A Challenge To All Creationists

[omega2xx]

Same thing. It's the same as if I said, "We have to accept that magical invisible fairies created the earth, unless you can prove me wrong."


How Do Scientists Know the Universe is Expanding?
HubbleSite - Reference Desk - FAQs

I have no idea. That it is, is the response the evos give for evidence of the BB.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have no idea. That it is, is the response the evos give for evidence of the BB.

If someone says, 'The BB happened this way," then the burden of proof is on them. Same as the burden of proof is on you when you declare that god did something (I see you skipped over that part).

If someone says, "I have no idea how the universe began" then they have no burden of proof, because they are not making a claim.

By the way, "evos" don't study the big bang. Cosmologists and astrophysicists study it (among others).

 

[viole]

Do you ever really look at the evidence they present for such an ignorant remark? I know you don't because there is none. If you understood genetics, you would KNOW that is i mpossib le.

You just have to go to a zoo and look for yourself. Check the section where apes do not carry cameras. You will see evolution staring you in the eyes.

The only thing that needs clarifying is how did the apes, overcome the law of genetics and become something other than an ape>

I am not sure what you mean. We are stll apes. Great apes, to be exact.

You are much prettier than any ape I ever saw. No. We were made in God's iamge and He is not an ape, so neither are we.

Yes, and probably the chimp will think I am a very ugly kind of ape. In south Italy they say "every bug is beautiful to its mother". I am sure every species is not particularly attracted by members of other species, unless they are perceived as a form of food.

And yes, we are apes. It is so obvious that it is puzzling that you do not see it. Every child would put a gorilla in the same category of humans when presented with other alternatives including trees, spiders, buttreflies and rats.

I know new stars can form but do they really have a mommy and a daddy?

Do you really believe that new stars can form? Do you really believe that there were other stars before our sun was born? Do you accept the orthodox science that says that you cannot have water before stars formed?

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

You just have to go to a zoo and look for yourself. Check the section where apes do not carry cameras. You will see evolution staring you in the eyes.



I am not sure what you mean. We are stll apes. Great apes, to be exact.



Yes, and probably the chimp will think I am a very ugly kind of ape. In south Italy they say "every bug is beautiful to its mother". I am sure every species is not particularly attracted by members of other species, unless they are perceived as a form of food.

And yes, we are apes. It is so obvious that it is puzzling that you do not see it. Every child would put a gorilla in the same category of humans when presented with other alternatives including trees, spiders, buttreflies and rats.



Do you really believe that new stars can form? Do you really believe that there were other stars before our sun was born? Do you accept the orthodox science that says that you cannot have water before stars formed?

Ciao

- viole

I once showed a photo of my dad back in his young days to my 6 year-old-nephew. He said, and I quote, "He looks like a gorilla."

 

[Reggie Miller]

It is good that you ask questions. It is bad if you ask questions when you have already made up your mind. If the former I'll have as long a discussion as you'd like.

Abiogensis is integral to evolution. I believe that the seperation of abiogensis and evolution is more political than scientific. You have so many people saying that it is a totally seperate study all together. while I agree that the function of studying the two are rather distinct it is inseperable from the theory of evolution as a whole. Evolution as a theory functions just fine without it since even if the answer was "I dont' know" the facts that we have come across still stand. It just means there is more to the mystery. However we are fairly certain that abiogensis occured and within a range of how it may have occured.

The line between life and non-life can be tricky. We struggle with it today even. Viruses for example. However back then the earliest form of bacteria were simple cells with DNA (specifically double helix rather than the earlier single sided RNA which came out of spontaenously created self replicating protiens that increased in complexity over time much as life evolves and changes now) and a double lipid bilayer which created the autonomy of the cell. Differnet structures came later. But the two big ones is the double lipid bilayer and the DNA.

As far as how it changed I'm sure you are already familiar with allele frequences and mutations? If you need more explanation there then we can go into it but for now I will assume you have an understanding of it. The next major breakthrough after several new structures were implimented in the cell over time was cluster formations which marked the begining of complex multicellular life.

1. You are correct that abiogenesis is integral to evolution (no creator). Macro-evolution is entirely dependent upon it.

