Big Bang vs Creation

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dustchick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2000
    star 1
    Rest assured, I never try to waste anyone's time, and I do not respond to postings I have

    not read. So, I'm up for lively debate within the time constraints of my job. (I don't

    exist on Mondays starting tomorrow, basically.) But dudes, ya gotta stop posting so much - this is gonna be a long response.

    So what are your arguments against Erich Lerner's arguments against the Big Bang?
    (Please don't tell me how strong the Big Bang theory is followed by a statement that you are

    unfamiliar with Lerner's book.)


    I am moderately familiar with Lerner's premises, although I have not read the book completely - it is sitting by me as I write this. Couple of problems: the book may have addressed pertinent cosmological issues when it was written, but certainly is not up-to-date with current observations. The magnetic fields that he claims were dismissed out of hand are commonly discussed in the field as being generated by currents in BH accretion disks. While he claims that "omega" doesn't equal 1, many current observations show that it is close to 1. Look to current papers for your arguments, not books that predate many of the most exciting discoveries in cosmology, especially the accelerating universe.


    You also didn't bother to address issue's involving rates of c-decay.

    Actually, I thought that creation scientists had already dismissed c-decay, but let me

    summarize the arguments for those reading this opus who are not familiar with the concept. In 1987 or so, a man named Setterfield published a work which claimed that the speed of light C has decreased over time since man has been able to measure it. Which fascinates me, since the first reliable estimate by Roemer in the 1600s actually *under*estimated c by 24%. The people at the Institute for Creation Research even debunked this idea.


    What would some of those bugs be? Additionally, if enough "bugs" at what point should we

    discard our current view of the BBT? Like the necessity of CDM, which can't be proven at

    all beyond the necessity of a mathematical equation, right?


    I agree with one of Lerner's bugs - the apparent inequality of matter/anti-matter in the universe. However, particle physicists at Stanford have claimed some headway on this issue in the past few years. Not my personal field of expertise.

    It does disturb me to claim that we cannot "see" 90% of the universe. I do think that there are some pieces of the puzzle we have not found, and I'm enjoying the search.

    The idea of the accelerating universe is freaky, but the observations really seem to lead to it. Can't wait to see where this leads. Probably very much intertwined with the aforementioned 90%.


    The Big Bang theory is really not a scientific theory at all, but more of a working

    hypothesis, and very underdeveloped as such things go.


    I both disagree and agree with various parts of this sentence. BBT is very young - how could it not be? Galaxies were known to exist as separate entities from ours less than one hundred years ago. BBT isn't even the same as it was 5 years ago. But it is our best working model, which is what a scientific theory is.


    We don't know how stars form, plain and simple. It's guess work at best, no matter how

    eductaed a guess, a hunch is still just a hunch.


    That's insulting to scientists who study star formation for the following reasons: most

    would agree with the opening statement - we cannot definitively say how stars form.

    Yet, in recent years, many observations by the Hubble Space Telescope (NICMOS, in

    particular) and ISO have allowed us to peer deeper than ever before into the birthplaces of

    stars. We do not have millions of years at our disposal to watch a single star go through

    its entire evolution, but watching millions of stars, each at a different phase, has allowed

    us to piece together the story of starbirth. It is more than a hunch, but a good working

    model. Hey! That describes a theory! (Addendum - Loeb i
  2. jedi-jeff Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 3
    Unless you provide a reference for this quote by Dr. Loeb, how do I know if it is valid?

    You are the one who makes an extrodinary claim that Science does not understand star formation. However you provide no references for the statement. Asking for such information seems reasonable.
  3. SaberGiiett7 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2002
    star 6
    Phew!Man things have sure heated up here.I'm gone for 3 hours and you guys have posted like 30 long informitive posts.Tell me how did the Big Bang get made if there was nothing to make it?
  4. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    DustChick,

    Thank you for your very thoughtful and courteous reply. I sincerely hope you won't have taken my words wrongly, and by way of explanation, on many of these topic threads it seems too often discussions become more a matter of obstinacy, of more heat than light, and individuals become so polarized as to "do a Hoyle." :) Here, for those reading who may be guilty, :D, let me be so ennumerated amongst said ranks in the hall of shame. ;) I just have little to no interest in a repeat of recently past history.



