Big Bang vs Creation

You're very welcome, Sturm. Hope you found the article as fascinating as I did.

 

Jedi_Nailbiter, try the 'great debate'. I'll post a link.

here

Grab some snacks, put some visine in your eyes and make yourself comfy before you begin.

 

I'd like to point out that they've "found Noah's Ark" numerous times in my lifetime alone, and God knows how many times before that. Each time, it's been a mistake or a hoax.

Here's just one example.

 

For those who missed the link I posted earlier:

Scientists "See" Big Bang (Sept. 20, 2002)

It's a very interesting read!

 

Funny that Bithy posts the most conclusive evidence for the Big Bang ever gathered in the history of... well, history... and it's silent in here.

Seems to me to always be the case that when substantial scientific evidence is presented, the Creationist response is to close one's eyes and pretend you didn't see it...

 

My Pastor told me a good idea.


He says that when God created the Galaxy, if you were standing outside it, it would hsve looked like a large explosion. I like this idea.


There is far too much evidence that proves there was a big bang. But I think both happened.

 

here's a little quickie for you.

Its about man's new ability to create life from nothing

New Scientist Article

ok, its only a virus, but where do we stop from there ?

M

 

malkie, this link requires some sort of password... could you post an excerpt from the article if you have an account to this site?

 

There is far too much evidence that proves there was a big bang.

That's not entirely true. The "Big Bang" is still an early theory on the creation of the universe. There isn't even close to enough evidence that would remotely prove that this idea is truth. Its simply the best theory out there.

 

sorry about that I'm accessing from work, and we obviously have a site wide account. (I didn't realise it wasn't available to the general public)

I'll copy and paste the relevant bits.


LAST week scientists alarmed the world by showing for the first time that it is possible to build the polio virus from scratch. The same technique could be used to recreate Ebola or the 1918 flu strain that killed up to 40 million people, experts have told New Scientist.

To recreate polio, the team at Stony Brook University in New York bought bits of its sequence from companies that make any piece of DNA to order. At the moment, only short stretches of DNA can be custom-made, so the team had to assemble the genome, which is about 7500 base pairs long, by stitching together sequences of about 70 base pairs. When copies of the genome were made into RNA in a quick lab reaction and put into a vial full of cellular components that mimic a human cell, out came perfectly formed viral particles.



To translate - scientists have engineered polio effectively from nothing. Polio is one of the simplist organisms there are - its as uncomplex as it gets. However, it is classified as 'life' because it fufils many criteria (reproduction, use of energy etc).

So, in the future, it will be possible to create longer sequences of DNA, and before long, bigger more complex organisms.

I felt this article might fit in here as it shows evidence of man creating life (other than another human being by obvious means).

M

 

It involved a measurement of a minute polarization of cosmic microwave background. The announcement described that background as the "sky-pervading afterglow of the big bang" to which experts trace the origin of the universe.

Cool stuff. Personally, I've been silent mostly because I don't view the Big Bang and creationism as contradictory.

 

Well, at least it's not like this 12 year old I talked to the other day. I was studieing with an anthropoligist the other day backstage during a play I was in. This kid was it too, and he starts saying that he doesn't belive in evelution. We tell him both that god put monkeys on earth that involved into us. The kid had no idea what he was talking about, as he just replyed with "That's stupid."

We then got to the Big Bang, AND HE THINKS THE WORLD IS ONLY 100,000 YEARS OLD! THAT REALLY ANNOYED ME! There is so much proof of dinosaurs and other creatures that date way back. Far before 100,000!

 

perhaps you can excuse him because he's only 12 years old. I had loads of misconceptions and misunderstandings at that age.

M

 

Well, I've been "silent" for a number of reasons,

1.) The article wasn't as particularly strong as advertised, and personally found it to be lacking anything concretely substantial.

2.)Prior commitments.

3.)I don't have a particular beef with the BB.

4.)Perhaps the most relevent voice in this thread, Dust Chick has yet to comment.

Btw, her silence must really be inexplicable considering she isn't a "creationist" at all.

 

I'm responding to a few points brought up recently... so if one of them doesn't concern something you said, disregard it. This post isn't directed to any one individual in particular.

1. We didn't evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans have a common ancestor.

2. The kid's 12 years old. I'd say cut him some slack. On the other hand, kids in some countries have learned single-variable differerntials and integrals in calculus by that age. There again, that's not his fault, though.

3. It doesn't surprise me that there'd be so many misconceptions about The Big Bang or any other scientific theory in America... given our lousy public educational system.

4. There is far too much evidence that proves there was a big bang.

That's not entirely true. The "Big Bang" is still an early theory on the creation of the universe. There isn't even close to enough evidence that would remotely prove that this idea is truth. Its simply the best theory out there.

Nothing in science is ever completely "proven". Theories which have attained so much substantiation by way of empirical, repeatable, and predictable evidence, do tend to be viewed as "facts" from that point forward, unless later refuted by newer, equally-compelling, evidence. But nothing in science remains unchallenged by the scientific community itself. That's part of the learning process.

With this latest evidence, however, it is likely that the Big Bang Theory will be viewed most prominently in the annals of science as the best theory put forth which happens to fit all the known facts gathered as evidence through scientific experimentation and observation.

When we call something a "scientific theory" it doesn't mean it's conjecture. It means that it is one of a number of explanations which is based upon testable hypotheses... In other words, it dives deeper than just saying "this happened"... but scrutinizes over the "how" and "when"... until there is little doubt left. If, let's suppose, 2 times out of 10 an experiment produces the same results... it is not likely that an hypothesis can be substantiated by such results. However, if, let's say, we continue experimenting and find that 96 times out of 100, the experiment or observation produces consistent, predictable results, the attempts to falsify the hypothesis have largely failed, and it becomes supportive evidence in favor of the theory.