2. How did abiogenesis occur? Where? Why? Under what conditions and in what environment?

3. How do you explain the fact that mutations in the genome do not create new genetic information but tend to be detrimental to the organism instead?

That's good for starters.

 

[omega2xx]

If someone says, 'The BB happened this way," then the burden of proof is on them. Same as the burden of proof is on you when you declare that god did something (I see you skipped over that part).

I have said 100 times I CAN'T PROVE God created the universe. I accept it by faith just like you accept by faith He did not/

If someone says, "I have no idea how the universe began" then they have no burden of proof, because they are not making a claim.

f course

By the way, "evos" don't study the big bang. Cosmologists and astrophysicists study it (among others).

The majority of those in those fields are evos.

 

[omega2xx]

You just have to go to a zoo and look for yourself. Check the section where apes do not carry cameras. You will see evolution staring you in the eyes.QUOTE]

Upoi jave a etter imagination than I do. The last time I went the zoo, I Ask an ape what His name w sand he couldn't speak. All o those apes a the zoo must have had a mutation, that keep them from speaking.

I am not sure what you mean. We are stll apes. Great apes, to be exact.

There areas where evolution must invent a link to or its whole guess is exposed a a fraud This is the third dumbest thing evolution has some up with.

Yes, and probably the chimp will think I am a very ugly kind of ape. In south Italy they say "every bug is beautiful to its mother". I am sure every species is not particularly attracted by members of other species, unless they are perceived as a form of food.

I like that every bug saying. Did you know that a gazillion or maybe a gazillion and1, we were bugs. Ain't science grand?

And yes, we are apes. It is so obvious that it is puzzling that you do not see it. Every child would put a gorilla in the same category of humans when presented with other alternatives including trees, spiders, buttreflies and rats.

Children might, but my grand children would not, but it sad when adults do it.

Do you really believe that new stars can form? Do you really believe that there were other stars before our sun was born? Do you accept the orthodox science that says that you cannot have water before stars formed?

Ciao

- viole

I accept that is another guess with no evidence to support it. Do you really never look A the evidence the offer? Trick question, they never present any real evidence.

 

[gnostic]

I have no idea. That it is, is the response the evos give for evidence of the BB.

It is remarkable how you can be so wilfully ignorant.

Evolution is biology, so biologists don't require to give evidences for the Big Bang cosmology.

The Big Bang is about physical cosmology of the universe, and relate to particle physics, general relativity, astrophysics and astronomy.

The Big Bang tried to explain the earlier epoch of very young universe, on how energies and subatomic particles formed the lightest elements first - hydrogen and helium.

Examples of the earlier BB epochs are,

1. the Baryogenesis,
2. the Quark epoch,
3. the Hadron epoch (how protons and neutrons were formed from quarks),
4. the Nucleosyntheis epoch (how the atomic nuclei bound and encased protons and neutrons together into ionised atoms (no neutrons in hydrogen ion),
5. and the Recombination epoch (how ionised hydrogen and ionised helium atoms become stable and electrical neutral atoms, when electrons are bound to them).

All of the above stages of the Big Bang, are explanation of formation of the earliest elements (hydrogen and helium) BEFORE the formation of the first generation of stars (known as "Population III stars").

The Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) started at 3 minutes after the Big Bang, and ended at 20 minutes after BB.

The Recombination epoch started 377,000 years after the Big Bang. As I wrote earlier, this epoch explains HOW ionised atoms become electrically stable atoms when free electrons attached themselves to positive-charged elements. This attachment caused photons to decouple from the atoms, releasing in form of earliest light that can be observed from the telescopes (first observed in 1964, but predicted in 1948 by Ralph Alpher and robert Herman), which we called the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, see image from WMAP (NASA), below:

The CMB radiation is one of the evidences for the Big Bang cosmology. CMBR is the earliest observable light, older than the quasars, older than the first stars.

Before the stars, the most abundant elements in the universe, was hydrogen the lightest element.

These hydrogen began to coalesce together by gravity, until they became massive spheres. As the core (made of hydrogen) became more dense, it reached critical mass and critical temperature causing the first nuclear fusion - fusion of two hydrogen atoms into helium atom.

This process of lighter elements (hydrogen) created into heavier elements (helium) is called Stellar Nucleosynthesis. The nuclear fusion release a lot of radiations, including light and heat.

