Big Bang!

[Magic Man]

Thanks for explaining your reasoning behind your statements; now we're on the same page. But if he clearly doesn't want to have things explained to him, why even bother responding? If he has defensive walls up as you say, then responding to him is like trying to tell a brick wall to talk to you.

Well, I go through the same thing all the time on here. You could say I'm a glutton for punishment or that I like debating or arguing, or maybe I have a glimmer of hope that something I say might get through to him. Maybe I'm just kidding myself. In any case, I feel like I have to say something. I feel the same way about it as I do when someone says something bigotted or racist.

 

[Riverwolf]

No, since he's made it abundantly clear that he does not care to learn.

Then why say anything at all? Are you on the same page as mball, where you just feel the need to say something, which I do understand and relate to?

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, I go through the same thing all the time on here. You could say I'm a glutton for punishment or that I like debating or arguing, or maybe I have a glimmer of hope that something I say might get through to him. Maybe I'm just kidding myself. In any case, I feel like I have to say something. I feel the same way about it as I do when someone says something bigotted or racist.

I understand. I'm kind of the same way. :yes:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then why say anything at all? Are you on the same page as mball, where you just feel the need to say something, which I do understand and relate to?

I hesitate to suggest that he and I are "on the same page" if only because he might take offense at the association.

The truth is I find pretentious ignorance irresponsible and insulting.

 

[Magic Man]

I hesitate to suggest that he and I are "on the same page" if only because he might take offense at the association.

The truth is I find pretentious ignorance irresponsible and insulting.

I appreciate that, but I wouldn't take offense at that. I think we are on the same page here.

 

[texan1]

Alright, this is what we are called upon to believe:

I guess I didn't get that call. The Big Bang Theory is just a theory, but it does have some good science backing it up. I don't think it neccessarily proves or disproves the existence of a creator.

No one knows for sure how the universe came into existence, that's part of why religion came to be in my opinion...and why religious forums came to be....because it's such an interesting question to debate. Maybe there was a Creator who facilitated it, maybe not. Maybe we were formed out of another parallel universe, or maybe the answer is so much more profound that humans do not have the ability to understand it. I'm kind of with whereismynotecard on this one. I'm happy to let the mystery be.

I would be interested in hearing a shortened version of some of the science behind such theories as the Big Bang if anyone knows it....perhaps it has been posted but I had trouble finding it amidst all of the arguing ;-)

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

Alright, let me try to raise the level of this extraordinary childish exchange up a few notches. Let's stop pointing fingers and actually talk about the big bang and of it's misconceptions.

The big bang is not the moment of creation.

The theory only states that the universe was hotter and denser in the past. That's it.

According to this model if we follow the history of the universe in reverse i.e. from today up to the past, we arrive at a point where modern physics breaks down, were physics cannot explain what is going on anymore. We need new physics to explain this era, which is what scientists are working on right now.

So saying that the universe as "shrank into an object about the size of a pea", as stated in the OP, is frivolous since we cannot yet say anything prior to the big bang.

Nobody ever asked anyone to believe this absurd statement. Since we simply don't know what happened.

 

[logician]

Actually, if the multiverse model is correct, there never was a moment of creation, matter and energy have always existed, and universes have come into and gone out of existence for an eternity.

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

The multiverse model doesn't mean anything since there are a bunch of multiverse models out there with different consequences depending on which model we are talking about. But there is a thing that all of these models have in common: they are all purely speculative.

Again, we cannot say anything prior to the big bang since we don't even understand the earliest moments of big bang it self. This period is known (or unknown) as the Planck Era.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Speaking of Planck, his namesake is currently due to be launched in February 2009. The Planck satellite will measure cosmic background radiation associated with the Big Bang and hopefully confirm or deny a number of hypotheses about the origins of the universe, as well as provide data on which to base future hypotheses.

It's only a few months away. Woot for science!

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

Hopefully it won't be delayed... Like the LHC.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In 1927, the Vatican astronomer Georges Lemaître made one of the first modern propositions of the occurrence the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe, although he called it his "hypothèse de l'atome primitif" (hypothesis of the primeval atom). That it follows faithfully the creation story of Genesis is understandable given the circumstances of his sponsor, and has been subsequently been generally adopted by predominantly western orthodox Christian and Jewish scientists as the 'scientific' secular alternative to the Bible Genesis story.

However, it is my understanding that as of now, there are no contemporary human scientists in existence of any discipline that fully understands the internal processes of the humble ubiquitous electron (or positron proton, neutron, etc..)

Until these small tasks are resolved by humanity, then and not before will the bigger picture be resolved.

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

Can you explain to me how does the big bang "faithfully" follows the creation story of genesis?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Can you explain to me how does the big bang "faithfully" follows the creation story of genesis?

There are a number of books and numerous article articles written on this subject. Two of the more well known books you may like to check out are,...

[ON EDIT - THIS IS AN ARTICLE, NOT A BOOK]
The Big Bang and the Bible by Nymph Kellerman

The Big Bang hypothesis and the origin of the universe as described in the opening chapters of Genesis, are one hundred percent compatible and thus we know and believe that Physics and Theology is too.

The Big Bang and the Bible


Genesis and the Big Bang Theory: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible by Dr. Gerald L Schroeder

Amazon.com: Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible: Gerald Schroeder: Books

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

I just finished reading Nymphe Kellerman`s article and I have to admit that I am a little disappointed by the vacuity her arguments.

Add the vastness of her scientific ignorance to her poorly executed acrobatic reasoning and we get an essay like the one I just read.

Melons + the square root of Halloween = Peter Pan is the kind of logic applied here.

I don`t know where to start rebutting her article and I don`t know if I should waste some time doing it... Feel free to ask me if you are interested.

 

[YmirGF]

I just finished reading Nymphe Kellerman`s article and I have to admit that I am a little disappointed by the vacuity her arguments.

Guess that is why I never read authors who's first name is Nymphe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don`t know where to start rebutting her article and I don`t know if I should waste some time doing it... Feel free to ask me if you are interested.

Agree with you, and also I realize now that this is a stand alone article, not based on a book,..sorry about that.

So to Dr. Gerald L Schroeder's book, I haven't read it myself and don't intend to, but here is a review/notes on it.

Genesis and the Big Bang - a review

Excerpt..

In an interesting and charming account, woven around Bible verses enriched with a selection of ancient scholarship, and infused with the language and understandings of modern science, Gerald L. Schroeder elegantly answers my question, "how can one reconcile the account of Genesis with the findings of science? He observes that "the Bible talks in the language of man, the average man," but that there are deeper meanings available to those who study carefully. He seeks to show how this everyday language was used to accurately describe the formation of the universe, and life on earth, and how the appropriate interpretation of Genesis is wholly consistent with what we have come to know, and to infer about our beginnings, through science.

He works his way through each step of creation, from before the Big Bang to the making of Adam, showing how a reasonable elaboration of biblical language (reinforced and amplified by his A-team of historical commentators: Onkelos [c. 150 AD], Rashi [1040-1105], Maimonides [1135-1204] and Nahmanides [1194-1270]) is telling the same story as the work of ("such as") Albert Einstein, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Edwin Taylor, John Archibald Wheeler and Alan Guth (physicists and cosmologists), A.G.W. Cameron, Frank Press and Raymond Siever (geophysicists), George Wald and Francis Crick (molecular chemists and biologists).

Ultimately, he argues that there are two events which science does not (and therefore cannot) adequately explain, and which instead are evidence of divine intervention.

The inflationary epoch of the universe, ("by current estimates, from 10-35 to 10-32 seconds after the beginning") before the Big Bang, during which the universe changed in size from "fractions of a micron to the grand size of a grapefruit."
Life appears so rapidly on the young Earth, that it "cannot be attributed to random chemical reactions."
End excerpt.

Actually, neither the scientific big bang theory nor the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story mean much to me except as human attempts to convey the mystery of why all that exists exists.

And IMHO, this mystery behind THAT Oneness within which all that exists exists, is beyond the faculty of mind to comprehend as oneness can't be understood from the perspective of duality which is the very basis of functioning of the human mind, ie. discrimination.

Just came across this little gem,...

