Big Bang vs Creation

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by SaberGiiett7, Jul 30, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    I just wanted to point out that the idea of the material of the universe expanding from a central point is not quite correct.

    There is no central point. From here on Earth the universe appears to be expanding away in all directions. It "looks" like we are the center. If you were on a planet 1 billion light years away, everything would appear to be expanding away from THERE. No matter where you are, the universe seems to be expanding away from you.

    The universe is not expanding into anything, before the universe there was nothing to expand into.

    A quick question; Does Genesis allude to the creation of the universe or the Earth? The only thing I remember being mentioned is Earth. What does it say?
  2. Darth Geist Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 1999
    star 5
    VadersLament:

    Consider this:

    Take three positively charged magnets, and arrange them in an equilateral triangle. Drop a fistful of postively charged ball bearings into the triangle's center, and watch them disperse. Can any one of the ball bearings "expand away" from all three points at once? Not until it reaches the outside of the triangle, but up until that point, it's always moving toward at least one--and since there are celestial bodies on all sides of the Earth, many of them are moving towards us while others move away.
  3. Terr_Mys Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    Here are the first 17 verses from the first chapter of Genesis (New American Standard Bible).

    Genesis 1

    The Creation

    1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
    2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
    3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
    4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
    5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
    6 Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
    7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
    8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
    9 Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.
    10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
    11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.
    12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
    13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
    14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
    15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
    16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
    17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
    and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.


    I don't really believe that the Bible gives us an accurate description of how the earth came to be (and most of it is symbolic), but I still believe that God created the universe, whether by the big bang or not.

    -tm loves sophie marceau
  4. dustchick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2000
    star 1
    Darth Geist: The expansion of the universe is only observable on sufficiently large scales. We have to be looking at other galaxies to notice the expansion. Of all of the millions of galaxies in the universe, I recall (might be slightly off) that only THREE are moving towards us - they are close enough that we see the effects of our Galaxy's gravity on them.

    The usual analogy is the expanding balloon: put dots on a balloon when it is deflated, and see how they ALL appear to move away from each other as the balloon inflates. The interior of the balloon is the "past", which we can observe. The region outside of the balloon is the "future", which we cannot observe because it hasn't happened yet.

    Rough analogy, but fairly accurate.
  5. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    It looks like the only real "universe" referance is the first one, "..created the HEAVENS and the Earth."

    As far as the expansion: Locally there are not only stars headed in our generl direction but whole galaxies that come at us.
    Our galaxy will collide with the Andromeda galaxy in a few dozen billion years. Groups of objects can pull towards each other.

    But the farther out you look, and the larger the scale you look at, is when the expansion becomes apparent. No matter where in the universe you are the universe as a whole is expanding away from you despite local galaxies attracting together.

    The ballon analogy is used alot, that is just to illustrate the idea because it is not correct, the balloon has a center it is expanding from. There is no center as we understand it at this time. Everywhere you go can be measured as the center.

    Heres a thought, if the expansion of the universe does not halt and pull back together, trillions and trillions of years from now the universe will become an empty void, stars will fade away, atoms will collapse, black holes will radiate away to nothing, no activity, no heat, nothing.

    As we understand it now the universe began with a quantum flucuation (from?) a point of infinite density. I read a science fiction story about a scientist who created a quantum flucuation in a lab experiment, and it dawned on her that somewhere she may have created a universe.

    It is possible that faaaaaaaaaar in the future a super advanced civilization may relize they could waste away with the universe and decide to create a quantum singularity and leave this universe to create another, and in effect become the GODS of that new universe to spread life thoughout it.

    What if that is what happened before our universe came to be?
  6. Darth Geist Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 1999
    star 5
    "It is possible that faaaaaaaaaar in the future a super advanced civilization may relize they could waste away with the universe and decide to create a quantum singularity and leave this universe to create another, and in effect become the GODS of that new universe to spread life thoughout it."

    Interesting thought. :)
  7. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    I just had to go look this up.

    The longest lived stars are red dwarfs. Those and all other types will fade out in approx 100 trillion years (10^14 years)

    The only things left at this point will be brown dwarfs, black holes and neutron stars.

    Super massive black holes may live for 10^99 years.(Thats a big number aint it?)

    Proton decay can last from 10^46 all the way to 10^200 years. Some positrons may be left after ths but they would soon fade as well.

    I am making a guess that if you can make a quantum sigularity flucuation you are going to need to pack alot of mass into a very small point and use an equal amount to bridge a gateway out of this universe before you gateway collapses.

    Anyone deciding to leave better do so before the stars go out in 100 trillion years or else the mass and energy needed to make a new universe and cross into it becomes unavailable or very hard to come by.

