a non-believer is the existance of the nation Israel in their homeland after almost 2000 years of dispersion. The regathering of Israel to their homeland is detailed quite exactly in Ezekiel chapter 37. There are plenty more where that came from, but if that one doesn't at least get you asking questions about who the real Author of the Bible is, I won't waste the space on this sight's server.

Please at least read this short chapter in the Bible before answering.

By the way, I'm not familliar with the info about neutrinos you listed in your posting, lucaspa. Could you give me some info on where I could read up a little?

 

[sulphur]

The evidence for the big bang is based on many on astronomical evidence and then consolidated by studies in physics, chemistry.geologyand biology which you seem to have dismissed.As for neutrinos there has been ample evidence around for 30 years

 

[lithium.]

food4thought:

You might want to look at this site below. Its one of my favorite sites that show evidence for the big bang.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by webboffin
evidence, evidence, evidence yet Jesus was evidence too

Yes, but not of evolution or creationism.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by food4thought lucaspa: I appreciate the honesty and willingness to give reasons behind your beliefs,

What "beliefs"?  We are discussing a scientific theory, not my personal beliefs about deity. 

I do have to disagree because the evidense you propose strongly supports big bang thoery could also be included in the creation model.

And how do you do that? Or rather, which "craation model"?  Hugh Ross thinks BB is strong evidence that God created  www.reasons.org.  You apparently think the opposite. 

For instance, there are an estimated 10 to the 25th power stars in the universe, and we have no clue how much radiation could have emmitted from these stars/quasars/black holes/etc in the past.

It's not the amount, it's the wavelength that falsifies this idea.  We see and measure the wavelengths the stars/quasars (black holes don't emit enough to matter) put out in the past because we are observing what they put out in the past (lightspeed, remember?).  It's also the humps in intensity in the radiation in position of where they appear.  The wavelength and humps were predicted in advance of finding the data by the theory of BB.  They were not predicted by any theory on light emission by stars/quasars and, in fact, can't be accounted for by them.  So your "alternative interpretation" doesn't exist.

 As a matter of fact, we can only assume the ammount of radiation any star but the sun is giving out at this moment... because they are too distant to accurately measure!!!

Nonsense.  We can collect the photons, calculate distance, and then calculate amount of radiation emitted by taking the percentage we receive (from the area of our collector) and multiplying that by the area of the sphere at the distance we are at from the star to get all the radiation.  What we get, of course, is the amount of radiation the star was giving out then, because lightspeed means we are looking into the past. Even with the sun we are measuring what the sun put out 8 minutes ago, not what it is putting out at this second.

The most devastating problem with the theory, though, is that it blatantly contradicts two of the most solidly proven laws of physics and chemistry:

If it really did so, do you seriously think that anyone would accept it? C'mon, science rejects hypotheses all the time.  


First law: Conservation- matter and energy are not being created or destroyed. The big bang theory breaks this law into a trillion galaxies right at the start. The big bang says (in a nutshell)"In the beginning there was nothing... then it exploded!?!" The big bang is no different from the creation model on this point, because both resort to a supernatural (that which cannot be explained within natural law) origin of the universe.

"Laws" describe behavior within the universe.  IOW, they (and theories) have boundary limits.  First Law describes the condition within the universe now; it is not a description of getting a universe to begin with.

I never said BB ruled out a deity.  In fact, in several threads (including this one, I think) I listed deity as one of the 5 hypotheses for the cause of the BB.

Second Law: Entropy- we all know this one... and I think that a few arguments against these facts can be anticipated; like "you can't apply those laws to these things" or " that only applies to a closed system". Well, these laws do apply to the universe,

Yes, entropy does apply, but not the way you think.  Entropy describes behavior within the universe.  The universe as a whole is moving toward maximum entropy. But BB has all the matter/energy in one place at one time.  That is the least amount of entropy possible.  Think of a cylinder of compressed gas.  It has very low entropy because the gas is all concentrated in one place. Open the valve and you get increased entropy as the gas spreads out through the room.  The universe is like that.  Minimum entropy at the BB and increasing entropy since then.

 but don't take my word for it, ask any physicist or chemist.

Since my undergraduate degree is Chemistry, you just asked a chemist.   

By the way, in order to have quantum fluctuations in space, there must be space, which Einstein indicated had a beginning (space and time being one physical entity).

Correct.  One of the attractions of String Theory (now M theory) is that the equations show that spacetime can also appear due to quantum fluctuations.  That removes your problems and keeps quantum fluctuation as one of the possible hypotheses.