    What I'd like to do, pending your own gracious willingness, is to present some "bugs" that I've come across in my readings on the subject, hardly even that of a layman, I'm sure, and await your responses.

    Numerous times recently, and I'm certain you are no doubt in the loop, so you know what's being referred to, there have been articles written by astronomers, and so forth,as exampled by Lerner, attacking TBBT. I'm left, as with most readers, sorting through the conflicting assertions trying to decipher who's actually in the know and who's simply 'radical,' or if even there is a reliable distinction. That's of course not intentionally an insult to scientist's, as it's scientists causing the confusion. :D It's definitely not simply a matter easily discerned by academic professional credentials, as is illustrated by your view of Hoyle, which naturally further obfuscates the subject in the eyes of a more generalized readership. Namely me. :)


    Anyway, if you're agreeable, I'll direct my responses to you under a heading of "Big Bang Bugs," for you to answer at your leisure. Okee-day?




  5. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    "You are the one who makes an extrodinary claim that Science does not understand star formation. However you provide no references for the statement. Asking for such information seems reasonable. "


    Go back and reread my posts and quit trying to justify your bit of unrestrained 'exuberance.' :D

  6. jedi-jeff Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 3
    Darth Brooks

    Obviously you do not even read your own posts. You have not provided any references to support your claim that science does not understand star formation.
  7. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    You're all very clever, but it's turtles all the way down.

    This has been an test of the Emergency Levity System. If this situation was in need of actual levity, it would have been much funnier.

    Now back to your previous well worn debate,
  8. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    :D


    I read that anecdote!

    "You can't fool me young man, it's turtles all the way down." :D

    Funnier everytime I hear it!
  9. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Jeff, give it up, there's not even enough of that horse's carcas left to beat, you saucy young man. :)



    Did you read the post on molecular concerns?
  10. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    What came first, the chicken or the egg? This simple, children's question holds the answer to yours.

    By the way, my thumbs have evolved to be my most dextrous digit. Have yours? :)
  11. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    "We'd better focus ourselves on the distant universe for the next 50 billion years."

    -Abraham Loeb, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

    Now, why on earth would Loeb say a thing like that? Perhaps because he believes that finding out what causes the universe to accelerate is, as he says, "probably the biggest challenge in cosmology." That is a far way from saying that we don't understand the fundamentals of star formation... but "not understanding the fundamentals of star formation" could mean a number of things, depending on the context. At any rate, I could not find a single reference for Darth Brooks' exact quote... so I have quoted Loeb's opinion on cosmology from a place I can reference, and have referenced.

    Does that mean there is no evidence for the Big Bang? Nope. Does it mean astrobiologists should "throw in the towel"? Nope. Does it mean Creation occurred instead? Not at all.

    (Source: Loeb, A. The long-term future of extragalactic astronomy. Physical Review D, (2001).

    What is the Creationist theory, and supporting evidence, regarding why the universe is continuing to expand at an accelerating rate? What precipitated this, and how?

    One should be aware that there are a few other theories regarding the universe, outside of Creation, which is not a scientific theory at all... including steady-state theory, one of the joint proponents of which is none other than the aforementioned Sir Fred Hoyle.

    What I find interesting, and ironic, about Darth_Brooks' reference to Hoyle is that... while the Big Bang implies some sort of origin, some sort of catalyst (or creation "event") if you will that must have set it into motion, the steady-state model of the universe, as championed by Hoyle and his collaborator Chandra Wickramasinghe, if it were true... implies that the universe does not have a beginning, has always been, and therefore has absolutely no need for a creator.
  12. SaberGiiett7 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2002
    star 6
    Yet you people still have no way of explaining how a eternal Cosmic void of notheness could explode.If you say the energy existed prior to the Big Bang how was that formed?
  13. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    What evidence is there that energy must be "formed"? Modern physics agrees with the notion that matter only changes states, it is neither created nor destroyed... so perhaps that's what happens to energy. What dictates that energy must have had a beginning? Any evidence you have that energy and/or matter have, in fact, a beginning? Any evidence you have that dictates that there must always be a beginning to things?