The whole process that I just described, is how the first star formed.

Eventually stars will run out of hydrogen fuel to fuse together, so it will begin to fuse helium atoms into heavier elements, like nitrogen, oxygen, carbon. At this point, the stars begin to die.

Depending on how massive stars were before it run out of hydrogen.

A star like our Sun, will turned into a red giant star, growing larger in size, before the outer layer of the star are stripped away as debris, leaving only the star's core, becoming a white dwarf star. Our sun (A) will never explode like the supernova, or (B) become a black hole, because the sun is not massive enough star.

The debris from the Red Giant or from the supernova is what create planets, asteroids and other objects in space.

In all this, life has not yet be created yet. The Big Bang cosmology never talk of evolution. And no biologists will ever try to provide evidences for the Big Bang, because evolution is not astrophysics.

Your comment about evolutionists and BB is nothing more than straw man, which you keep repeating again and again, which make you a dishonest and biased creationist - the one who refuses to learn from his mistakes.

A good place to start reading about the Big Bang, which covered briefly on the subject of the WMAP discoveries, can be found here:

WMAP's Universe (NASA)​

If you want some more detail, then the Wikipedia is free, and it has the epochs that I didn't mention in my post:

Chronology of the universe (Wikipedia)​

The Wikipedia have separate articles on the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, Recombination epoch, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), etc, which should explain more details.

 

[savagewind]

The Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) started at 3 minutes after the Big Bang, and ended at 20 minutes after BB.

 

[savagewind]

I shall file it away who said that. LOL. Precious!

 

[gnostic]

I know that this confusing, but read NASA's WMAP's Universe and the Wikipedia links that I have provided.

The epochs earlier than the Nucleosynthesis epoch were very short, each epoch taking about a fraction of second.

Before the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), scientists are only explaining the earlier epochs in hypothetically and theoretically (mathematically), so largely speculative.

But the Big Bang cosmology is not about nothing turning into something, which is omega2xx frequently use to attack the straw man.

However, the speculation is more educated and more probable than other alternative cosmologies, like the Oscillating Model (Cyclical Model, or the Big Bounce, in which there have been a number of Bangs and Crunches, before the current universe) or the dozens of different flavours of Multiverse cosmology, or Hoyle's Steady State model, where there are zero evidences and untestable.

I am not saying that the Big Bang cosmology answer everything, but it does have been track records than other cosmologies, in turn of "evidences". Until we have better telescopes or space probes, we cannot observe anything before the Recombination period.

 

[savagewind]

I know that this confusing, but read NASA's WMAP's Universe and the Wikipedia links that I have provided.

OK. Wikipedia. I edited it once and I told my husband about it and he said, "you're published!". (he doesn't know about this place) My point being, now I know why people do this

when someone uses Wiki as an authority.

 

[savagewind]

I know that this confusing, but read NASA's WMAP's Universe and the Wikipedia links that I have provided.

The epochs earlier than the Nucleosynthesis epoch were very short, each epoch taking about a fraction of second.

Before the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), scientists are only explaining the earlier epochs in hypothetically and theoretically (mathematically), so largely speculative.

But the Big Bang cosmology is not about nothing turning into something, which is omega2xx frequently use to attack the straw man.

However, the speculation is more educated and more probable than other alternative cosmologies, like the Oscillating Model (Cyclical Model, or the Big Bounce, in which there have been a number of Bangs and Crunches, before the current universe) or the dozens of different flavours of Multiverse cosmology, or Hoyle's Steady State model, where there are zero evidences and untestable.

I am not saying that the Big Bang cosmology answer everything, but it does have been track records than other cosmologies, in turn of "evidences". Until we have better telescopes or space probes, we cannot observe anything before the Recombination period.

You might be perfectly right, but you gave it in minutes, which I appreciate is really funny. I do not know if you were being funny or serious.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

OK. Wikipedia. I edited it once and I told my husband about it and he said, "you're published!". (he doesn't know about this place) My point being, now I know why people do this

when someone uses Wiki as an authority.

There is good on Wikipedia, lots of it. There's also trash. As with everything, we have to check -- that's our responsibility. If there's a citation missing on Wiki, you probably don't want to accept the article. If there is a citation, you can chase it down. It always comes down to this: any author, including any science author, can fudge facts for reasons of their own. You still have ways to explore further. That's why the sciences publish, and peers review.

