The Big Bang and Evolution

[siti]

Then that would have it that the books and articles that I've been reading written by research cosmologists are wrong, which I guess is a possibility.

An excellent book I'd recommend that covers this is "The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory" by Maurizio Gasperini.

Do me a favour - just show me the bit where he says the universe was the size of an atom before the Big Bang and the bit where he says we actually know how big the universe is...then I'll show you the bits that are wrong...except I won't need to because they're either not there, or they ARE the bits that are wrong.

Quantum mechanical approaches give no information about the actual size of the universe at any point as far as I am aware. Calculating the size of the universe is nothing to do with string theory or quantum mechanics but is based on calculating the size of the observable universe 'now' from Hubble's observations and relativity. When these calculations extrapolate back to the earliest phase of the universe, we get an infinitesimally small 'singularity' with space-time impossibly curved, infinite gravity and a whole heap of other absurdities. This doesn't mean relativity is wrong, it just means its not the right tool to use for the earliest part of the evolution of the universe.

The earliest actual observation we can make is the cosmic microwave background radiation which was originally emitted when the universe was a mere 380,000 years old and, by calculation, the part that we can observe "now" was 'only' about 42 million light years across - but all that really tells us is that anything that was outside that spherical window of 42 m ly diameter 'then' (which corresponds to about 93 billion light years 'now') is forever beyond our observational limits because no light could have traveled far enough to reach us yet and, because of expansion, it never will. If anyone tells you they know what size the actual universe was/is at any point before or after the Big Bang, they are telling lies I'm afraid.

 

[Valjean]

I think you have been reading evolution propaganda to believe only a handful of scientists reject evolution theory as a viable explanation for how life arose.

When did evolution theory become a theory of how life arose?
Why would biologists need propaganda? They're not proselytizing. They're not out for converts.

 

[Ben Avraham]

In your first sentence you engage in presuppositional special pleading, making an unsubstantiated claim that there was a Primal Cause, and exempting it from the rules that you are requiring of literally everything else....

You're arguing, as all creationists inevitably do, that an infinitely more complex being than the Universe caused the Universe to exist. You do not require this Unmoved Mover to follow the same rules that you require of everything else... Why is your deity of choice immune from your criticisms?

The Sun's creation analogy was meant to show you that at any point in a timeline you can ask "what caused this to be, since it cannot cause itself to be?" It is a flawed question because it makes no sense. There are a seemingly infinite number of variables that caused the sun to be, just as there was for all other stars that we observe coming and going into existence. There is no magic mover involved in any of these creations, though they've obviously "come to be."

Indeed, the Primal Cause is not subject to laws. He is rather a law-Giver. The question in your second paragraph above, does not need a serious answer for being too childish. Perhaps, if you put it to your 9 years old son, I am sure he will explain it to you better than I could myself.

Now, regarding the Sun's creation analogy, it was caused itself to exist with the existence of the Universe because it is only obvious that it could not have caused itself to exist. You must have some grudge against me to find flaw in every thing I pontificate. Perhas if you make use of Logic, that problem will release your mind of many maladies. The absence of the Primal Mover in the expansion of the Universe is simply that they were caused to exist by proxy. Think of yourself. Did the Primal Mover cause you to live? By proxy He did it when He caused the very first couple of parents to live since the beginning of human creation. Then, when He told them to grow and multiply according to Genesis 1:18, after many years you were born. Does that make sense to you or is it just another flaw of mine?

 

[Ben Avraham]

The physical laws as we know them can only be applied to the Universe in which we live. They're either an eternal pre-existing set of ordinances through which all existences are subject, or they were synthesized during the BB just like everything else that we'll ever know. To claim otherwise is to do so out of ignorance.There is only so far that reductionist reasoning can go before it hits the barrier of time, which is the Universal moment of origin in the BB. We will never know what came "before", because of what I have already mentioned. Read it again, Ben..."Seemingly eternal" is what I said - and that's based on our perspective. The laws of nature that we have discovered are seemingly eternal. You cannot posit that other laws exist, or that laws were somehow different in the past, until you find evidence that it could be (or has been) so.