    If anything, the big bang suggests to me that matter and energy did at one time explode and what we can observe of it is accelerating.. but who knows, perhaps in a million years we may discover that this universe is really just one small "supergalaxy" amongst thousands, millions... in an infinite space that was never created, and will never be destroyed... but has always been... and within it, matter and energy have been changing states constantlt, and forever.

    Our own observatios of "beginnings" and "endings" are not absolute, mind you. When a star implodes, what happens to its energy and mass? It it reduced to zero, or does it change states, density, etc?

    If stars of immense mass can reach infinitely high density, why cannot the universe be part of a greater sea of matter, once existing as a mass of infinite density in a miniscule volume within that greater sea of other states of matter which we perhaps have yet to discover?

    If we could find such areas outside of this universe, it would take us billions and trillions of years perhaps before we did... that doesn't mean they don't exist.

    That simply means we have to set our minds to finding them. We may never find them, but one thing is certain... that the never-ending search for knowledge and truth constantly yields great discoveries along the way.

    That is science... the never ending search for knowledge and, ultimately, truth. Some people cannot wait for truth to fall from the sky... so they go to it.

    There is no scientific theory that is complete... because that something occurs may be well known, but the understanding of how it occurs is being constantly refined with better instruments of perception.

    Rather than subscribing indefinitely and blindly to the original views of this universe, science is there to help us progress our understanding.

    Some people arrive at their conclusions by blind faith, others by empirical scrutiny. If you don't believe in the Big Bang for reasons of faith... so be it. I see no reason, except for a political agenda, for anyone to try to convince scientists to stop searching for the truth... and to try to convince people that the Big Bang doesn't occur, on the basis of hearsay and written opinions of research.

    The infamous Institute for Creation Research defines itself as being committed to the repression of knowledge, and the unchanging adherence to fundamentalist Christian principles. That may be fine for some people, but in their mission statement, they make it abundantly clear that theirs is a sociopolitical agenda. It's not enough that we live in a society that allows them to believe as they like, but they are hell bent on pursuing the ears of politicians, lawyers and school administrators to introduce Creation as mandatory "science" learning in the classroom... when it is not science.

    Creation "theory" offers no scientific hypotheses as to how god formed the universe, offers no scientific evidence connecting god with the creation of the universe, it does not rely on any primary research conducted with isolated variables and controls designed to test any specific Creationist hypothesis... and yet there are those who want you to believe that written opinions, testimonials, hearsay, and "book reports" on other scientists scientific primary research... is what constitutes science.

    Do your own math, do your own homework... go to the source and find out what these scientists are saying, and arrive at your own conclusions... instead of having an intermediary interpret it for you. Even schoolteachers have a way of regurgitating information without explaining the fundamentals o
  14. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    SaberG,

    Oh, you must be referencing the "small bang" theory. ;)
  15. SaberGiiett7 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2002
    star 6
    Okay lets say your right how could energy make organic matter and vegetation through a implosion?
  16. jedimaster5615 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2002
    star 2
    The amount of energy in the universe is constant. Energy isn't "created" or "used" it simply changes from one form of energy to another.

    Prior to the Big Bang, all of the matter in the entire universe was contained at a point of singularity. In the moments after the Big Bang crazy things were happening very quickly. For example, one second after the Big Bang "protons and neutrons bind as nuclei of hydrogen, helium, litium, and deuterim." (The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking p78)
  17. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Saber: That's a vast oversimplification...

    Considering that most evidence (including background radiation) suggests the universe is approximately 15 billion years old... and life on earth is about 4 billion years old.


    The Big Bang did not instantaneously produce life...

    Even if you counted to 15 billion... you couldn't begin to imagine the immense span of possibilities that arise in a virtually infinite universe in such an infinitesimal span of time. