Big Bang vs Creation

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Force-User Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jul 6, 2002
    star 1
    OK, so did I miss the part in the conversation where it was explained what precipatated the actual "big bang"? Have we agreed that it was God or do you knuckle-heads still think it just happened? :p
  2. jedi-jeff Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 3
    Abraham Loeb of Harvard?s Center for Astrophysics says: ?The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level.?


    I suspect this is an out of date quote or taken of context from the scientifically worhtless creationist websites that you cut and past from. Reqardless I have read several books on this topic which clearly detail the steps in star formation. Please give a reference for the above quote.

    The late Fred Hoyle was a skeptic of the Big Bang Theory but his views were a minority in the scientific community. The main reason that other scientists do subscribe to the steady state theory is that it provides no explaination for observations such as the cosmic microwave background observations.
  3. jedi-jeff Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 3
    Have we agreed that it was God or do you knuckle-heads still think it just happened?


    Based on current knowledge I would not rule the role of God in starting the Big Bang. This is why I never understood why some folks feel that Big Bang underminds their faith.
  4. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    You can suspect all you want, but it sounds like the mashing of sour grapes.

    As you admit Hoyle was a skeptic perhaps you'll care to retract your undeservedly rude and hasty words.
  5. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    "How would a Creation Hypothesis explain the observed cosmic microwave background and the observed expansion of the universe? Also does anyone know of a creation hypothesis that is scientifically testable? "

    You are also aware that the background microwave radiation was not what was expected as per extrapolation of BBT, right?

    Would you like further details?
  6. jedi-jeff Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 3
    As you admit Hoyle was a skeptic perhaps you'll care to retract your undeservedly rude and hasty words.


    If you provide a recent refernce for the statement by Dr. Loeb then I will apoligize.

  7. jedi-jeff Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 3
    Would you like further details?


    Yes I would be very interested.
  8. MariahJade2 Former Fan Fiction Archive Editor

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Mar 18, 2001
    star 5
    There is a book out there that all of you here may find interesting. It is called, Genesis and the Big Bang: The discovery of harmony between modern science and the bible. It is by, Gerald L. Schroeder. It is a facintating read as it takes each point along the way of the big bang theory and compares it with the descriptions in Genesis. According to the author they are both describing the same thing.
  9. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    If no less a distinguished figure as Hoyle was skeptical, why do I need any other reference, already being in such august company?

    And if you were aware of Hoyle, whom you referred to, then why would you call my words "ignorant"?

    Do as your honor dictates.

    Give me a few minutes to present the info requested on cosmic background radiation, as it was hypothesized versus what was found and the significance of this.

    Actually, I'd rather start at the beginning with the notions centered around the cosmic egg and the resulting explosion, and progress from the 'beginning,' so to speak.

    My Big Bang Bugs.

    Anyway, be back.
  10. jedi-jeff Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 3
    If no less a distinguished figure as Hoyle was skeptical, why do I need any other reference, already being in such august company?


    What you ignore is that Hoyle's views are very nuch a tiny minority. In science, The majority views hold sway until new data comes in to overturn the existing theory.

    BTW, I always felt that the Big Bang is more consistent with biblical creation than the Steady State Theory that has no begining.
  11. Master-Jedi-Smith Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    May 26, 2002
    star 4
    Um, I have a question.

    If science cannot prove the Big Bang, how can it be used to prove creationism?

    Science seems pretty convenient when you are trying to dispove the Big Bang in an attempt to prove creationism.

    How does that work?

    I thought that God created Earth, according to the Bible, correct? So, what need is there to question any further? That's all the evidence that you need, isn't it? There is no one to go to over God to verify that, now is there?

    You give us names and quotes from humans, who don't know left from right, let alone how things in this world/universe work.

    Latre! :D
  12. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4


    "What you ignore is that Hoyle's views are very nuch a tiny minority. In science, The majority views hold sway until new data comes in to overturn the existing theory."

