The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So where does red shift come in?

The red shift is the Doppler Effect, except on the case of the universe, it is applied with light instead of sound. Light and sound travels through wave lengths. As a siren is moving toward us, the wave lengths are higher than it would be than if it was moving away from us. Light waves are able to compress/stretch, which will change their frequency/color. Blue light has shorter wave lengths than red lights. So if an object in space is moving towards us, it will have a shorter wave length (blue light), but if it is moving away from us, its wave light will stretch (red light). The further a galaxy is away from the earth, the faster it is moving. And the faster it moves, its red light becomes more “redder”. By measuring the red shift, you can measure how far the galaxy is away from us.

We can thank Edwin Hubble for this. His discovery put cosmology in a completely different perspective. The universe, once thought to be stationary, is expanding.

 

[Photonic]

The red shift is the Doppler Effect, except on the case of the universe, it is applied with light instead of sound. Light and sound travels through wave lengths. As a siren is moving toward us, the wave lengths are higher than it would be than if it was moving away from us. Light waves are able to compress/stretch, which will change their frequency/color. Blue light has shorter wave lengths than red lights. So if an object in space is moving towards us, it will have a shorter wave length (blue light), but if it is moving away from us, its wave light will stretch (red light). The further a galaxy is away from the earth, the faster it is moving. And the faster it moves, its red light becomes more “redder”. By measuring the red shift, you can measure how far the galaxy is away from us.

We can thank Edwin Hubble for this. His discovery put cosmology in a completely different perspective. The universe, once thought to be stationary, is expanding.

Are you actually going anywhere with any of this, or are you just going to keep making posts containing common knowledge?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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?

I don't need to. First, all other cosmological models that rival the big bang model fails, and the big bang model currently has the most empirical evidence supporting it. Second, the Borde/Guth/Vilenkin theorem shows that any universe that has been expanding with at least a rate higher than 0 cannot be eternal. And the good thing about this theorem is it holds true regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time. Third, you cant view the universe from the outside either, so you really don't know whether there is a God outside it.

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

Again, the BGV theorem holds true regardless of any prior moment before Planck time. The theorem even holds if our universe is one of many universes in the so called "multiverse" theory. If that theory is true even the multiverse must have had an absolute beginning. This is modern science people. Theists can now use modern science to support what the bible has been saying for 3,000 years before any text book was written, that the universe began to exist.

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.

Not quite. First, you are making my point for me. I stated that anytime you try to use a naturalistic cause for the universe, you push the question of origins an infinite amount of steps backwards. That was my point. Second, I never said everything must have a cause. Instead I said, "Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause". There is a big difference in those two premises.

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.

Ok, provide evidence showing how a timeless universe could also spawn a big bang. First of all, if the universe consists of matter, it cannot be timeless. So the argument is self defeating. Second, theists tack on God if science doesn't have the capability to explain something. And the origin of the universe fit it perfectly.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Are you actually going anywhere with any of this, or are you just going to keep making posts containing common knowledge?

Um, i could have swore i was answering a question that was asked. And if everything is so common knowledge, why do people on here keep questioning well established scientific facts, like the beginning of the universe and the universes expansion??? It must not be to common, kind of like......sense.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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?

And my point is the scientific method cannot be used to determine the origins of the universe. All it can do is discover the fact that the universe has an origin, which it has already. That is where science stops. And where science stops, philosophy begins. Logic and reason tells us that the origin of space, time, and matter could not itself be spatial, temporal, or material.

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

I have explained quite a bit actually. If you don't understand why the origin of the universe had to transcend the universe, then I can't help you.

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?

It is necessary. THE ORIGIN OF NATURE CANNOT ITSELF BE NATURE, SINCE NOTHING CAN CREATE ITSELF. SOMETHING THAT EXISTED OUTSIDE OF NATURE HAD TO CREATE ALL NATURE. THIS IS ELEMENTARY LOGIC. I fail to understand why this is so hard for you to grasp.

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.

:no:

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.

Not at all. The vacuum is not "nothing" in the sense of non-being. A vacuum is space empty of matter. Those virtual particles come from the fluctuating energy within the vacuum. Second, what you are talking about is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. There are many different interpretations of quantum physics, at least 10, and no one is sure which is correct. Third, by the word "nothing" i mean "non-being", not some shaky physicists definition. If virtual particles can come from a state of non-being, then why can't anything and everything come from a state of non-being? My point is, the state of nothingness doesnt have prexisting qualities that allow for only particles to come in to being. So everything should be fair game.

 

[outhouse]

And where science stops, philosophy begins.

wrong its where imagination begins

man has been making this mistake for as long as there has been men.



WE DO NOT install a god in the gaps of our knowledge.




WE DO NOT use a bible as a science book explaining the origins of anything

 

[outhouse]

You should learn CREATION is a myth

you do not place mythology when one claims we dont know.

 

[YmirGF]

THE ORIGIN OF NATURE CANNOT ITSELF BE NATURE, SINCE NOTHING CAN CREATE ITSELF. SOMETHING THAT EXISTED OUTSIDE OF NATURE HAD TO CREATE ALL NATURE. THIS IS ELEMENTARY LOGIC.

But what created the "event" and produced what we know as Nature is not what we know of as being Nature though it was quite likely a natural event. When most think of "Nature" they are most certainly not thinking of a sub-atomic plasma soup.

I fail to understand why this is so hard for you to grasp.

I think you are confusing failure to accept with failure to grasp. What you are saying is fairly obvious, though trite.

 

[PolyHedral]

It is necessary. THE ORIGIN OF NATURE CANNOT ITSELF BE NATURE, SINCE NOTHING CAN CREATE ITSELF.

