The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.

[Photonic]

Now that would an interesting argument in a court of law.

I wonder if you have heard of the idea of replication.

In other words, if I carried out the same examination of your biological parents and came up with the same conclusion such would be a 'misconception'? Interesting science.

No, you would come up with the same probability, or with more in depth testing, a higher probability.

Proofs only exist in the mathematical sense.

If you ever have a parental test it will always show a percentage of accuracy in the test and not a definitive answer. The judge is called upon to make a decision based on that that has that exact same percentage of probability of being accurate.

 

[Tristesse]

Right, and everyone knows that General Relativity breaks down at that point. We have to use quantum physics to explain this and no one is sure how to do it.

Exactly! Thats what I said, we currently don't have an explanation. So, why do you feel justified in providing an explanation to something that is currently unexplained?

But it doesn't matter anyway, because in 2003, three prominent physicists named Arvine Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilkenkin produced a theorem (called the Borde/Guth/Vilenkin theorem [BVG theorem), which shows that any universe that has been expanding at a rate higher than 0 cannot be infinite in the past and therefore have a beginning. And thats not all, the second law of thermodynamics can also be used to show that our universe had a beginning. So if you are really interested in finding the truth you dont do yourself justice by denying modern science. The universe began to exist.

The universe had a beginning in the sense that time began. But to talk about before the big bang is useless, mainly because before is an application of time, and if time as we know it didn't exist, it's useless. But lets set aside all of that, and I will grant you that yes, the universe "began" to exist at some point, now, explain how you get to a god is necessarily responsible for this.

Who is deriving a theistic position from this? I am simply saying the universe began to exist, which supports scientific data observation. Saying "the universe began to exist" is a religiously nuetral statement that can be found in any textbook on cosmology. The theist can make such a statement and be right in line with modern cosmology.

You're right that would be a neutral statement if you weren't positing something beyond that statement, but in fact you are. And I want to know why you are.

Plenty evidence.

Such as? Thats kinda the main point of this discussion.

Am i the only one being dishonest?? Lets see...

Paul Davies, english physicists said: "The universe can't have existed forever. We know there must have been an absolute beginning a finite time ago" (Paul Davies, The Big Bang-and Before, The Thomas Aquinas College Lecture series, March 2002)

Sir Arthur Eddington, british astrophyscists said: "The beginning seems to present inspurable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural" (Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe, New York: MacMillan, 1933, pg 24)

J. Richard Gott (physicists), James Gunn (physicists), David Schramm (physicists) said: "The universe began from a state of infinite density about one Hubble time ago." (Will the Universe Expand Forever?, Scientific American, March 1976, pg 65 Gott, Gunn, Schramm)

Stephen Hawking, physicists, said: "Almost everyone now believes the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang" (Hawking and Penrose, The Nature of Space and time, 1996, pg 20)

There you have quotes from prominent physcists from 1933 all the way to 2002, who all agree that based on evidence and observation, that the universe began to exist. So either everyone is wrong but you, or you are in deep denial of the data because you are aware of its implications.

I agree that the universe had a beginning, and there is no other implication in that statement other than the universe had a beginning.

 

[Pineblossom]

No, you would come up with the same probability, or with more in depth testing, a higher probability.

Proofs only exist in the mathematical sense.

If you ever have a parental test it will always show a percentage of accuracy in the test and not a definitive answer. The judge is called upon to make a decision based on that that has that exact same percentage of probability of being accurate.

Probably.

Until the next probability comes along - Thomas Kuhn.

Which means there are probably dancing elephants on the moons of Saturn.

Reformed epistemology is attractive.

 

[Pineblossom]

I agree that the universe had a beginning, and there is no other implication in that statement other than the universe had a beginning.

Or it 'probably' had a beginning.

Sorry - could not resist after my last posts.

 

[Tristesse]

Or it 'probably' had a beginning.

Sorry - could not resist after my last posts.

Well, nothing in science is definitive.

 

[gnostic]

Probably.

Until the next probability comes along - Thomas Kuhn.

Which means there are probably dancing elephants on the moons of Saturn.

Reformed epistemology is attractive.