So, let every one live in ignorance because I can't accept your theory that natural laws existed for all eternity before the Universe was caused to exist. What does it mean, that the laws were created first, then afterwards the Universe was caused to exist to fit the laws. I though the other way around would be more likely.

I'm sorry. But you're conflating a necessarily limited view of man's existence, as written in a mythological textbook by people who knew no better, to the superior understanding of knowledge that is attained through observation and testing. The Evolutionary model has made, and is making, predictions that come to fruition through study. It has been so for well over a century. There are no better explanations for the origins of current biologies than the comprehensive study of evolution. If you feel otherwise, you're free to present your substantiating data in Swim's thread challenging all creationists to present their case: A Challenge To All Creationists. You're also free to attempt to falsify Evolutionary understandings. If you can, I encourage you to do so.

Have you ever read "The Origin of the Species" by Charles Darwin? He himself wrote that book of his on the basis that it was a theory. Has his theory ever been turned into a fact that man came about from the primate? If so, next time I'll bring a banana to see if you will reject it. A joke of course but, based on the negative answer to his theory.

Understanding Evolution Man is a primate. There's no two ways about it. We are an adapted primate that shares lineages with not only the other primates currently inhabiting the Earth, but also with all other living organisms that have ever existed.

Of course, you compare man to a primate but, immediately remove any actual primate in order not to frustrate your belief in this theory of Darwin by you throw the mind of the reader all the way back billions of years as a chance that we will never be able to prove the theory. That's the same process about the theories of Physicists.

 

[Altfish]

So, let every one live in ignorance because I can't accept your theory that natural laws existed for all eternity before the Universe was caused to exist. What does it mean, that the laws were created first, then afterwards the Universe was caused to exist to fit the laws. I though the other way around would be more likely.

Why do we live in ignorance?
To put everything down to a 'supreme being' without a scrap of evidence is not helpful. I find it exciting that there are things we don't understand but that scientists are working on it at this very moment.

Have you ever read "The Origin of the Species" by Charles Darwin? He himself wrote that book of his on the basis that it was a theory. Has his theory ever been turned into a fact that man came about from the primate? If so, next time I'll bring a banana to see if you will reject it. A joke of course but, based on the negative answer to his theory.

Oh dear, a scientific theory means a lot more than the popular use of the word 'theory'. In science a good guess is called a hypothesis, it does not become a theory until much testing and agreement.
Have you heard of The Theory of Gravity or Germ Theory? These are high level explanations just like the Theory of Evolution.

Of course, you compare man to a primate but, immediately remove any actual primate in order not to frustrate your belief in this theory of Darwin by you throw the mind of the reader all the way back billions of years as a chance that we will never be able to prove the theory. That's the same process about the theories of Physicists.

Not really sure what you are saying here. BUT we are related to primates, we are a primate. Isn't that fantastic?

 

[Ben Avraham]

Why do we live in ignorance?
To put everything down to a 'supreme being' without a scrap of evidence is not helpful. I find it exciting that there are things we don't understand but that scientists are working on it at this very moment.

Oh dear, a scientific theory means a lot more than the popular use of the word 'theory'. In science a good guess is called a hypothesis, it does not become a theory until much testing and agreement.
Have you heard of The Theory of Gravity or Germ Theory? These are high level explanations just like the Theory of Evolution.

Not really sure what you are saying here. BUT we are related to primates, we are a primate. Isn't that fantastic?

Regarding the "Supreme Being," how come without a scrap of evidence! If the Primal Cause did not cause the Universe to exist, do you have any idea what or who did it? If you do, please, let me know! If you don't wanna go that high, how about starting with yourself? Did you cause yourself to exist? No, your parents did it. And your parents? Their parents. And their parents? By now, you must know I am talking about the concept of Causality that goes as further back as the Primal Cause Who caused the first couple of parents to exist. Can you refute what I am saying? If so, I am all ears!

 

[omega2xx]

You've been reading Creation Institute propaganda, haven't you?
Jerry Bergman - RationalWiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

If you would read what the ICR say about various evolution guesses, you would soon find that they reject what evolution preaches on scientific grounds.

 

[Altfish]

Well, in that case, next time I'll bring some bananas to text if you are indeed a primate. If you refuse them, you are no primate. If you grab them voraciously, then yes, you'll be ready to be transferred to the zoo.

I must remember this definition of a primate. Brilliant

Regarding the "Supreme Being," how come without a scrap of evidence! If the Primal Cause did not cause the Universe to exist, do you have any idea what or who did it? If you do, please, let me know! If you don't wanna go that high, how about starting with yourself? Did you cause yourself to exist? No, your parents did it. And your parents? Their parents. And their parents? By now, you must know I am talking about the concept of Causality that goes as further back as the Primal Cause Who caused the first couple of parents to exist. Can you refute what I am saying? If so, I am all ears!

Scientists are not scared of saying, "I do not know", so , no, I do not know what caused the universe. But I'm not going to invent something just so I can sleep at night.
You really don't have a clue about what evolution actually says, have you? You do also realise that the beginning of 'life' is nothing to do with evolution?
Following on with your Primal Cause argument - who created your supreme being. Where does that end?
I just stop one step earlier and don't invent a 'Prime cause', I'm quite happy with the explanation that evolution gives for how life on earth developed from single celled 'animals'.
Before you reply again here is a straightforward explanation of evolution, please read it.
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0932663.html

 

[Altfish]

If you would read what the ICR say about various evolution guesses, you would soon find that they reject what evolution preaches on scientific grounds.

Do you not think that most people who post on here have read the ICR stuff.
When they get papers published that are peer reviewed they will start to become a respectable organisation, currently it is NOT scientific or based on 'science grounds'.

 

[omega2xx]

I must remember this definition of a primate. Brilliant


Scientists are not scared of saying, "I do not know", so , no, I do not know what caused the universe. But I'm not going to invent something just so I can sleep at night.
You really don't have a clue about what evolution actually says, have you? You do also realise that the beginning of 'life' is nothing to do with evolution?
Following on with your Primal Cause argument - who created your supreme being. Where does that end?
I just stop one step earlier and don't invent a 'Prime cause', I'm quite happy with the explanation that evolution gives for how life on earth developed from single celled 'animals'.
Before you reply again here is a straightforward explanation of evolution, please read it.
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0932663.html

Are you comfortable with how the first single celled blob originated from lifeless elements? Evolution did originally include HOW life originated , but when ot being able to prove it became an embarrassment to therm., they moved it into another category.

 

[rusra02]

When did evolution theory become a theory of how life arose?
Why would biologists need propaganda? They're not proselytizing. They're not out for converts.

Why would biologists and others who have invested their reputations and entire careers supporting a theory increasingly under scientific attack use propaganda tactics to defend their theory? Why would they seek to marginalize, misrepresent, and seek to harm those scientists and others who reject their theory based on evidence, and publish that evidence?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Indeed, the Primal Cause is not subject to laws.

That's very convenient, isn't it?

You may claim it's childish, but I'd like you lay out a single argument for why you are exempting your Prime Mover from a rule that you say is required of absolutely everything else... Can you do that?

You, and to your credit all other theologians before you, fall prey to the same mental trap as everyone else who attempts to defend the Kalam Cosmological Argument... You have no justification for your premise, or for your deity. Even if I accept that the first premise is correct, that a Prime Mover must exist, you've done nothing to link your conclusion to your premise. For example, if a single Mover can exist, why can't 100? Why can't 100,000? A million?

The conclusion that you have made, which supposes that your version of the Abrahamic God was absolutely the Prime Mover in your premise, has yet to be established - not by you, William Lane Craig, or anyone else who has ever attempted this debate before. Can you make that connection?

Kalam cosmological argument - Wikipedia

He is rather a law-Giver.

You've anthropomorphized a being or entity that has never been established as actually existing... Isn't that kind of jumping the gun?

What if I said "She is the law-Giver"? Wouldn't that argument be just as valid, based on what you've established so far? What if I said "They are the law-Givers"? Again, wouldn't that be equally as accurate, given your Prime Mover premise?

Anthropomorphism - Wikipedia

The question in your second paragraph above, does not need a serious answer for being too childish. Perhaps, if you put it to your 9 years old son, I am sure he will explain it to you better than I could myself.

This is your third attempt at garnering an emotional response from me by bringing up my son. It's not going to work.

Now, regarding the Sun's creation analogy, it was caused itself to exist with the existence of the Universe because it is only obvious that it could not have caused itself to exist. You must have some grudge against me to find flaw in every thing I pontificate. Perhas if you make use of Logic, that problem will release your mind of many maladies. The absence of the Primal Mover in the expansion of the Universe is simply that they were caused to exist by proxy. Think of yourself. Did the Primal Mover cause you to live? By proxy He did it when He caused the very first couple of parents to live since the beginning of human creation. Then, when He told them to grow and multiply according to Genesis 1:18, after many years you were born. Does that make sense to you or is it just another flaw of mine?

It's not a personal thing at all. I do not know who you are outside of your avatar. What I am judging here are your thoughts, premises, and conclusions. When you begin to make sound arguments using those things, I will cease pointing out their flaws.

Logically, if you want to use that word, you are presupposing that your conclusions are accurate. To this point, you have not fully established a single one of them... What you are saying makes sense to you and to people who share your faith - but that's not good enough in a reasonable debate about factual information. The conclusion could just as well be a Magical Purple Unicorn. I challenge you to explain to me how I'm wrong, regardless of whether or not you think it's childish.

(Prime Mover + Expanded Universe = X) Please show me why/how X = Yahweh.

I can explain to you how a complex number forms, for example, based on the principles and observations of mathematics. You are attempting to explain where they came from and who created them. Factually, and if you're being intellectually honest, you must admit that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you do so. What you fail to realize is that neither do I, nor does anyone else, because it is an impossible thing to know. I am explaining the knowns to you. You are pretending to know something that it unknowable and you are doing a poor job of substantiating your reasons for doing so.

It does matter who you are. This is, logically, what you are doing.

So, let every one live in ignorance because I can't accept your theory that natural laws existed for all eternity before the Universe was caused to exist. What does it mean, that the laws were created first, then afterwards the Universe was caused to exist to fit the laws. I though the other way around would be more likely.

Again, Ben, I said "possibly." I did not say that those Laws were eternal, though it is one explanation that has yet to be ruled out.

Your current stance, that an infinitely complex being existed before the expansion of the Universe, is much more problematic than the different ideas I'm sharing with you.

Have you ever read "The Origin of the Species" by Charles Darwin? He himself wrote that book of his on the basis that it was a theory. Has his theory ever been turned into a fact that man came about from the primate? If so, next time I'll bring a banana to see if you will reject it. A joke of course but, based on the negative answer to his theory.

It's beside the point, but of course I've read Darwin... I'll ask you the same thing. Have you ever actually read the book you're talking about?

I'm also curious as to what you think Darwin's original ideas have to do with the current state of Evolutionary Understanding...

If every single copy of the Origin of Species was burned in a massive fire, it would do nothing to alter what we know about the comprehensive understanding of common descent. That fact that you don't know this says a lot about your confusion on the issue.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, predefined, protocol of observations and experiments. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge."

Category:Scientific theories - Wikipedia

Of course, you compare man to a primate but, immediately remove any actual primate in order not to frustrate your belief in this theory of Darwin by you throw the mind of the reader all the way back billions of years as a chance that we will never be able to prove the theory. That's the same process about the theories of Physicists.

Choose a point along the timeline of human evolution that you have a problem with and I'll happily explain it to you.

Similarly, choose a point along the timeline of planetary or atomic evolution and I'll happily explain it to you.

The links I've provided you in this response, and in previous ones, are useful. You should spend a couple of minutes browsing through them before you write responses like this. What you've just done is express that you completely misunderstood what I was saying to you in the above quoted text.

 

[omega2xx]

Do you not think that most people who post on here have read the ICR stuff.
When they get papers published that are peer reviewed they will start to become a respectable organisation, currently it is NOT scientific or based on 'science grounds'.

 

[omega2xx]

Do you not think that most people who post on here have read the ICR stuff.

No,

When they get papers published that are peer reviewed they will start to become a respectable organisation, currently it is NOT scientific or based on 'science grounds'.