A certain breed of sci-fi author, myself included, would disagree

 

[Pineblossom]

The red shift is the Doppler Effect, except on the case of the universe, it is applied with light instead of sound. Light and sound travels through wave lengths. As a siren is moving toward us, the wave lengths are higher than it would be than if it was moving away from us. Light waves are able to compress/stretch, which will change their frequency/color. Blue light has shorter wave lengths than red lights. So if an object in space is moving towards us, it will have a shorter wave length (blue light), but if it is moving away from us, its wave light will stretch (red light). The further a galaxy is away from the earth, the faster it is moving. And the faster it moves, its red light becomes more “redder”. By measuring the red shift, you can measure how far the galaxy is away from us.

We can thank Edwin Hubble for this. His discovery put cosmology in a completely different perspective. The universe, once thought to be stationary, is expanding.

Thank you for explaining.

 

[idav]

It is necessary. THE ORIGIN OF NATURE CANNOT ITSELF BE NATURE, SINCE NOTHING CAN CREATE ITSELF. SOMETHING THAT EXISTED OUTSIDE OF NATURE HAD TO CREATE ALL NATURE. THIS IS ELEMENTARY LOGIC. I fail to understand why this is so hard for you to grasp.

Why is God the exception to your rule, cause he/it is eternal? Well I grant the universe the same exception giving the universe full rights to have no cause.

 

[Pineblossom]

THE ORIGIN OF NATURE CANNOT ITSELF BE NATURE, SINCE NOTHING CAN CREATE ITSELF. SOMETHING THAT EXISTED OUTSIDE OF NATURE HAD TO CREATE ALL NATURE. THIS IS ELEMENTARY LOGIC. I fail to understand why this is so hard for you to grasp.

Well, to us plebs IT is pretty hard to grasp.

So please forgive my ignorance if I ask - are we not created beings?

OK, I guess I can accept that all matter is contained in the universe and a lot of juggling recreates (is that the right word - rearranges perhaps) that matter into some other form of matter.

Are we, as humans, rearranged matter and that our creator is the universe itself?

 

[gnostic]

And my point is the scientific method cannot be used to determine the origins of the universe. All it can do is discover the fact that the universe has an origin, which it has already. That is where science stops. And where science stops, philosophy begins. Logic and reason tells us that the origin of space, time, and matter could not itself be spatial, temporal, or material.

I have a whole bunch of philosophies and codes which I have accepted, from ancient to modern, from the east to the west.

Not one of these philosophies I have accepted 100%. I would accept or reject certain aspects of each philosophy.

The only philosophy that I would accept 50%-75% is Epistemology.

Since, epistemology is actually a larger system of philosophy, with many different branches, the only branch that I would accept wholly (or mostly) is Empiricism, while other branches of epistemology I will only fraction of what they teaches (other branches would include rationalism, idealism, historicism, and a few others that I can't remember).

The reason why I've accepted so much of empiricism is because it is the closest thing to Scientific Method, where knowledge is acquired from experience and evidence.

The reasons why I reject so much aspects or teachings in all other philosophies (and branches) are because they are involved in too much of metaphysics, too much of spirituality, and too much meaningless mumbo-jumbo.

I am FOR metaphysics, but only to a certain extent. There are limits to what I will accept in metaphysics. Like I will accept cause-and-effect and possibility, and such, but if you were to introduce the supernatural as the "cause", without any evidence to support the reasoning or claim, then metaphysics goes out the window, become meaningless and useless.

 

[Photonic]

Um, i could have swore i was answering a question that was asked. And if everything is so common knowledge, why do people on here keep questioning well established scientific facts, like the beginning of the universe and the universes expansion??? It must not be to common, kind of like......sense.

We are questioning your baseless twisting of facts to suit your horrible protective rationalization of your world view.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well, it began from God. God is the best explanation for the big bang. Let me give a brief background.

Wrong...let me just stop you right here....

Next please.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

Actually you are when you said....

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2740299-post34.html

"Well, it began from God. God is the best explanation for the big bang."


:sarcastic

 

[Photonic]

Actually you are when you said....

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2740299-post34.html

"Well, it began from God. God is the best explanation for the big bang."


:sarcastic

Yea, in other news.

 

[Gharib]

for those who think that i am wrong by saying that an actual explosion took place as a result of which the universe came to existence by the will of God and that it is expanding i have two quotes:

Stephen Hawking, in a youtube video about The Big Bang makes the following statement:
"In a nutshell do we need a God to set it up so that a big bang could, bang?"

Alan Guth, states:
"The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing......."

i hope the statements clarify my stance especially those in bold

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Actually you are when you said....

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2740299-post34.html

"Well, it began from God. God is the best explanation for the big bang."


:sarcastic

I know you people find it so hard to believe in God and the mere mention of the G word causes extreme migraines. Anything but the G word, right??

I got it, maybe i should have said "Well, it began from nature. Nature is the best explanation for all nature." :no:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

We are questioning your baseless twisting of facts to suit your horrible protective rationalization of your world view.

Twisting of facts? Nope. Maybe if i was a theists in the early 1900's, that would have been true. But here in what will soon be 2012, I am on the bandwagon of modern science and cosmology. I don't need to twist facts, because science is on my side. The universe began to exist, just like Gen 1:1 tells us "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". The first 10 words of the bible. This was over 3,000 years before the first science text book was published. So it took 3,000 years for science to catch up with biblical teaching, which is the universe began to exists, and logically requires a transcendent cause. Whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, believe it or not, these are the facts.