Also keep in mind that scientists isolate other variables from the experiment so as to be absolutely certain that the one variable being tested is the one and only cause of the effect being observed.

 

I understand the bases of scientific theory. I do have a degree in physics, if that means much at all. I have taken many classes in astrophysics to know that the Big Bang is very much a new and incomplete idea. Yes, its the best theory out there, but there are many problems with it. Mostly because its trying to explain the creation of the friggin universe!

Yes I do believe that it is a revolutionary idea and that its a step in the right direction. All I was saying is that there is quite a bit of difference in saying that there is "too much proof" to say that the Big Bang is completely valid. There is way too much about the universe that we do not understand to corroborate the evidence conclusively.

 

1.) The article wasn't as particularly strong as advertised, and personally found it to be lacking anything concretely substantial.

Just out of curiosity, what aspects of the article did you find particularly lacking or what would you say was missing from the findings which would have made it concretely substantial?

NOTE: Keep in mind this is just an article... an abstract of the actual study. I don't expect such articles to go into complex detail about the particulars of the finding... nor do I necessarily view the findings as "concrete" or "substantial"... but as I mentioned before, I do consider this to be the most significant achievement yet in the gathering of evidence for the Big Bang. I can't think of another, but if someone wishes to correct me by bringing up a more significant milestone in Big Bang theory... please by all means do so.

 

In terms of the recently posted Big Bang article, I think the fact that no other competing theory has ever been indirectly observed (whereas this shows an echo of a massive explosion roughly 14 billion years ago... right in line with the most recent estimates on the age of the cosmos) speaks volumes. It's not absolutely conclusive, but right now it's more logical to accept than any other idea that has been put forth about the creation of the universe.

_Darth_Brooks_, I'm trying to think of any other evidence that science could observe that would solidify the BB theory more "substantially" (except perhaps going back in time and witnessing the event. ). What would you like to see?

 

They'll bury their head in the sand or come up with a technical sounding dismissal that amount to "I don't understand". They don't define "substancial proof" because they will never allow themselves to be convined because it invalidates their religion they believe so adamently for God only knows what reason.

 

Hmm, interesting stuff about the echoes.

 

There is far too much evidence that proves there was a big bang.



Such as?


I personally don't believe in the "Big Bang". To me, it's utter nonsense.


Oh, BTW, evolutionists have stopped believing in the Big Bang. I read somewhere (can't remember where) now the theory is up that we are some aliens garbage. They flew by in the spaceship, dumped their trash, and here we are.


Seems like it has waaaay to many holes in it.



I believe that God created the universe, and there's nothing that will bring me apart from that.



Could someone tell me why they believe in the Big Bang, and the evidence that is so profound that makes them believe in the Big Bang and evolution?




...and a Jango

 

I believe one of the requisites of this thread, Red_Oktobur, is that we all present our reasons for accepting either Creation or the Big Bang, and not just the declaration "this is what I believe and that's that."

So, how about this... you first... finish your post by actually answering the question being asked. Why do you accept Creation?

Oh, and by the way... what are "evolutionists" and what do they have to do with the origin of the universe? Scientists who test the various hypotheses encompassed by evolution theory, if that's what you meant to say, cannot have any "professional" opinion on the prevailing physics theory regarding the origins of the universe because that is not what they study.

It might also be useful to note that the field of evolutionary science is generally comprised of biologists, paleontologists, microbiologists, molecular biologists, zoologists, botanists, among other "life" scientists. None of the aforementioned fields are involved in testing Big Bang theory. Astrophysics is not critical to evolutionary theory, either.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with whether or not God created the universe... including Big Bang theory, which itself does not confirm or refute the possibility of a creator. So either you're deliberately trolling, or you haven't paid attention to the present course of this discussion.

 

Could someone tell me why they believe in the Big Bang, and the evidence that is so profound that makes them believe in the Big Bang and evolution?

1. From observation the Universe is "expanding". This explains the redshifting of distant galaxies.

2. The energy of cosmic background radiation is consistent with the modeled blackbody spectrum of the Big Bang.

3. The amount of H and He isotopes that follows the model of the Big Bang are consistent with stellar observations.(nucleosynthesis)

There is much more corroborating evidence. But these seem to be the three main points of the Big Bang as of recently. You have to understand that for the measurements that we have recorded to agree with the model is very slim considering the scale of the Universe.

Yes, its a working model. But its a working model that works better than any other, and its basis is one of scientific evidence.

You don't have to believe in the Big Bang, you can just make a judgement based on the validity of the model using scientific data.

EDIT: Also there is no reason that the Big Bang and God cannot co-exist.

 

I think both theories lack something.

If God created the universe, who/what created God? The answer could very well be, God was always there. However there is no scientific basis for that statement.

If the universe was created from a big bang, what caused the explosion? Nothing just doesn't spontaneously explode, does it?

As for me, I think the Big Bang is the most viable idea, because of the evidence.

There is alsothe idea of multiple big bangs, because when the universe explodes the matter doesn't reach escape velocity and eventually the universe implodes, creating another big bang.

 

when the universe explodes the matter doesn't reach escape velocity and eventually the universe implodes, creating another big bang.

Actually that is dependent on several factors that physicists are yet unsure of. There is a "critical" acceleration that the bodies in the universe cannot surpass, so that gravitational force dominates.

That view is no longer widely accepted as a viable theory.