Only if you're "high" on LSD.:danana:

Is that a banana that I see dancing there...never mind.

It's not that I know what it like to be "high". :angel2:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Photonic (physicist) said: "There is no reason to believe that there is an absolute beginning or end, only a conceptual start and end is conceivable."

Well in that case I can say there is no reason to believe that the universe is eternal. We can sit here and play these games all night long. The evidence points to the universe having a beginning at some point in the finite past. If you people on here are honest with yourselves, you will stop going against science. The few people on this earth that don't believe that the universe is finite only do so because they know of its implications. I can't think of any other reason for this denial.

Second, what is this about a "conceptual" start. These are semantic games. Either the universe has a beginning or it didnt. If it did, it requires a cause. If it didn't, then it is eternal. Plain and simple. Obviously we have evidence that it did, otherwise all of these other cosmo models wouldnt be postulated if it didn't (the steady state model, the oscillating model, quantum models, string models, vacuum models). All of these models are postulated to provide an answer to why our universe began to exist. So to sit there and say that the universe doesn't have a beginning is being flat out dishonest. You can no longer be a true scientist and believe this, since the evidence is so overwhelming that even Hawking, who is not even a theist, admits that the universe began to exist.

Third, you still have to deal with the thermodynamics problem that the universe has, which is independent evidence for a finite universe.

 

[Photonic]

Well in that case I can say there is no reason to believe that the universe is eternal. We can sit here and play these games all night long. The evidence points to the universe having a beginning at some point in the finite past. If you people on here are honest with yourselves, you will stop going against science. The few people on this earth that don't believe that the universe is finite only do so because they know of its implications. I can't think of any other reason for this denial.

Second, what is this about a "conceptual" start. These are semantic games. Either the universe has a beginning or it didnt. If it did, it requires a cause. If it didn't, then it is eternal. Plain and simple. Obviously we have evidence that it did, otherwise all of these other cosmo models wouldnt be postulated if it didn't (the steady state model, the oscillating model, quantum models, string models, vacuum models). All of these models are postulated to provide an answer to why our universe began to exist. So to sit there and say that the universe doesn't have a beginning is being flat out dishonest. You can no longer be a true scientist and believe this, since the evidence is so overwhelming that even Hawking, who is not even a theist, admits that the universe began to exist.

Third, you still have to deal with the thermodynamics problem that the universe has, which is independent evidence for a finite universe.

The only thing we can define as finite is inertial frame of reference and 3-space. Outside of that it gets all wonky.

 

[YmirGF]

Photonic (physicist) said: "There is no reason to believe that there is an absolute beginning or end, only a conceptual start and end is conceivable."

Which, imo, is a perfectly acceptable statement. If people wish to change the exact meaning of what you are saying that is their straw man to build. I rather expect that Hawking, et al, would agree - as it is accurate.

 

[lunakilo]

Right, and everyone knows that General Relativity breaks down at that point. We have to use quantum physics to explain this and no one is sure how to do it. But it doesn't matter anyway, because in 2003, three prominent physicists named Arvine Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilkenkin produced a theorem (called the Borde/Guth/Vilenkin theorem [BVG theorem), which shows that any universe that has been expanding at a rate higher than 0 cannot be infinite in the past and therefore have a beginning. And thats not all, the second law of thermodynamics can also be used to show that our universe had a beginning. So if you are really interested in finding the truth you dont do yourself justice by denying modern science. The universe began to exist.

I am curious, how do you know the universe has always been expanding?

 

[gnostic]

i have opened another thread similar to this but unfortunately, i cannot ask questions that don't have anything to do with evolution, namely Natural Selection. so i decided to open this thread and name it in the way that i have and thus leaves open a range of topics to be discussed under the one thread.

If you are going to ask questions or debate about the origin of the universe, whether it be creation or the Big Bang Theory (BBT), then I think you should just stick that, instead of including Evolution/Natural Selection (NS) in your thread.

The Big Bang Theory is totally unrelated to evolution because evolution deal with biology (NS is the mechanism to explain how the diversity of life (biologically) and how a life form survive by adapting to changing environment), while the BBT deals with astronomy.

Firstly i would say that as a creationist, i accept the theory put forward by science as to how our universe came to exist, ie. a big bang occurred.
So far in the human quest to understanding the universe there are two proposed theories concerning what was before the big bang if there was anything at all that is. The first theory is that there was some kind of a smoke cloud which is one possibility because new stars are created from a similar scenario, where this smoke is called a nebula. The other theory is that the bang just happened, there was nothing before it. These two theories however, do not concern me, what concerns me is the actual explosion and whether time and space existed before this explosion.

Oh dear.

You're already on the wrong track.

First. The formation of the star through is completely different to that of the Big Bang.

Like you said, star can be formed through the nebula, which comprised of gas and dust (and other debris), which you had referred to as "smoke", but these nebulae are not "smoke". The formation of the new star in this model (nebula) is due to gravitation collapse of those gases, dusts and other objects (possibly debris). This collapse would cause more gas and other matters (including dust) to bond together because of gravity, until it is massive enough to form a star.

And the nebula is not the only way for the birth of new stars. New star can be formed from old star. This time, the gravitation collapse in the old dying star. The massive star would reach critical mass at some point, explode in a supernova. The debris from that supernova could form a new star to form.

With the Big Bang it is different. It was already super dense or super massive at the beginning, and super hot, of course. There is no smoke or nebula in the origin of universe; in fact it has long been discarded as possible theory of the universe's birth. And with such heat I doubt very much that there would be smoke or cloud of gas at this stage of the universe.

2nd. I will need to quote again, the same sentences that I have already quoted....

These two theories however, do not concern me, what concerns me is the actual explosion and whether time and space existed before this explosion.

...and some new quotes....

So far my two main points of discussion are, the explosion itself, was it from god or was it random, and was there time and space before that explosion.

An explosion took place, this explosion as believed by the non-religious, was random, a product of chance. To me as a creationist, this sounds rather contradictory to the laws of physics, it is illogical and mountains of evidence suggests that it is impossible for an explosion to take place randomly and the result of that explosion being something so complex as the universe and all that is in it.

Just because scientists called their theory - the "Big Bang", you shouldn't assume that the universe was created out of an "explosion". Clearly you have no idea what they are talking about with BBT.
As others pointed out to you, the "Big Bang" is simply about rapid expansion, not an explosion.

You are making the mistake or mistaken assumption in another old thread about the sun being a body or ball of "fire", when there is actually no fire at all in the sun.

Scientists have compared this expansion - to the blowing into a balloon - to describe the Big Bang. You would first to draw several dots on to surface of the deflated balloon before blowing into the balloon. As the balloon inflate and expand, so do the dots increase in their size. The dots will also appear move further from each other.

As you recall, before the expansion, everything was super dense and super hot that matters can't form. Space and time doesn't matter or are meaningless, just like with the black hole. So when the expansion or Big Bang began, space and time expand with the expanding universe.

As the universe expands, it will also begin to cool enough for subatomic particles and particles (like atoms) to form. Hydrogen atoms were most likely the 1st matters to form in the universe. Every stars in the universe, including our Sun, are made mostly of hydrogen.

I would suggest you read more about the Big Bang Theory and discard the notion of an "explosion".

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I am curious, how do you know the universe has always been expanding?

Because the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is at the temperature of 2.7 C. This only makes since if the universe started in a super hot dense state, expanded, and then cooled off over the course of the expansion. The CMBR is a well established observation, and the story of how it was found is amazing and you should check it out on youtube. This observation is one of the proofs for the Standard model of the big bang. Not only has the universe been expanding throughout its history, but studies have shown that the universe will expand forever.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Exactly! Thats what I said, we currently don't have an explanation. So, why do you feel justified in providing an explanation to something that is currently unexplained?

But that won't solve the problem. You cannot logically use science as means of explaining the origin of science. We need a transcendent cause. This is necessary. We won't find a scientific explanation to explain the origin of nature. It is impossible. If you keep looking for science to explain everything you won't get far.

The universe had a beginning in the sense that time began. But to talk about before the big bang is useless, mainly because before is an application of time, and if time as we know it didn't exist, it's useless. But lets set aside all of that, and I will grant you that yes, the universe "began" to exist at some point, now, explain how you get to a god is necessarily responsible for this.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, whether time or otherwise. Nothing can create itself. So when you say that time had a beginning, the question that follows is, what gave it that beginning? Obviously, whatever gave time its beginning could not itself exist in time. Whatever gave time its beginning had to be.....timeless. And thats one of the attributes of God, a timeless being that never began to exist. But see, here is where the problem lies. Instead of postulating a timeless being, which is absolutely necessary, you just come to a screeching halt and say "talk before the big bang is useless". But bangs have bangers. If we are sitting in the living room watching tv, and all of a sudden we hear a loud POP. And you ask me "What was that???".......and i say..."oh, nothing". Would you accept that?? Would you accept that you just heard a loud POP and believe that nothing caused it? Obviously not. But yet, when it comes to the big bang, you believe that nothing caused it?? Wow. Its amazing, the lengths people will go through to avoid theism.

You're right that would be a neutral statement if you weren't positing something beyond that statement, but in fact you are. And I want to know why you are.

The evidence for a finite universe carry its own merit. I use logic and reason from that point. If the universe began to exist it has a cause. That cause can't be temporal (without the universe), and material (made up of matter), because this is exactly what is beginning to exist, since that is what the universe consists of, time and matter. The cause had to have a free will, and must be a being of enormous power. The attributes i described are NECESSARY. And the only being capable of having these attributes are what theists call.........God....that is why.

I agree that the universe had a beginning, and there is no other implication in that statement other than the universe had a beginning.

Yes there is. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

 

[lunakilo]

Because the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is at the temperature of 2.7 C. This only makes since if the universe started in a super hot dense state, expanded, and then cooled off over the course of the expansion. The CMBR is a well established observation, and the story of how it was found is amazing and you should check it out on youtube. This observation is one of the proofs for the Standard model of the big bang. Not only has the universe been expanding throughout its history, but studies have shown that the universe will expand forever.

Yes, the universe has been expanding since the temperature was 2.7 K or there about, but what about before that?

The universe didn't become transparent to photons until about 379000 years after the point in time the big bang would have happened.
So how do you know the universe was expanding then?

EDIT: The reason I ask is of cause that if we don't know that it expanded then, then we cannot assume it has always been expanding, and therefore (as I also mentioned in post # 39) cannot conclude that it had a beginning.

 

[Pineblossom]

So where does red shift come in?

 

[lunakilo]

So where does red shift come in?

That is how you can see the univrse is expanding.

Ligh from an object moving away from you is shifted to the read.
The larger the shift, the faster it is moving away.

When you look at the different visable galaxies, you can see that the futher away a galaxy is the larger (in general) is its redshift, i.e. the faster it is moving away.
This is consistent with an expanding universe.

ere you go :
Our Expanding Universe, Explained - Bethany Cobb - YouTube

 

[idav]

Yes there is. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

When it comes to the universe, what is it you think began to exist? The universe is likely to be eternal.

 

[Photonic]

But that won't solve the problem. You cannot logically use science as means of explaining the origin of science. We need a transcendent cause. This is necessary. We won't find a scientific explanation to explain the origin of nature. It is impossible. If you keep looking for science to explain everything you won't get far.



Everything that begins to exist has a cause, whether time or otherwise. Nothing can create itself. So when you say that time had a beginning, the question that follows is, what gave it that beginning? Obviously, whatever gave time its beginning could not itself exist in time. Whatever gave time its beginning had to be.....timeless. And thats one of the attributes of God, a timeless being that never began to exist. But see, here is where the problem lies. Instead of postulating a timeless being, which is absolutely necessary, you just come to a screeching halt and say "talk before the big bang is useless". But bangs have bangers. If we are sitting in the living room watching tv, and all of a sudden we hear a loud POP. And you ask me "What was that???".......and i say..."oh, nothing". Would you accept that?? Would you accept that you just heard a loud POP and believe that nothing caused it? Obviously not. But yet, when it comes to the big bang, you believe that nothing caused it?? Wow. Its amazing, the lengths people will go through to avoid theism.