Vatican Astronomer Says Its OK to Believe in ET | Universe Today

Excerpt,...

The Director of the Vatican observatory...Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes discussed the Big Bang theory, as well as creation and evolution.

Question: Does the theory of the Big Bang reinforce or contradict the belief that is based on the Biblical account of creation?
Fr. Funes: As an astronomer, I continue to believe that God is the creator of the universe and that we are not the result of chance, but the children of a good father, who has a loving plan for us. The Bible is fundamentally not a science book. Dei Verbum stressed that it's the book of God's word addressed to us men. It's a love letter that God wrote to his people, in a language that is two or three thousand years old. At that time a concept like that of the Big Bang was of course unknown. So we can't ask the Bible for a scientific answer. At the same time, we don't know whether in a near or distant future, the theory of the Big Bang will be replaced by a more exhaustive and complete explanation of the origin of the universe. Right now, it's the best theory, and it's not contradicting faith. It's reasonable.
Question: But the book of Genesis speaks of earth, of animals, of man and woman. Does this exclude the possibility of the existence of other worlds or living beings in the universe?
Funes: I think that that possibility exists. Astronomers believe that the universe consists of hundreds of billions of galaxies, and each of these consists of hundreds of billions of stars. Many of them, or almost all of them, could have planets. How could we rule out that life has also developed elsewhere? Astrobiology is a branch of astronomy that studies this very topic, and it has made a lot of progress over the last few years. When we examine the light-spectra of the stars and planets, we can quickly determine the elements of their atmospheres - the so-called ˜biomakers - and understand whether or not there are conditions for the birth and development of life. Furthermore, there could in theory be lifeforms even without oxygen or hydrogen.

End excerpt

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

Let`s go back one or two posts ago... You said that the big bang "follows faithfully the creation story of Genesis".

Are you able to back up this claim with something other than books and articles you haven`t read?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Let`s go back one or two posts ago... You said that the big bang "follows faithfully the creation story of Genesis".

Are you able to back up this claim with something other than books and articles you havent read?

What's this about a claim that "I said that the big bang follows faithfully the creation story of Genesis."

If you reread my post, my comment was meant to convey the fact that it is UNDERSTANDABLE that the Vatican astronomer Georges Lemaitre's proposition in 1927, Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom, which later became the Big Bang Theory has from the beginning been faithful to/compatible with the Genesis creation story.

The point I was making is that a Vatican astronomer, then and now, would be in deep trouble to propose a scientific creation theory that contradicted the Bible Genesis story. It is not necessary for me to read books on the subject of the compatibility between the two myths/theories to arrive at my present understanding.

It was for that reason that I gave you a link to an interview with the present Director of the Vatican Observatory who reaffirms my understanding.

I mean, nothing has changed for the very same reason (He would be in deep trouble otherwise). From the recent news article, here is the Vatican Fr Funes saying, " Right now, it's the best theory (Big Bang Theory), and it's not contradicting faith. It's reasonable.".

With due respect Woman Of Reason, it seems you missed the whole point of my original post which was really meant to point out the seeming arrogance of those who would like people to believe in a theory of creation of the ALL THAT IS and yet these same people don't yet fully understand what one of the most common of cosmic particles is,... at least not to my satisfaction!

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

I get your point.

And you are right about saying that we don`t know anything about the fundamental nature of the universe and therefore we can`t say how or why things are the way they are.

But it always troubles me when someone says that Lemaitre has based his theory on religious grounds or to be compatible with religion. Which is not the case.

He made a clear distinction between science and religion. Religion for him was a philosophical way to think about the universe and he often said that the bible should not be understood literally. When Pope Pius XII, in 1951, heard about this theory he tried to use it to justify the bible creation story which infuriated Lemaitre who told him that his theory could in no way be associated with Genesis since it was not about the creation of the universe but about it`s evolution. Einstein thought that the universe was static, that`s why he invented an equation (the cosmological constant) that would prevent the universe from expanding or from collapsing on itself, an inexorable outcome on general relativity. Lemaitre did not see any reason to introduce this constant so he removed it.

Again the big bang theory is NOT about the creation of the universe but about it`s non-static aspect i.e. it`s evolution.