Finally, in support of the Bible, you have numerous examples of prophecy being fulfilled,

Statements and claims in the Bible must be taken separately.  If you really mean that finding one supported means all are supported means you have to accept the corollary that if one is wrong, then all are wrong.  Therefore, since Jesus got the relative size of the mustard seed wrong, then all the Bible must also be false, right? 

the most obvious one for a non-believer is the existance of the nation Israel in their homeland after almost 2000 years of dispersion. The regathering of Israel to their homeland is detailed quite exactly in Ezekiel chapter 37.

I've read Ezekiel 37.  How do you account for these verses:  22: And I will make them one nation in the land of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall no more be two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all"?

A king??!! Israel doesn't have a king. Also, there weren't "two kingdoms" before Israel was formed.  Finally, I don't see any time frame in all of Ezekiel 37. Were did you get 2,000 years?  Whatever this may be prophecy of, it isn't modern Israel.

There are plenty more where that came from, but if that one doesn't at least get you asking questions about who the real Author of the Bible is, I won't waste the space on this sight's server.

  One more time.  Food4thought, this board isn't discussing whether there is a God or whether that God, Yahweh, inspired the Bible.  What we are discussing are 1) two different options of how God created and 2) specific scientific theories.

I am certainly not trying to change your beliefs and say you shouldn't believe.  You are doing that because, along with the professional creationists you read, you have made a tragic logical mistake: you have tied untestable statements about the existence of God and whether God created to very testable statements of a particular how God created. Therefore, you feel that if God didn't create the way you say, then God doesn't exist and doesn't create.

Science doesn't make that mistake.  Science is agnostic toward the existence of God and whether God created. All science does is tell you that, if there is a God, then this is how God created. 

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."  James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

By the way, I'm not familliar with the info about neutrinos you listed in your posting, lucaspa. Could you give me some info on where I could read up a little?

http://www.ids.ias.edu/~piet/act/phys/bang/
http://wwwlapp.in2p3.fr/neutrinos/aneut.html

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by food4thought By the way, I'm not familliar with the info about neutrinos you listed in your posting, lucaspa. Could you give me some info on where I could read up a little?

Forgot the most important one:

MJ Reese, Piecing together the biggest puzzle of all.  Science 290: 1919-1925, Dec 2000.

Every public library has Science. This review article will give you the primary references back to the discovery of the neutrinos.

In that article is refutation of one of your contentions: that the "creation model" can explain the hydrogen: helium ratio:

"

The oldest stars, which would have formed from gas early in galactic history, when it was less "polluted," are indeed deficient in heavy elements, just as stellar nucleosynthesis theory would lead one to expect. However, even the oldest objects turned out to be 23% to 24% helium: No star, galaxy, or nebula has been found where helium is less abundant than this. It seems as though the galaxy started not as pure hydrogen but was already a mix of hydrogen and helium. The "hot big bang" theory neatly solves this mystery. Reactions in the hot early phases would turn about 23% of the hydrogen into helium, but the universe cooled down so fast that there wasn't time to synthesize the elements higher up the Periodic Table (apart from a trace of lithium). Attributing most cosmic helium to the big bang thus solved a long-standing problem--why there is so much of it, and why it is so uniform in its abundance--and emboldened cosmologists to take the first few seconds of cosmic history seriously."

"

The generic idea that our universe inflated from something microscopic is compellingly attractive. Rather than assuming the expansion as an initial condition, it accounts for it physically. It looks like "something for nothing," but it isn't really. That's because our present vast universe may, in a sense, have zero net energy. Every atom has an energy because of its mass (Einstein's mc<SUP>2</SUP>). But it has a negative energy due to gravity. We, for instance, are in a state of lower energy on Earth's surface than if we were up in space. And if we added up the negative potential energy we possess due to the gravitational field of everything else, it could cancel out our rest mass energy. Thus it doesn't, as it were, cost anything to expand the mass and energy in our universe."

Bottom line, the universe has zero net energy, which is consistent with quantum fluctuation (I'm not saying that QF is correct, just that your contention it is wrong is premature).

&nbsp;

 

[webboffin]

&nbsp;assumption not proof of big bang

maybe in 10 years time they will have to rewrite the books won't be the first time

 

[Morat]

No, I'd consider the CMB to be proof of the Big Bang. At least as big a proof as gravitational lenses were to relativity.

 

[food4thought]

I'll get back to you all as soon as I can, but for now I have to clear up the phone line...