It took Diderot (and all his contributing authors) from 1751 to 1772 to create the Encyclopedie. And lots in it is now known to be incorrect. That's how human knowledge is accumulated. A process, and like all of our processes, prone to all sorts of human vagary.

 

[gnostic]

OK. Wikipedia. I edited it once and I told my husband about it and he said, "you're published!". (he doesn't know about this place) My point being, now I know why people do this

when someone uses Wiki as an authority.

No, it is not authority.

But there are plenty of sources that you can find more information in the section "REFERENCES".

If people want authority to do actual research, then you would check out Wiki's REFERENCES, and see if you can find the books, articles, essays or peer review journals listed in this section.

The Wikipedia pages are only place in which any serious people can find more "authority" sources.

Here is the list of (half) sources in the Wiki's Chronology of the universe -> References

1. The Planck Collaboration in 2015 published the estimate of 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years ago (68% confidence interval). See Table 4 on page 31 of pdf. Planck Collaboration (2015). "Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 594 (13): A13. arXiv:1502.01589
   
   . Bibcode:2016A&A...594A..13P. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830.
2. del Peloso, E. F. (2005). "The age of the Galactic thin disk from Th/Eu nucleocosmochronology. III. Extended sample". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 440 (3): 1153–1159. arXiv:astro-ph/0506458
   
   . Bibcode:2005A&A...440.1153D. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053307.
3. Guth, "Phase transitions in the very early universe", in: Hawking, Gibbon, Siklos (eds.), The Very Early Universe (1985).
4. Loeb, Abraham (October 2014). "The Habitable Epoch of the Early Universe". International Journal of Astrobiology. 13 (04): 337–339. doi:10.1017/S1473550414000196. Retrieved 15 December 2014.
5. Loeb, Abraham (December 2013). "The Habitable Epoch of the Early Universe". arXiv:1312.0613
   
   .
6. Dreifus, Claudia (2 December 2014). "Much-Discussed Views That Go Way Back - Avi Loeb Ponders the Early Universe, Nature and Life". New York Times. Retrieved 3 December 2014.
7. Ryden B: "Introduction to Cosmology", pg. 196 Addison-Wesley 2003
8. Staff (17 March 2014). "BICEP2 2014 Results Release". National Science Foundation. Retrieved 18 March 2014.
9. Clavin, Whitney (17 March 2014). "NASA Technology Views Birth of the Universe". NASA. Retrieved 17 March 2014.
10. Overbye, Dennis (March 17, 2014). "Space Ripples Reveal Big Bang's Smoking Gun". The New York Times. Retrieved March 17, 2014.
11. Overbye, Dennis (March 24, 2014). "Ripples From the Big Bang". New York Times. Retrieved March 24, 2014.
12. Ade, P.A.R. (BICEP2 Collaboration); et al. (June 19, 2014). "Detection of B-Mode Polarization at Degree Angular Scales by BICEP2" (PDF). Physical Review Letters. 112: 241101. arXiv:1403.3985
    
    . Bibcode:2014PhRvL.112x1101A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.241101. PMID 24996078. Retrieved June 20, 2014.
13. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6865
14. Overbye, Dennis (June 19, 2014). "Astronomers Hedge on Big Bang Detection Claim". New York Times. Retrieved June 20, 2014.
15. Amos, Jonathan (June 19, 2014). "Cosmic inflation: Confidence lowered for Big Bang signal". BBC News. Retrieved June 20, 2014.
16. BICEP2/Keck, Planck Collaborations (2015). "A Joint Analysis of BICEP2/Keck Array and Planck Data". Physical Review Letters. 114 (10): 101301. arXiv:1502.00612
    