    Hey, you're the one who initially brought up Hoyle by name, on the very heels of the words "ridiculous" and "ignorant" in application to me. Quite a faux pas.

    Your words here are obviously disingenious. I didn't expect an actual apology, although I've shown quite clearly the invalidity of your 'spirited' words. I just wanted to see your character, especially caught dead to rights in flagrante.


    This pretty much seems to show what can be expected in any sort of an ongoing discussion.


    Big Bang Bugs


    This is really starting in further than I wanted, because there are so many other questions worth addressing that precede this particular "bug."



    Predictions based on The Big Bang Theory said that there should be a detectable background radiation (of a few degrees kelvin)in the universe. That much was correct. Soon to be Nobel recipients for this confirming discovery, in 1965 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at Bell Telephone Laboratories in N.J., discovered such a radiation.

    However, the BBT predicted a homogenous universe, being that matter is evenly distributed throughout, and cosmologists postulated that the background radiation would be perfectly smooth. Well, the background radiation, the alleged echo of the BB was indeed smooth.

    Here's the rub. The universe is not smooth and homogenous, but lumpy, with tremendous superclusters and, more significant, great voids (these will become a problem in another area as well). The background radiation should not be smooth if it is an echo of the BB.

    It should resemble the universe we observe, but it doesn't, and it should have areas of specified intensity, exhibiting and indicating inhomogeneities at the onset of the universe from the BB. It doesn't.

    COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) was launched into orbit around earth not too long ago, with it's missions purpose of measuring any differences in the background radiation, but unfortunately for some, it only confirmed that the radiation is indeed perfectly smooth. More bad news for the BBT.



    It is my opinion, as more and more astronomers and cosmologists are disillusioned with TBBT, they'll begin jumping on board with individuals like Lerner (whom I've mentioned), and his plasma theory, and back onbaord steady state theories.

    I don't subscribe to Lerner's views except only where he convincingly devastates commonly held notions of TBBT. But, mark my words, in the next couple of decades, this is exactly what's going to happen.

    I personally like a hypothesis put forth by a creationsist named Humphreys, but it requires a Big Bang of sorts.

    However, as stated earlier, I'm just debating to debate while I make up my own mind.






  13. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Jedi-Jeff,

    Let me also go back to your words regarding Hoyle being in a minority.

    We both know that to assume the "majority" knows what time it is doesn't hold water, especially if the "majority" all set their respective clocks based on the same watch, so to speak.

    Those in the minority (perennially favorite example Galileo) have often proven correct and left rotten egg on the face of the majority.

    Dogma has often turned into mere doggerel/dog food. :)

    I will nitpick the status quo.



  14. Master-Jedi-Smith Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    May 26, 2002
    star 4
    Yeah, but wasn't he punished by the Church for his beliefs?

    Latre! :D
  15. jedi-jeff Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 3
    However, the BBT predicted a homogenous universe, being that matter is evenly distributed throughout, and cosmologists postulated that the background radiation would be perfectly smooth. Well, the background radiation, the alleged echo of the BB was indeed smooth.


    Please provide a reference for this statement. My reading on this topic predicted the opposite of the above statement. Tiny variations in the Cosmic backqround were needed to form the galaxies. The detection of fluctuations from the cosmic background by satelites such as COBE actually strengthened the Big Bang. Several books have been written about the COBE mission. None of the books that I have read state that the fluctuations in the Cosmic Background radiation were in conflict with the Big Bang.

    Also, I said that I would apoligize when you provide the reference for the quote by Dr. Loeb.
  16. jedimaster5615 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2002
    star 2
    I've seen some conversation about what happened before the big bang. Well, according to Stephen Hawking, time is intertwined with space. Before the Big Bang there was no space, and there for no time. It was the beginning of time. There is no before the Big Bang.
  17. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Well, Hawking on top of Einstein, yes, time is intertwined in gravity and thus the universe.

  18. Master-Jedi-Smith Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    May 26, 2002
    star 4
    Well, if people can believe in an invisible being creating everything, I don't see why it's not possible to believe in Hawking's theory as well! :)

    Latre! :D
  19. jedi-jeff Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 3
    I will nitpick the status quo


    That is fine. Actually questioning the status quo is very good in science. But if one is to question the status quo then requires the following:

    1. Show experiments where the existing theory does not work.

    2. Propose a new theory that that is testable and provides a better explaination than the existing theory.

    Dr. Hoyles Steady State theory has not been unable to provide a better explaination than the existing Big Bang Theory. If it did then many more scientists would have embrassed it.


  20. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Jeff,

    I don't need Loeb's quote, you did it to yourself. Loeb is irrelevent. I could give you the reference in 2 seconds, but then you've missed the point. You tried to jump on me before Loeb's quote was posted, and in the same post that you mentioned Sir Fred Hoyle, unless you were referring to the ever popular, albeit somewhat obscure, Barney or Larry Hoyle. ;)

  21. jedi-jeff Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 3
    I don't need Loeb's quote, you did it to yourself. Loeb is irrelevent. I could give you the reference in 2 seconds


    Why will you not give the reference for this quote? I will apoligize if you will give me the reference. I have no idea where you get your information from. I suspect you information comes from scientifcally worthless creationist websites. So I see no need to apoligize until you provide verification of this quote.
  22. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    I'm not defending Hoyle's hypotheses. Not at all. Just admiring his criticisms. He can offer valid criticisms and a preposterous hypothesis, but the one is validly exclusive from the other.

    Same with Erich Lerner. I endorse his criticisms, and I think his postulations appear strong in regard to his hypothesis, but, personally I don't like it. But his critique of BBT is scathing, and I'm seeing more and more such critiques in popular periodicals.


    I prefer a more workable Big Bang scenario.
  23. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    "Why want you give the reference for this quote? I will apoligize if you will give me the refernce."

    Because you're missing the point. This is almost like some sort of victim's rights issue (lol, I can't believe I put it this way. :D ), you render an affrontary and then stonewall demanding that I meet your conditions.

    Sorry, that just doesn't seem realistically reasonable to me. You had no business making such an 'energetic Big Bang' kinda statement to begin with.

    I'm not jumping through hoops. Been there, done that, it did no good and wasted lotsa' my time.

    Anyway, I'm just trying to help you out with your karma before something boomerangs back on you. :)





  24. jedi-jeff Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 3
    You can win this arguement easily by providing a reference for the quote by Dr. Loeb. Otherwise my statement my about your scientific illiteracy seems to be valid.
  25. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Jeff,

    My "scientific illiteracy," eh? LOL.


    "You are my kind of scum." :D


    You're showing your prejudices, amigo.

    A critique is valid on it's own merits, regardless of source, even if a 'meep popsickle.'

    I seem to know enough to point out Hoyle's regards. I seem to know enough about Lerner (he's certainly no Creationist), and I could bore you with my reading lists. Hawking, Calder, Sagan, and so on.


    But, I'll have you know, that I correspond with a number of Creationist scientists, and my respect for them is tremendous.

    And furthermore (do I sound like mom?), I wasn't a Christian until rather late in life, having gone through the processes of an entirely secular education up through college. If I don't buy everything handed down from the ivory towers of academia it's not because I haven't been exposed or didn't whole heartedly believe it previously.

    I've seen things and been a part of events that caused a radical paradigm shift, as I suspect has occured with many Creationists, which causes one to reevaluate all of ones previously held notions and convictions regarding this life.


    It takes no scientific credentials to participate in this thread, and to sugget so is pomposity, as it is arrogance to refer to someon whom you believe knows less than yourself tied up in words such as "ignorance" or "ridiculousness."


    And lastly, Loeb is not a creationist. So, regardless if from his own work or another's, his quote is his own, and even moreso if he told me directly.


    But the point you seem to miss, in your pride, is that your statements preceded my quote of Loeb. Your lack of civility has no bearing on any quote I present from whatever source.

    That, dear sir, is the point precisely.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.