  8. dustchick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2000
    star 1
    The balloon analogy is the most used to illustrate the idea, but you just have to recall that the skin of the balloon is your usual 3-dim and the direction of the expansion is the fourth dimension, time.

    I will concur that the distance from the explosion cannot be measured with a ruler, but the Big Bang model rests on being able to measure the "distance" with a clock.
  9. EnforcerSG Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 12, 2001
    star 4
    There is absolutely no incompatibility in a Big Bang and the Genesis account of Creation

    Forvige my thoughts (i had a long bad day...) but according to the bible, wasn't the creating of the universe about 6000-4000 BC or some other date like that? Please, I am very far from a bible schollar, but I would see that as a contradiction of the big bang theory.

    There is a theory that the big bang singularty was a super virtual partical (a partical and an anti partical can form and then destroy each other [that is why black holes have a tempiture] creating some odd type of energy where the net result is 0 mass or something), and the inailation of....sorry for the physics lession...the two particals caused a big enough disturbance that the univers was able to form from that.

    To me, scientests will come up with a theory and try to find evidence of it, and of what the theory does not explain. Religious explnations tend to just say god did it and never question how. As such, given that there is evidence of the BB (no proff) I have to go with the BB. Creation, give me some sort of phyisical evidence that God is behind everything.

    (and by asking that question, I can never have faith)

    In the very big scale (galaxies), we are expanding. On a smaller scale (within the milky way) it seems everything is moving 'randomly' from/to us.

    It is hard to imagen, but there is no center. I used to think so, but to use the ballon example, you have to realize the ONLY space on that ballon is the surface. Where is the center of that surface? Now sort of imagen that the surface has thickness. There is still no diffentive center.

    I hope I made sense.
  10. SaberGiiett7 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2002
    star 6
    The qustion remains.How was the matter that imploded out of the Bang formed?
  11. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    That is a MUCH better way of putting it.

    Yes Darth-G, that is very interesting isn't it. A scientific explanation for a purposefull creation of a universe to escape the dying of the previous one.

    I have described this ideal to others and usually I get a look thrown in my direction as if I am some kind of idiot.

    Either the explanation is not "Holy" enough, or they just don't understand what I'm talking about.

    But when asked, there is my answer.
  12. Sarajevo Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 6, 2002
    star 3
    THIS WOULD BE SOLVED ALOT QUICKER IF PEOPLE STOPED TAKING THE BIBLE SO LITTERALY. (SORRY FOR THE CAPS, THE BUTTON IS BROKEN)
  13. JamesMadison Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jul 29, 2002
    I was under the impression the Big Bang was in part a theory to account for the occurrence of the "two strains" of evidence.

    In other words, using those two strains of evidence is tantamount to saying, "You want evidence God created the universe? Where did all of this matter come from? It had to come from something? It came from God." Simply substitute "Big Bang" for God in the argument and it should appear the argument, on both ends, simply fails in terms of persuasiveness since both only Beg The Question of the conclusion further as a result of their tautology.

    What could account for the occurrence of these two strains of evidence? Oh a Big Bang. What could account for the entire universe? Oh God. You want evidence of a Big Bang look at the matter in the universe or some occurrences. Want evidence of God's existence, you are walking on it, how do you think the planet earth got here? Both are circular.

    Now I understand there may be some intricacies related to both strains but I am simply looking at it in relation the overall motion of the argument and its mechanics. Both Creationism and Big Bang at this point seem rather circular when using the world and physical evidence to prove a First Cause such as Big Bang or God.

    It just seems Big Bang is much a theory built on faith like God. I see many parallels between the two at this point.
  14. Rikalonius Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 26, 2001
    star 3
    This thread is laced with the same biases that lace so many debates on creation. It is immediately assumed that if you don't accept evolution, your believe in the strict 7 earth day creation period and are trying to bring God into our unconstitutional public schools (sorry had to get in that jab)

    If I told you aliens came down to earth with two genus beings that they had grown on another planet, or in a test-tube, and the planted them here on Earth and called them Adam and Eve. That would still qualify as teaching creation. Creation science is not limited to the Biblical model.

    I happen to accept it, and I happen to accept the big bang. I don't think the two are contridictory. But I don't think legitimate creation science should be left out of school simply because naturalist who run the school system are eager to eliminate opposing theory to Darwin's macro evolution.

    I think of the Big bang as a chemistry experiment. There are so many factors that have to be in place in the right amounts for complex carbon based lifeforms to exist, let alone evolve. These things were put into place billions of years (possibly) and it took a while for the explosion to settle. Just think of how much coal it takes to make a diamond.
  15. EnforcerSG Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 12, 2001
    star 4
    Well, if God was always there, then why cant the matter have always been there?

    SarajevoSorry but, if there was a scientific theory out there that did not admit that it did not explain everything, and said that we cant take it literally and we have to use our imaganation to make it fit with what we see, we would throw it out. Forgive me for taking a literall interpratation of the bible in argument, but that is my logic behind it. If it is not accurate on some facts, how can we be expected to accept other 'facts' in the bible, unless it is not true, or mixed with story. And at that point, who will say which is which? Yeah, parts of the bible are vague (allot of it) and open to interpratation, I will give it that, but still.

    The big bang is not a perfect theory. Scientests are still trying to figure out those questions "where did all the matter come from" and what not. I dont see any religious scholorars questioning where God came from though.

    It also depends on what religion you belive. Many either have the earth forming, or a god somehow forming it.

    I am of the mind that if you take a literall interpration of the bible or any religious explnation, they will contradict. If you take a more relaxed stance on how litteral to take your religion, then it can science can fit in much more easly.
  16. Yada Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jul 17, 2002
    star 1
    maybe there was a banana first, and then He exploded it!! Gotta start somewhere.
  17. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    VadersLaMent said: Anyone deciding to leave better do so before the stars go out in 100 trillion years...

    While it is true that stars die, it has also be learned that stars are born. The cosmos follows the same life cycle found here on earth. Things die while others are born. An example of these "stellar embryos" can be found in the Eagle Nebula, 7,000 light years away. You can read an article on them, written by Kathy Sawyer of The Washington Post, here.

    Also, you previously note: There is no central point. From here on Earth the universe appears to be expanding away in all directions. It "looks" like we are the center. If you were on a planet 1 billion light years away, everything would appear to be expanding away from THERE. No matter where you are, the universe seems to be expanding away from you.
    The universe is not expanding into anything, before the universe there was nothing to expand into.


    Not to be argumentative (okay, maybe just a little ;)), but how do we know what the universe looks like from a planet 1 billion light years away? You do acknowledge that it seems to be expanding, and logic would dictate that if it is expanding, it must have begun somewhere. Therefore, there must be a nucleus from which everything "in motion" began to move.
  18. SaberGiiett7 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2002
    star 6
    I like the icon Cheyevo.Corran Horn right?
    Is there anyone here that is a strict Big Bang theorist and does'ent believe God made the Big Bang?
  19. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    Yep, lots a material that recycles and creates new stars.
    This cannot last. The amount of mass available is limited, the universe though vast is NOT infinite(There are speculations on other universes however).
    Everything decays. In 100 trillion years there will not be enough mass available to congregate into anything large enough to form new stars in large numbers.
    The universe as we understand it right now is wasteing away in a long, slow death.
  20. EnforcerSG Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 12, 2001
    star 4
    My understanding of the formation and life of the universe is a bit limited, but as far as i know, isnt there not enough mass observed for there to have been a big bang? I thought that the observable universe is only 1 tenth of the mass needed for the big bang to happen. Yeah, pretty much most of it is in dark matter, but as far as i know, dark matter seems to be as mysterious as either was before einstin.

    So, lets say the mass is out there somewhere (maybe at the "edge" of the wave of the expanding universe) and there are no stars or light there to show us. I forget (or never read) would that be enough mass for the universe to collaps and cause a big bang again?

    Or if there is a God controling everything, then we dont really have to worry. He/She/It/Them will keep us safe.
  21. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Enforcer, the original Hebrew word use for "day" in the English translations is the word 'yowm', or 'yom.' Which can be literally a period of 24 hours or an indeterminate period of time.



    Another factor to consider is that the Big Bang didn't occur, here I would suggest reading Erich Lerner's book, The Big Band Didn't Happen. It makes a pretty compelling case against certain illusory items like cold dark matter that are necessary for the Big Bang to have occured, and yet CDM is like a mythical leprachaun in that it can't be scientifically validated, but is necessary to the mathematics for the BB to survive. Plasma theory seems a much more viable option.(This is all very cursory, I realize, but at the moment I don't have time to go into more on Lerner's material, perhaps later.)


    Also, the materialist view that because God, who is spirit, existed outside the framework of time, does not necessarily logically coincide with the causative corellation that matter could have always existed. That goes back to Thomas Aquinas explorations in the Five-fold proofs of God.

    "In the beginning [TIME]God created[intelligence/information/DATA action/causationENERGY]the heavens [SPACE] and earth [MATTER]." ~ Genesis 1:1

    A perfect first verse for the Bible.


    'TIME' was the initial framework or canvas. Had to be. God worked "in"/within that framework.