    . Bibcode:2015PhRvL.114j1301B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.101301.
17. Clavin, Whitney (30 January 2015). "Gravitational Waves from Early Universe Remain Elusive". NASA. Retrieved 30 January 2015.
18. Overbye, Dennis (30 January 2015). "Speck of Interstellar Dust Obscures Glimpse of Big Bang". New York Times. Retrieved 31 January 2015.
19. "Gravitational waves from early universe remain elusive". Science Daily. 31 January 2015. Retrieved 3 February 2015.
20. The Timescale of Creation
21. Detailed timeline of Big Bang nucleosynthesis processes
22. Gannon, Megan (December 21, 2012). "New 'Baby Picture' of Universe Unveiled". Space.com. Retrieved December 21, 2012.
23. Bennett, C.L.; Larson, L.; Weiland, J.L.; Jarosk, N.; Hinshaw, N.; Odegard, N.; Smith, K.M.; Hill, R.S.; Gold, B.; Halpern, M.; Komatsu, E.; Nolta, M.R.; Page, L.; Spergel, D.N.; Wollack, E.; Dunkley, J.; Kogut, A.; Limon, M.; Meyer, S.S.; Tucker, G.S.; Wright, E.L. (2013). "Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Final Maps and Results". The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series. 208: 20. arXiv:1212.5225
    
    . Bibcode:2013ApJS..208...20B. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20.
24. Hinshaw, G.; et al. (2009). "Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Data Processing, Sky Maps, and Basic Results" (PDF). Astrophysical Journal Supplement. 180 (2): 225–245. arXiv:0803.0732
    
    . Bibcode:2009ApJS..180..225H. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/180/2/225.
25. Mukhanov, V: "Physical foundations of Cosmology", pg. 120, Cambridge 2005
26. Amos, Jonathan (2012-11-13). "Quasars illustrate dark energy's roller coaster ride". BBC News. Retrieved 13 November 2012.
27. Wall, Mike (December 12, 2012). "Ancient Galaxy May Be Most Distant Ever Seen". Space.com. Retrieved December 12, 2012.
28. Ferreting Out The First Stars; physorg.com

 

[gnostic]

Here, the other half of sources listed in the References section:

1. Andrew Pontzen and Hiranya Peiris, Illuminating illumination: what lights up the universe?, UCLA press release, 27 August 2014.
2. APOD: 2007 September 6 - Time Tunnel
3. "New Scientist" 14 July 2007
4. HET Helps Astronomers Learn Secrets of One of Universe's Most Distant Objects
5. Scientists confirm most distant galaxy ever
6. APOD: 2004 March 9 – The Hubble Ultra Deep Field
7. Eduardo F. del Peloso a1a, Licio da Silva a1, Gustavo F. Porto de Mello and Lilia I. Arany-Prado (2005), "The age of the Galactic thin disk from Th/Eu nucleocosmochronology: extended sample" (Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union (2005), 1: 485-486 Cambridge University Press)
8. Ribas, Ignasi (February 2010), "The Sun and stars as the primary energy input in planetary atmospheres", Solar and Stellar Variability: Impact on Earth and Planets, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, IAU Symposium, 264, pp. 3–18, arXiv:0911.4872
   
   , Bibcode:2010IAUS..264....3R, doi:10.1017/S1743921309992298
9. Planck Collaboration (2015). "Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters (See Table 4 on page 31 of PDF).". arXiv:1502.01589
   
   .
10. K. P. Schroder; Robert Connon Smith (2008). "Distant future of the Sun and Earth revisited". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 386 (1): 155–163. arXiv:0801.4031
    