Get real. It isd well know that these so-called scientific journals will not print any thing that even hints at creationism. That makes them the unrespectable orgainsations. IMO, they are afraid, the Creation scientist will expose the flaws in evolution, and they will do it with real science, not like "talk origins" who are only parrots.

 

[Altfish]

Are you comfortable with how the first single celled blob originated from lifeless elements?

I'm a lot more comfortable with that explanation than the religious, "God did it" explanation.

Evolution did originally include HOW life originated , but when ot being able to prove it became an embarrassment to therm., they moved it into another category.

Really, I must have missed that.
Link please.

 

[Altfish]

No,.

You'd be surprised.
If ever I feel down the ICR and AiG websites are my first port of call.

Get real. It isd well know that these so-called scientific journals will not print any thing that even hints at creationism. That makes them the unrespectable orgainsations. IMO, they are afraid, the Creation scientist will expose the flaws in evolution, and they will do it with real science, not like "talk origins" who are only parrots.

I wonder why?
Could it possibly be because Creation Science isn't science? Name me one creation inspired 'idea' that hasn't been thoroughly debunked by reputable scientists.
Peer review is the basis of science, many seemingly great ideas are totally thrown out after critical peer review.
Any scientist who could prove evolution to be false would become more famous than Einstein, Darwin or Newton. Nobel Prizes await

 

[metis]

Do me a favour - just show me the bit where he says the universe was the size of an atom before the Big Bang and the bit where he says we actually know how big the universe is...then I'll show you the bits that are wrong...except I won't need to because they're either not there, or they ARE the bits that are wrong.

I told you that they were in what I have read, and if you think I'm lying then I'd suggest you simply ignore anything I may post from now on.

So, in parting, here's an article that equates it with the size of a marble, although I have seen articles that have equated it being the size of a pearl and then an atom. Of those three, I've seen the latter most often.

How could all the atoms in the universe possibly fit into something the size of a marble at the time of the Big Bang? • /r/askscience

 

[metis]

but all that really tells us is that anything that was outside that spherical window of 42 m ly diameter 'then' (which corresponds to about 93 billion light years 'now') is forever beyond our observational limits because no light could have traveled far enough to reach us yet and, because of expansion, it never will. If anyone tells you they know what size the actual universe was/is at any point before or after the Big Bang, they are telling lies I'm afraid.

Oops, I forgot to comment on the above.

Even though the extent of the universe cannot be observed, what the cosmologists have done was to calculate the expansion based on what they do know. One thing that they have deduced is that the outer perimeter of the expansion is not uniform.

Again, if you don't believe in what I've read, that's not my problem. I've had subscriptions to Scientific American for over 50 years now, and there's almost always at least one article that directly or indirectly relates to the BB in each issue in recent years. If these people are all wrong, so be it.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Why do we live in ignorance?
To put everything down to a 'supreme being' without a scrap of evidence is not helpful. I find it exciting that there are things we don't understand but that scientists are working on it at this very moment.

Oh dear, a scientific theory means a lot more than the popular use of the word 'theory'. In science a good guess is called a hypothesis, it does not become a theory until much testing and agreement.
Have you heard of The Theory of Gravity or Germ Theory? These are high level explanations just like the Theory of Evolution.

Not really sure what you are saying here. BUT we are related to primates, we are a primate. Isn't that fantastic?

I don't like to think of myself as a primate. I like to think that I was born with Intellect and Freewill and not with instinct.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I must remember this definition of a primate. Brilliant

Scientists are not scared of saying, "I do not know", so , no, I do not know what caused the universe. But I'm not going to invent something just so I can sleep at night. You really don't have a clue about what evolution actually says, have you? You do also realise that the beginning of 'life' is nothing to do with evolution? Following on with your Primal Cause argument - who created your supreme being. Where does that end? I just stop one step earlier and don't invent a 'Prime cause', I'm quite happy with the explanation that evolution gives for how life on earth developed from single celled 'animals'. Before you reply again here is a straightforward explanation of evolution, please read it.
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0932663.html

If the Primal Cause was created, He could not be called the Primal Cause.