    God is transcendent/infinite in capacity, whereas the universe is finite.

    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

    The "Word" or "Logos" is the preincarnate Christ Jesus. This is the 'finite' aspect/agent utilized "In"/within the framework of time to Create.
  22. dustchick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2000
    star 1
    Two comments:

    Not enough mass? - There is no mass requirement for the Big Bang to have happened. "Missing mass" or "dark matter" refers to the fact that the mass that we can detect (luminous = giving off radiation) does not add up to the apparent gravitational interaction we see in and between galaxies. Also, when discussing cosmology, there isn't enough mass observed to "close" the universe, which means that there is not enough mass to stop the expansion and have the universe collapse back on itself. This is not inconsistent with the Big Bang having occured.

    Lerner? - He has not had much of a presence in the field of astronomy recently. His alternative cosmology has been presented at academic conferences and he published a few papers in the early/mid-90s in academic journals, but nothing since 1995. He is a freelance science writer who appears to have left the field of astronomy and is not affiliated with any academic/research institution. His ideas have as many holes, if not more so, than the Big Bang Model.

    The Big Bang model is YOUNG, constantly being modified. Remember, we only realized that other galaxies existed outside our own in the early 20th century. I have some difficulties with the details in the model that have yet to be resolved with observations, but it is still the best working model. If the Big Bang is wrong, we'll find out.

    [Edited because my grammar leaves alot to be desired sometimes.]
  23. phantom31415 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 3, 2002
    star 1
    There is an interesting Genesis-based cosmology that rather neatly explains a great deal of the observational evidence. The core idea id using general relitivity to do some wierd things to time by using gravity.

    The concepts can get technical, so I'll cheat and paste some stuff from a layman's explanation on the internet rather than explain it myself. The whole article (which is about the book 'Starlight and Time') can be found at http://www.icr.org/starlightandtime/starlightandtime.html
    ------------------------

    ...But in a creationist cosmos having a center of gravity, if you were to travel outward from the center you would, on the average, go steadily "upward" in a gravitational sense. On a large scale, the heavens would be at a higher gravitational "altitude" than the earth. As Isaiah 55:9 says: "For as the heavens are higher than the earth . . ."

    A center of gravity is important because an effect in general relativity called gravitational time dilation comes into play. Experiment and Einstein's theory agree that time and all physical processes run more slowly in areas which are lower in a gravitational field than in areas which are higher.

    The effect is very small normally, but it turns out that when the expanding universe was at a critical size (about fifty times smaller than it is now), gravitational time dilation would have been very important. My theory proposes that the cosmos was at that critical size during the fourth day of Creation Week. While one ordinary day was elapsing on earth, billions of years worth of physical processes were taking place in distant parts of the universe. This allows starlight from even the most distant star to arrive during or soon after the fourth day, the same day God created all the stars. During that day, most of the expansion of the cosmos would have taken place.

    The bottom line is that relativity forces us to say by whose clocks we specify the age of the cosmos or the timing of events within that cosmos. My book points out that the Bible gives us time in terms of the "earth's frame of reference, not some other frame." Scripture says, and my theory agrees, that the universe is young as measured by clocks on earth.


    ---------------------------

  24. Obi Wan Bergkamp Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 19, 1998
    star 3
    It all comes down to this: -

    Big Bang: First there was nothing, then the universe created itself out of it.

    Creation: First there was nothing. Then an all seeing , all powerfull, all knowing being appeared and he created the universe.

    Boiled down to first principles, neither sound very likely do they.....
  25. Larkonna Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 20, 1999
    star 2
    OK, please don't bang me over the head...I'm not scientist or theologian. (yet, haha, j/k)

    Both are theories, correct? I mean they can't really be classified as science because no one was around when either one supposedly happened. So it's gotta be accepted by faith.

    I've been thinking. Take away all the outer stuff, the distractions and look at the root. Either, WE, humans, came out of nothing by accident, or a Supreme Being created us. Both seem weird, but I kind of like to think of it like the marble effect in Men In Black. It kind of puts things in perspective.

    I've been studying the eye this past summer in physics and Darwin spoke on how intricate the eye was and how that baffled him. I mean how the light reflects off the lenses to a foci and the image is translated, blah, blah, blah. I just think something as amazing as the world we live in, human beings, life itself, could be a cosmic mistake.

    Now, the thought of an all encompassing God is pretty mind-blowing too. But we can take this one step at a time, right? I find this far more believable and reassuring, then to consider myself a mistake.

    Well, it's just about midnight for me. Hope my thoughts are kind of coming out clearly. ;) Interesting topic.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.