The Big Bang and Evolution

[jonathan180iq]

What or who caused the matter of before the Universe which became or not the Universe?

For all we know, the physical laws of existence were present and acting upon ( and possibly within) the condensed soup of matter and energy that would have been the primordial origin. It's fun to speculate different sets of rules, but you have to show evidence that they can exist before you can pretend that they do, even in a hypothetical scenario like this discussion.

Asking "what" or "who" caused the initial moment of expanse is like asking what or who formed the Sun, the planets, or any other object in our Solar System. Like all other solar systems in the Cosmos, they self-formed via wholly natural and well understood processes.

Stellar nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia
Accretion (astrophysics) - Wikipedia

If we ask the same question, "What or who caused any of those things to happen", would it make sense as a question?

I see you already contradicting yourself because your opening words are that the BB was the beginning of the Universe. But let's continue. You say that before the Universe came to be with the BB, there was matter that became the Universe. If there was no time before the BB caused the Universe to be, how could matter exist before time? Matter is composed of atoms and atoms have electrons moving around a nucleus of protons and neutrons. Since time is an accident of matter in motion, there was time in the atom before the BB caused the beginning of time as you claim above.

The Word "Before"
There are two conversations going on here. They seem contradictory because you're assuming they are equal to one another. Common understandings of how things work, and what they mean, are very different from how they actually work and what they actually mean. We may find it very logical to discuss "before" because that's how our brains work. The seemingly eternal nature of our Universe and its governing laws have been in place since before our arrival on the scene and they will persist long after our departure. I'm trying to maintain both conversations with you, the common and the actual.

The word "before" cannot exist when discussing anything that happened before the BB. That is a true statement because Space and Time (as we know it) did not exist before that moment. There is a wall of ignorance that will forever exist in regards to the origin of time because of that. It is impossible to know what happened before the origins of Space Time. All of human knowledge can only account for what has happened since. Anything more is speculation. This is true of both Theistic and Scientific endeavors. The Universe could just as easily be a reverberating cycle of expanding and contracting eternities as it could be a snot goblet on the nostril of a Magic Celestial Unicorn.

On Matter
Matter - Wikipedia

Remember how I told you evolution is a comprehensive understanding of existence, and not just a description of human development? This is what I was talking about. Even the complexity of atoms which you think are required in order for matter (as you've described it) to exist have undergone an evolutionary process.

All of physicality evolves. Even the basic constants in chemistry, which must have been synthesized during the BB, namely Hydrogen and Helium, had to undergo physical changes over time in order to produce more complex elements and molecules. Hydrogen is the "Adam" of the elements. Without it, there is nothing else.

Regarding evolution, I take it as the development of our intellect because I can't accommodate the theory of Darwin that I have evolved from the monkey. The bottom line is that your impression that my question is flown and makes no sense has become the same as mine with regards to your contradicting answers which to me make no sense. But ti seems to me, we will eventually solve our differences.

Your emotional rejection of Evolutionary Biology is not tenable in a scientific conversation. You can't argue something to be false simply because you don't like it... That's not how knowledge works.

You have evolved from much more than just a monkey - You are the product of a 14 Billion year old process of adaptation and change, culminating in the majesty of a living existence. The atoms in your body have seen eons of time pass by - They've been to, and have been part of, other planets - they've been crushed in the bellies of stars - they've spent whole epochs traveling through space - they've been dirt, clouds, rain, mountains, rivers, trees, dinosaurs... they've also been monkeys and every other creature that you can imagine. Our species directly evolved from primates, yes. Would you have preferred it if we directly descended from something else?

This is who we are. It's where our species came from. There's a lot more to evolution than just "Monkeys to man..."

 

[metis]

Are you talking about the singularity?

The evidence suggest that there was indeed singularity, so one of the questions we have is what actually caused it to expand, and there are a fair number of theories dealing with that.

If so, what or who caused the singularity to exist and consequently produce the Universe with the BB event?

Unknown at this time, and it may never be known, and my guess is with the latter.

Let me recommend you read my signature statement at the bottom of my posts to get where I'm coming from on this. I am not stating nor implying that there could not be a theistic causation.

 

[metis]

No - sorry but that's just wrong - calculation, based on classical relativity, has it that the universe 'just before the Big Bang' had no size, no spatial (or temporal) extension at all - it was infinitely smaller than an atom - they call that a "singularity'.

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.

It may even have been - and continue to be infinite in extension - we have no idea how big the entire universe is or even whether it has limits at all.

Again, according to the articles and books I've read, this also is wrong-- at least according to the calculations put forth by cosmologists. I have to rely on them because, even though I've been involved in science for 50 years, my area of specialization is not cosmology.

An excellent book I'd recommend that covers this is "The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory" by Maurizio Gasperini. It is VERY technical, thus being too much over my head as far as the calculations are concerned. Scientific American has had myriads of articles on this as well, and fortunately they're much easier for me to digest.

 

[Ben Avraham]

For all we know, the physical laws of existence were present and acting upon ( and possibly within) the condensed soup of matter and energy that would have been the primordial origin. It's fun to speculate different sets of rules, but you have to show evidence that they can exist before you can pretend that they do, even in a hypothetical scenario like this discussion. Asking "what" or "who" caused the initial moment of expanse is like asking what or who formed the Sun, the planets, or any other object in our Solar System. Like all other solar systems in the Cosmos, they self-formed via wholly natural and well understood processes. If we ask the same question, "What or who caused any of those things to happen", would it make sense as a question?

What or Who caused those physical laws to exist?

The Word "Before"

There are two conversations going on here. They seem contradictory because you're assuming they are equal to one another. Common understandings of how things work, and what they mean, are very different from how they actually work and what they actually mean. We may find it very logical to discuss "before" because that's how our brains work. The seemingly eternal nature of our Universe and its governing laws have been in place since before our arrival on the scene and they will persist long after our departure. I'm trying to maintain both conversations with you, the common and the actual. The word "before" cannot exist when discussing anything that happened before the BB. That is a true statement because Space and Time (as we know it) did not exist before that moment. There is a wall of ignorance that will forever exist in regards to the origin of time because of that. It is impossible to know what happened before the origins of Space Time. All of human knowledge can only account for what has happened since. Anything more is speculation. This is true of both Theistic and Scientific endeavors. The Universe could just as easily be a reverberating cycle of expanding and contracting eternities as it could be a snot goblet on the nostril of a Magic Celestial Unicorn.

Eternal nature of our Universe! I thought you were serious when you said that the BB was the beginning of the Universe. For something to have had a beginning, there is nothing in its nature to be referred to as eternal nature.

On Matter

Remember how I told you evolution is a comprehensive understanding of existence, and not just a description of human development? This is what I was talking about. Even the complexity of atoms which you think are required in order for matter (as you've described it) to exist have undergone an evolutionary process. All of physicality evolves. Even the basic constants in chemistry, which must have been synthesized during the BB, namely Hydrogen and Helium, had to undergo physical changes over time in order to produce more complex elements and molecules. Hydrogen is the "Adam" of the elements. Without it, there is nothing else.

Any kind of evolution, physical or intellectual is part of the development of Man. When Man was caused to exist, the word was to grow and multiply. To grow not only biologically but also intellectually. (Genesis 1:28) That's called real evolution. The evolution taught by Darwin is only a theory that, like almost all theories never come to fruition.

Your emotional rejection of Evolutionary Biology is not tenable in a scientific conversation. You never stand.can't argue something to be false simply because you don't like it... That's not how knowledge works.You have evolved from much more than just a monkey - You are the product of a 14 Billion year old process of adaptation and change, culminating in the majesty of a living existence. The atoms in your body have seen eons of time pass by - They've been to, and have been part of, other planets - they've been crushed in the bellies of stars - they've spent whole epochs traveling through space - they've been dirt, clouds, rain, mountains, rivers, trees, dinosaurs... they've also been monkeys and every other creature that you can imagine. Our species directly evolved from primates, yes. Would you have preferred it if we directly descended from something else? This is who we are. It's where our species came from. There's a lot more to evolution than just "Monkeys to man..."

The meaning of my "not liking a theory" is based on the lack of evidences to stand against reality; not simply because I don't like it. If you tell me something which in your opinion can stand against my views, I don't like but only until I am entirely persuaded of the truth about it. Monkeys for instance, do enjoy evolution but within the monkey species, not from monkey to man which is a theory which has not yet been proved as a fact. That's why I don't liked it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

True science agrees with what the Bible teaches, IMO. The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) As for evolution, it is not a Bible teaching. Not surprisingly, it has remained a subject of controversy, not scientific fact. An increasing number of scientists are publicly rejecting the ToE. I believe a far larger number of scientists are in the proverbial closet, fearing damage to their careers and livelihood should they publicly express their doubts.

David Raup was a good example, he passed away recently, but he was curator of the Chicago Field Museum (of Lucy and Sue fame) and a prominent paleontologist, about as qualified as anyone on the planet to have an opinion on this

He publicly 'believed in evolution' but also clearly qualified that as 'merely change' not how things changed- "


"ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time.[] we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection."

 

[Ben Avraham]

The evidence suggest that there was indeed singularity, so one of the questions we have is what actually caused it to expand, and there are a fair number of theories dealing with that.

Unknown at this time, and it may never be known, and my guess is with the latter.

Let me recommend you read my signature statement at the bottom of my posts to get where I'm coming from on this. I am not stating nor implying that there could not be a theistic causation.

What is a theist causation! Causation is of Physics to be used to promote the truth about the Primal Cause.

 

[metis]

We need to remember that each current species are in reality are "transitional species", and there's simply no reason to believe that this would have been different thousands to millions of years ago. Something has to explain all the changes we've seen in the fossil record and the genome testing, and there is not one single piece of evidence to suggest that any deities were involved. Maybe there were, but we certainly cannot tell that from what we see.

 

[metis]

What is a theist causation! Causation is of Physics to be used to promote the truth about the Primal Cause.

It is your assumption that there was a "Primal Cause", which would be contrary to the concept of infinity. However, I am not saying that the latter is true.

"Theistic causation" is the concept that all was created by a god or gods.

 

[Ben Avraham]

The evidence suggest that there was indeed singularity, so one of the questions we have is what actually caused it to expand, and there are a fair number of theories dealing with that.
Unknown at this time, and it may never be known, and my guess is with the latter. Let me recommend you read my signature statement at the bottom of my posts to get where I'm coming from on this. I am not stating nor implying that there could not be a theistic causation.

No! First, we must know what caused the singularity to exist. Then, yes, how it expanded into causing the Universe to exist.

 

[metis]

No! First, we must know what caused the singularity to exist. Then, yes, how it expanded into causing the Universe to exist.

That's pretty much what I was saying, although each could be covered independent of the other.

 

[Ben Avraham]

It is your assumption that there was a "Primal Cause", which would be contrary to the concept of infinity. However, I am not saying that the latter is true. "Theistic causation" is the concept that all was created by a god or gods.

Yes, you are right!. I only find "to be created by a god or gods" is too rudimentary. To have been caused to exist by the Primal Cause is more fitting as Logic is concerned.

 

[Valjean]

And I am sure you have the means to help me in my mistakes. To begin with, we don't know yet about our own Universe and you are already speaking about an infinite cycle of other universes! Do I expect that our Carbon dating scientific experiments give answers about other universes when we are still struggling to understand our own universe? When you try to explain what I am really arguing, you make the mistake to assume what has not been in my mind. What I am discussing is nothing else but the fact that the Primal Cause is Real and you seem not to be able to realize it. If the Universe did not cause itself to exist as you have agreed with me already, you seem not to know or to admit that it was caused to exist by something else that preceded it aka the Primal Cause. If you cannot agree, tell me about the option to that. Thank you!

Why must we perfectly understand our own universe before we turn our eye to the cosmos? Science discovers principles and relationships. They apply where they apply.

You seem to be comparing apples and oranges. What do cosmology or M Theory have to do with 'ordinary' sciences like biology or geology?

True science agrees with what the Bible teaches, IMO. The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) As for evolution, it is not a Bible teaching. Not surprisingly, it has remained a subject of controversy, not scientific fact. An increasing number of scientists are publicly rejecting the ToE. I believe a far larger number of scientists are in the proverbial closet, fearing damage to their careers and livelihood should they publicly express their doubts.

True science ignores what the Bible teaches. Science does its own investigation and testing.The Bible is not a science book.

Evolution was unknown to the authors of the Bible, so it's no surprise it's not in there.
Evolution is a fact. Life has changed over time. As for controversy, the fact of evolution is only disputed by the religious -- generally those that don't understand the ToE. Among scientists, it's the details of mechanism that are disputed, not the fact of evolution or the overall mechanisms involved.

A decreasing number of scientists are rejecting the ToE. Scientific support for the ToE continues to grow.You could probably count the number of legitimate scientific dissidents on one hand.

 

[metis]

To have been caused to exist by the Primal Cause is more fitting as Logic is concerned.

I also think "infinity" is in the running, so I'm comfortable with my "I don't know" stance on this.

 

[Valjean]

Any kind of evolution, physical or intellectual is part of the development of Man. When Man was caused to exist, the word was to grow and multiply. To grow not only biologically but also intellectually. (Genesis 1:28) That's called real evolution. The evolution taught by Darwin is only a theory that, like almost all theories never come to fruition.

What does "caused to exist" mean? Man developed like any other animal, didn't he?
Evolution was occurring for billions of years before man appeared on the scene. Moreover, when man appeared the world began to degrade, not grow. The megafauna were extirpated, forests destroyed and deserts created.
Intellectual evolution is no different than the evolution of any other feature, and now that civilization has obviated the selective advantage of intellect, I'd expect a metabolically costly feature like a large brain to shrink.

All science is "only a theory" A scientific theory is not speculation or conjecture.

Why do you cite Darwin? What does Darwin have to say about current biological research? You don't see Hippocrates cited in medical journals, or Copernicus in Astronomy journals.

Monkeys for instance, do enjoy evolution but within the monkey species, not from monkey to man which is a theory which has not yet been proved as a fact. That's why I don't liked it.

Who proposed monkey to man? Where did you get that idea? -- certainly not from any biology text.
How do physical changes know when to stop, so as to avoid producing new species, and how do you explain the speciation we've already observed with our own eyes?

David Raup was a good example, he passed away recently, but he was curator of the Chicago Field Museum (of Lucy and Sue fame) and a prominent paleontologist, about as qualified as anyone on the planet to have an opinion on this
He publicly 'believed in evolution' but also clearly qualified that as 'merely change' not how things changed- "

"ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time.[] we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection."

This quotation is misinterpreted and taken out of context. On a Common Creationist Quotation of Dr. David M. Raup

No! First, we must know what caused the singularity to exist. Then, yes, how it expanded into causing the Universe to exist.

Why do facts have to appear or be applied in a particular order? Why does the singularity need a cause?
I think you're trying to apply ordinary experience to a physics where it's inapplicable. Square peg -- round hole.

 

[rusra02]

True science ignores what the Bible teaches. Science does its own investigation and testing.The Bible is not a science book.

Evolution was unknown to the authors of the Bible, so it's no surprise it's not in there.
Evolution is a fact. Life has changed over time. As for controversy, the fact of evolution is only disputed by the religious,generally those that don't understand the ToE. Among scientists it's the details of mechanism that are disputed, not the fact of evolution or the overall mechanisms involved.
A decreasing number of scientists are rejecting the ToE. Scientific support for the ToE continues to grow.You could probably count the number of legitimate scientific dissidents on one hand.

According to this source, over 3,000 scientists and intellectuals are listed who reject macro evolution. The author claims that is a small percentage of the scientists who reject macro evolution as "fact". I find your claim that one could count dissidents from the theory on one hand far from reality.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What does "caused to exist" mean? Man developed like any other animal, didn't he?
Evolution was occurring for billions of years before man appeared on the scene. Moreover, when man appeared the world began to degrade, not grow. The megafauna were extirpated, forests destroyed and deserts created.
Intellectual evolution is no different than the evolution of any other feature, and now that civilization has obviated the selective advantage of intellect, I'd expect a metabolically costly feature like a large brain to shrink.

All science is "only a theory" A scientific theory is not speculation or conjecture.

Why do you cite Darwin? What does Darwin have to say about current biological research? You don't see Hippocrates cited in medical journals, or Copernicus in Astronomy journals.
Who proposed monkey to man? Where did you get that idea? -- certainly not from any biology text.
How do physical changes know when to stop, so as to avoid producing new species, and how do you explain the speciation we've already observed with our own eyes?
This quotation is misinterpreted and taken out of context. On a Common Creationist Quotation of Dr. David M. Raup

Why do facts have to appear or be applied in a particular order? Why does the singularity need a cause?
I think you're trying to apply ordinary experience to a physics where it's inapplicable. Square peg -- round hole.

Raup identified many direct conflicts between the predictions of Darwin's theory, and the actual evidence presented in paleontology. No way around this

 

[Valjean]

According to this source, over 3,000 scientists and intellectuals are listed who reject macro evolution. The author claims that is a small percentage of the scientists who reject macro evolution as "fact". I find your claim that one could count dissidents from the theory on one hand far from reality.

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

 

[jonathan180iq]

What or Who caused those physical laws to exist?

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.

Eternal nature of our Universe! I thought you were serious when you said that the BB was the beginning of the Universe. For something to have had a beginning, there is nothing in its nature to be referred to as eternal nature.

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.

Any kind of evolution, physical or intellectual is part of the development of Man. When Man was caused to exist, the word was to grow and multiply. To grow not only biologically but also intellectually. (Genesis 1:28) That's called real evolution. The evolution taught by Darwin is only a theory that, like almost all theories never come to fruition.

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.

The meaning of my "not liking a theory" is based on the lack of evidences to stand against reality; not simply because I don't like it. If you tell me something which in your opinion can stand against my views, I don't like but only until I am entirely persuaded of the truth about it. Monkeys for instance, do enjoy evolution but within the monkey species, not from monkey to man which is a theory which has not yet been proved as a fact. That's why I don't liked it.

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.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The Sun is an element part of the Universe. The Primal Cause that caused the Universe to exist, caused the Sun as the Universe was caused. If you find hard to understand what I am talking about, let me know and I'll try different words. The Sun could not do it on its own because it had to exist to cause itself to exist. If it already existed, it would have been irrelevant to still cause itself to exist. This is pure Logic; and if you ask me, not too hard to understand. The material that makes up the Sun comes from the nature by which the Sun was caused to exist. Before that and before that and on, you are getting into an exploration of the concept of Causality that even your son of 9 could give the same answer that you will end up with the Primal Cause, the Cause of all causes by proxy. What I mean, for instance,
is that since you could not have caused yourself to exist, you were caused by your parents, your parents by their parents and their parents, by further back, their parents, until the Primal Cause Who caused the first couple of parents to exist. And I am the one asking bad questions! Now, it is my turn to ask you how my reasoning could refute any possibility of a Creator aka the Primal Cause. Without the Primal Cause we would not be here today discussing His existence. That's what keeps us learning which is all that life is about.

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."

 

[rusra02]

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

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.