One quick point/question: is the method for estimating distances to stars still using the paralax of the earth's orbit? If it is, then the greatest distance that can be accurately determined from this is app. 100 light years, because beyond that, the uncertainty of the exact position of the earth in it's orbit and the minuteness of the angle derived are too great to base any solid information on these types of observations. Of course if it isn't the method currently used , I have even more reading to do...

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question224.htm

"Astronomers have come up with two different techniques to estimate how far away any given star is."

"The first technique uses triangulation (a.k.a. parallax)."

"There is no direct method currently available to measure the distance to stars farther than 400 light years from Earth, so astronomers instead use brightness measurements."

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Morat
No, I'd consider the CMB to be proof of the Big Bang. At least as big a proof as gravitational lenses were to relativity.

Yeah I agree.

 

[Morat]

"There is no direct method currently available to measure the distance to stars farther than 400 light years from Earth, so astronomers instead use brightness measurements."

The distance to Supernova 1987A was measured in another way, more akin to triangulation. But you need a supernova to do that one.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by food4thought
I'll get back to you all as soon as I can, but for now I have to clear up the phone line...

One quick point/question: is the method for estimating distances to stars still using the paralax of the earth's orbit? If it is, then the greatest distance that can be accurately determined from this is app. 100 light years, because beyond that, the uncertainty of the exact position of the earth in it's orbit and the minuteness of the angle derived are too great to base any solid information on these types of observations. Of course if it isn't the method currently used , I have even more reading to do...

As LFOD pointed out, parallax gets you about 400 light years away. However, within that distance are several Cepheid variables.&nbsp; The intrinsic brightness of a Cepheid variable with the same period is constant. That is, any Cepheid variable with a period of 5 days, say, will have the same&nbsp;absolute brightness. Now, using the inverse square law of brightness, you can compare the brightness of Cepheid variables outside the 400 light year limit to Cepheid variables within it.&nbsp; For example, say you have a Cepheid variable at 300 light years you have measured by parallax.&nbsp; You see another Cepheid with the same period but it is only 1/16th as bright.&nbsp; Therefore it is 1200 light years away.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by webboffin
&nbsp;assumption not proof of big bang

maybe in 10 years time they will have to rewrite the books won't be the first time

Tnis is simply your personal stubborness in refusing to accept the data.&nbsp; We've gone over that.&nbsp; BB is not an assumption.&nbsp; It is a well-tested and well-supported theory.&nbsp; The data is such that it is perverse, right now, not to provisionally accept BB as true.

And yes, like all the currently valid scientific theories, BB is tentative.&nbsp; It is possible that someday evidence will be found to show that there is a better theory out there.&nbsp; In fact, ekpyrotic claims to be a better theory.&nbsp; And since ekpyrotic and BB make different predictions on gravity waves, when gravity waves can be measured, we may find out that, strictly speaking, BB is wrong. Instead of a Big Bang, the universe began with a Big Splat.

 

[Outspoken]

"It must have been fictional because there is no report of Swift saying it wasn't?"

1. it is published
2 everyone takes it as fiction
3. you cite that the actual book doesn't say or imply its ficiton at all
conclusion: someone told them.

 

[ComQuirk]

Originally posted by JesusServant
Not that I agree with his theory, but once again you're using science to explain God's actions, that's just absurd.&nbsp; To a Christian God can defy the laws of physics.

It would seem then, that this statement would rend creation "science" useless.

 

[Outspoken]

"It would seem then, that this statement would rend creation "science" useless."

not really. Saying he is not bound by them doesn't negate him working through them sometimes.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Outspoken
[Bnot really. Saying he is not bound by them doesn't negate him working through them sometimes. [/B]

But which times?&nbsp; If the laws of physics (or any of the material processes discovered by science) are not sufficient, then you are requiring God to fill in gaps between members of the universe.&nbsp; This&nbsp;god-of-the-gaps theology then makes&nbsp;God a member of the universe.&nbsp; Which is contrary to&nbsp;the Bible and orthodox Christian theology.

Once again, Outspoken, you are demonstrating the danger that creationism is to Christianity.&nbsp;

 

[Outspoken]

"But which times? "

When he wills it. No, I am not calling for a gaps principle, so please don't build that strawman. What I am saying is that there is, in certain places flaws in theories. In those places you can choose to think either 1. the theory is true and there is a "gap" of info you will get later in time or 2. the theory could be wrong due to some reason science can't explain (ie a supernatural occurance). Its current knowledge for anyone that is a christian that science cannot enter the realm of the supernatural, it is not the right tool, thus inlies your answer.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Outspoken
No, I am not calling for a gaps principle...

Uh, yes you are.