The evidence for a finite universe carry its own merit. I use logic and reason from that point. If the universe began to exist it has a cause. That cause can't be temporal (without the universe), and material (made up of matter), because this is exactly what is beginning to exist, since that is what the universe consists of, time and matter. The cause had to have a free will, and must be a being of enormous power. The attributes i described are NECESSARY. And the only being capable of having these attributes are what theists call.........God....that is why.



Yes there is. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

The evidence for a finite universe is literally nothing. Unless you can somehow view the universe from outside? If you have would you care to show me how you managed it?


Prior to the Big Bang, there is no evidence to make anything other than mathematical conjecture.

If everything must have a cause, there would be an infinite series of causes extending far beyond the point of the big bang. Your own logic kills your argument.

I also would like to point out that a timeless universe could also spawn a big bang, God is just an extra explanation humans tack on when they can't explain something.

 

[Tristesse]

But that won't solve the problem. You cannot logically use science as means of explaining the origin of science.

I'm not using science to explain science. I'm saying that the scientific method is the only valid method we have to determine the origins of the universe. Can you think of a better method? And if so, how would you test to see if the new method was better without using science?

We need a transcendent cause.

Why? Thats the assertion that you have failed to explain.

This is necessary. We won't find a scientific explanation to explain the origin of nature. It is impossible. If you keep looking for science to explain everything you won't get far.

No, it's not necessary, and just saying that it's necessary doesn't make it necessary. How do you know we wont find an explanation for the origins of nature using science? Again, what other method can we use to determine the origins of the universe other than science?

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, whether time or otherwise.

To say that because we currently observe cause and effect relationships occurring, the universe itself must have had a first cause is assuming something that no one knows. Time as we percieve it did not exist prior to the big bang, and so to make assumptions about the behavior of matter prior to the big bang is pure speculation.

Nothing can create itself. So when you say that time had a beginning, the question that follows is, what gave it that beginning?

Pairs of virtual particles are created and annihilated all of the time, in a vacuum, out of literally nothing, with no prior cause. Besides which, we're not talking about "nothing." And if you think that the big bang says there was nothing prior to, then you simply don't understand big bang cosmology. Physisysts have a different definition of "nothing" then the colloquial definition.

Obviously, whatever gave time its beginning could not itself exist in time. Whatever gave time its beginning had to be.....timeless. And thats one of the attributes of God, a timeless being that never began to exist. But see, here is where the problem lies. Instead of postulating a timeless being, which is absolutely necessary, you just come to a screeching halt and say "talk before the big bang is useless". But bangs have bangers. If we are sitting in the living room watching tv, and all of a sudden we hear a loud POP. And you ask me "What was that???".......and i say..."oh, nothing". Would you accept that?? Would you accept that you just heard a loud POP and believe that nothing caused it? Obviously not. But yet, when it comes to the big bang, you believe that nothing caused it?? Wow. Its amazing, the lengths people will go through to avoid theism.

My response to this can be summed up in the previous responses above.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes, the universe has been expanding since the temperature was 2.7 K or there about, but what about before that?

No, The universe has been expanding for 13.7 billion years, and current tests have shown that it WILL expand forever. The 2.7 K is the current temperature of the universe after it cooled down after being in a extremely hot state.

The universe didn't become transparent to photons until about 379000 years after the point in time the big bang would have happened.

So what?

So how do you know the universe was expanding then?

The universe has been expanding ever since the big bang occurred. It never stopped expanding. First, science has already confirmed with a 95% degree of certainty that the density of matter is insufficient to half the expansion of the universe (Associated Press News Release, January 9, 1998). So it isn't as if the universe expanded, stopped, expanded, stopped, etc. It has been expanding since time began.

EDIT: The reason I ask is of cause that if we don't know that it expanded then, then we cannot assume it has always been expanding, and therefore (as I also mentioned in post # 39) cannot conclude that it had a beginning.

No doubt don't take my word for it, do some research on the expansion of the universe. You will learn many things about big bang cosmology. And that is only the beginning!!