    . Bibcode:2008MNRAS.386..155S. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13022.x.
11. J. Laskar (1994). "Large-scale chaos in the solar system". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 287: L9–L12. Bibcode:1994A&A...287L...9L.
12. Zeilik & Gregory 1998, p. 320–321.
13. "Introduction to Cataclysmic Variables (CVs)". NASA Goddard Space Center. 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
14. Palmer, Jason (22 February 2008). "Hope dims that Earth will survive Sun's death". New Scientist.
15. G. Fontaine; P. Brassard; P. Bergeron (2001). "The Potential of White Dwarf Cosmochronology". Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. 113 (782): 409–435. Bibcode:2001PASP..113..409F. doi:10.1086/319535. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
16. A dying universe: the long-term fate and evolution of astrophysical objects, Fred C. Adams and Gregory Laughlin, Reviews of Modern Physics 69, #2 (April 1997), pp. 337–372. Bibcode: 1997RvMP...69..337A. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.69.337.
17. Thomson, William. (1851). "On the Dynamical Theory of Heat, with numerical results deduced from Mr Joule's equivalent of a Thermal Unit, and M. Regnault's Observations on Steam." Excerpts. [§§1-14 & §§99-100], Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, March, 1851; and Philosophical Magazine IV. 1852, [from Mathematical and Physical Papers, vol. i, art. XLVIII, pp. 174]
18. M.S. Turner; F. Wilczek (1982). "Is our vacuum metastable?" (PDF). Nature. 298 (5875): 633–634. Bibcode:1982Natur.298..633T. doi:10.1038/298633a0. Retrieved 2015-10-31.
19. Coleman, Sidney; De Luccia, Frank (1980-06-15). "Gravitational effects on and of vacuum decay" (PDF). Physical Review D. D21 (12): 3305–3315. Bibcode:1980PhRvD..21.3305C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.21.3305.
20. M. Stone (1976). "Lifetime and decay of excited vacuum states". Phys. Rev. D. 14 (12): 3568–3573. Bibcode:1976PhRvD..14.3568S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3568.
21. P.H. Frampton (1976). "Vacuum Instability and Higgs Scalar Mass". Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (21): 1378–1380. Bibcode:1976PhRvL..37.1378F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.1378.
    P.H. Frampton (1977). "Consequences of Vacuum Instability in Quantum Field Theory". Phys. Rev. D15 (10): 2922–28. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..15.2922F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2922.

Sorry, I ran out of space, so I had to split the References in 2.

In the Nucleosynthesis page, here are sources from the original physicists - Ralph Alpher and George Gomow from 1948.

• R. A. Alpher, H. A. Bethe, G. Gamow, The Origin of Chemical Elements, Physical Review 73 (1948), 803. The so-called αβγ paper, in which Alpher and Gamow suggested that the light elements were created by hydrogen ions capturing neutrons in the hot, dense early universe. Bethe's name was added for symmetry
• Gamow, G. (1948). "The Origin of Elements and the Separation of Galaxies". Physical Review. 74: 505–506. Bibcode:1948PhRv...74..505G. doi:10.1103/physrev.74.505.2. These two 1948 papers of Gamow laid the foundation for our present understanding of big-bang nucleosynthesis
• Gamow, G. (1948). "The Evolution of the Universe". Nature. 162: 680–2. Bibcode:1948Natur.162..680G. doi:10.1038/162680a0. PMID 18893719.
• Alpher, R. A. (1948). "A Neutron-Capture Theory of the Formation and Relative Abundance of the Elements". Physical Review. 74: 1737–1742. Bibcode:1948PhRv...74.1737A. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.74.1737.
• R. A. Alpher and R. Herman, "On the Relative Abundance of the Elements," Physical Review 74 (1948), 1577. This paper contains the first estimate of the present temperature of the universe
• Alpher, R. A.; Herman, R.; Gamow, G. (1948). "Evolution of the Universe". Nature. 162: 774–775. Bibcode:1948Natur.162..774A. doi:10.1038/162774b0.

In 1948, Gamow was scientist who wrote about Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, while Alpher with George Herman on Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

 

[gnostic]

If you look at the Wikipedia on pages on religious subjects, they should also provide References and External Links, where people can find more sources, Savagewind.

But I often ignored them, because I have a modest library at home, and preferred to do my own research on scriptures and mythological literature.

I only have one translation on the Qur'an (Yusuf Ali), but I have more than a half dozen translations Bible:

• KJV (given to me by my sister; I also have free Kindle version on my iPad)
• Good News Bible (another one given to me by my sister)
• NRSV (Kindle; this version also include the Apocrypha)
• NIV (Kindle)
• NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint. The translation of the Greek Septuagint bible)

The Hebrew Scriptures, or Tanakh, or what you would call the Old Testament:

• NJPS Tanakh (book and Kindle; this is the Jewish bible from New Jewish Publication Society, printed in 1985). I preferred this translation whenever I do a little research, without Christian interpretation or interpolation.
  
• The Dead Sea Scroll Bible (these were translated by Abegg, Flint and Ulrich; book and Kindle)

I also have a translation of the Rabbinic literature: Talmud (translated by Michael L. Rodkinson, 1918) and the Aggadah (tramslated as the Legends of the Jews, by Louis Ginsburg, 1909, Kindle).

I also have Pseudepigrapha texts:

• Enoch
  1. 1 Enoch & 2 Enoch, translated by RH Charles.
  2. Complete Books of Enoch (translated by A Nyland, 2010, Kindle).
• Book of Jubilees (translated by RH Charles, 1913, Kindle)

I even have a couple of Gnostic texts:

• Nag Hammadi Library (James M Robinson, book)
  
• Nag Hammadi Scriptures (Marvin Meyer, Kindle)
• The Gnostic Bible (Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer)

Not to mention of even larger collection of myths from Greece, Scandinavia, and even Egyptian, Ugaritic and Mesopotamian literature

I collect and read a lot of translations to primary sources.

 

[omega2xx]

It is remarkable how you can be so wilfully ignorant.

Evolution is biology, so biologists don't require to give evidences for the Big Bang cosmology.

The Big Bang is about physical cosmology of the universe, and relate to particle physics, general relativity, astrophysics and astronomy.

The Big Bang tried to explain the earlier epoch of very young universe, on how energies and subatomic particles formed the lightest elements first - hydrogen and helium.

Examples of the earlier BB epochs are,

1. the Baryogenesis,
2. the Quark epoch,
3. the Hadron epoch (how protons and neutrons were formed from quarks),
4. the Nucleosyntheis epoch (how the atomic nuclei bound and encased protons and neutrons together into ionised atoms (no neutrons in hydrogen ion),
5. and the Recombination epoch (how ionised hydrogen and ionised helium atoms become stable and electrical neutral atoms, when electrons are bound to them).

All of the above stages of the Big Bang, are explanation of formation of the earliest elements (hydrogen and helium) BEFORE the formation of the first generation of stars (known as "Population III stars").

The Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) started at 3 minutes after the Big Bang, and ended at 20 minutes after BB.

The Recombination epoch started 377,000 years after the Big Bang. As I wrote earlier, this epoch explains HOW ionised atoms become electrically stable atoms when free electrons attached themselves to positive-charged elements. This attachment caused photons to decouple from the atoms, releasing in form of earliest light that can be observed from the telescopes (first observed in 1964, but predicted in 1948 by Ralph Alpher and robert Herman), which we called the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, see image from WMAP (NASA), below:

The CMB radiation is one of the evidences for the Big Bang cosmology. CMBR is the earliest observable light, older than the quasars, older than the first stars.

Before the stars, the most abundant elements in the universe, was hydrogen the lightest element.

These hydrogen began to coalesce together by gravity, until they became massive spheres. As the core (made of hydrogen) became more dense, it reached critical mass and critical temperature causing the first nuclear fusion - fusion of two hydrogen atoms into helium atom.

This process of lighter elements (hydrogen) created into heavier elements (helium) is called Stellar Nucleosynthesis. The nuclear fusion release a lot of radiations, including light and heat.

The whole process that I just described, is how the first star formed.

Eventually stars will run out of hydrogen fuel to fuse together, so it will begin to fuse helium atoms into heavier elements, like nitrogen, oxygen, carbon. At this point, the stars begin to die.

Depending on how massive stars were before it run out of hydrogen.

A star like our Sun, will turned into a red giant star, growing larger in size, before the outer layer of the star are stripped away as debris, leaving only the star's core, becoming a white dwarf star. Our sun (A) will never explode like the supernova, or (B) become a black hole, because the sun is not massive enough star.

The debris from the Red Giant or from the supernova is what create planets, asteroids and other objects in space.

In all this, life has not yet be created yet. The Big Bang cosmology never talk of evolution. And no biologists will ever try to provide evidences for the Big Bang, because evolution is not astrophysics.

Your comment about evolutionists and BB is nothing more than straw man, which you keep repeating again and again, which make you a dishonest and biased creationist - the one who refuses to learn from his mistakes.

A good place to start reading about the Big Bang, which covered briefly on the subject of the WMAP discoveries, can be found here:

WMAP's Universe (NASA)​

If you want some more detail, then the Wikipedia is free, and it has the epochs that I didn't mention in my post:

Chronology of the universe (Wikipedia)​

The Wikipedia have separate articles on the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, Recombination epoch, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), etc, which should explain more details.

It is amazing that otherwise intelligent people can go on and on with speculation and call it evidence. Not one thing in that whole post can be proven.

It contains 2 of the most absurd, unscientific statements one can make about the BB.

1. "The Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) started at 3 minutes after the Big Bang, and ended at 20 minutes after BB."

Everyone knows it took 3 minuets and 15 seconds and that it lasted 20 minuets and 3 seconds. How was that determined?

2. Recombination epoch occurred 377,000 years after the BB.

Everyone knows it took 377,000 years and 10 days.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

They also never explain how the sun developed out of the BB.

I'm pretty sure basic science classes explain how stars form.

DNA is far too complex to have originated from lifeless elements. Why do you ignore that FACT?

DNA is still lifeless. It's just a bunch of chemicals strung together in a particular way. Complex carbs don't need to have come from "life", whatever that means, just because "complex" is in the name.

You don't know what the first life form was and you do not know what it evolved into.

Would depend on the definition of "life". You people want a bacterium to turn into a human the next day. That's not how it works.

Since we can't see the end of the universe, you don't telly know it is expanding.

LOL. "I can't crane my neck that much, so I can never figure out how tall the skyscraper is."

Yet, we suspiciously look very similar to gorillas. Surely more similar than, say, to a spider. Do you think God likes apes so much to use them as a model for the very pinnacle of His creation?

I kinda want to live forever because as we've been teaching other apes to use keys, make fire/cook, etc, I'm DYING to know if it's like that obelisk from 2001: A Space Odyssey, speeding up their evolutionary progress.

Do you ever really look at the evidence they present for such an ignorant remark? I know you don't because there is none. If you understood genetics, you would KNOW that is i mpossib le.

You remind me of a dude on Judge Judy who tried to "educate" her that the paternity DNA results don't prove he's the father.

The only thing that needs clarifying is how did the apes, overcome the law of genetics and become something other than an ape>

Not sure what you mean. We're still apes, which is why the anti-human bias in the Planet of the Apes franchise doesn't make sense compared to their mantra "ape not kill ape".

You are much prettier than any ape I ever saw. No. We were made in God's iamge and He is not an ape, so neither are we.

So God's made out of dirt too?

Upoi jave a etter imagination than I do. The last time I went the zoo, I Ask an ape what His name w sand he couldn't speak. All o those apes a the zoo must have had a mutation, that keep them from speaking.

Try signing? Most apes who are called humans can do some sort of sign language, and many non-human apes can too. Or message boards, with icons as the responses.

Actually, this comment kind of unnerves me. Do you honestly feel nonverbal people are less than human?

For every limitation you think makes humans superior, I can find humans WITH those limitations and we still consider them people.

I like that every bug saying. Did you know that a gazillion or maybe a gazillion and1, we were bugs. Ain't science grand?

I know I've met plenty of leeches and roaches.

Everyone knows it took 3 minuets and 15 seconds and that it lasted 20 minuets and 3 seconds. How was that determined?

Math.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

1. You are correct that abiogenesis is integral to evolution (no creator). Macro-evolution is entirely dependent upon it.

Macro evolution isn't dependent upon it at all. Rather abiogensis is dependent on the rest of the theory.

2. How did abiogenesis occur? Where? Why? Under what conditions and in what environment?

I already went over the process briefly. I feel as though we are at the point where we can talk about more specific rather than general questions as this. Earth. It is a result of physics and chemistry. High heat and heavy atmospheric pressure with the components of water, ammonia, methane and loose hydrogen. Some believe a weak electrical current may have been needed to trigger the chemistry. These are the conditions that would have been common on earth according to Geology before the time life arose. And it is under these conditions we have been able to synthesize amino acids from inorganic materials. Amino acids are the building blocks of life and make up proteins which are capable of self replication.

3. How do you explain the fact that mutations in the genome do not create new genetic information but tend to be detrimental to the organism instead?

I don't have to since this isn't true. The first part isn't true at least. The second part has truth. The vast majority of mutations are detrimental to the organism. However when a negative mutation occurs that hampers the organism's ability to function and survive it has a higher likelihood of dying without passing on its genetic information. Natural selection weeds out the bad either over time or initially. For example if a predator of some sort was born with a mutation that sealed the eyelid's shut and it was effectively blind it would probably die before adulthood. The vast majority of creatures die before passing on there genes in most animals.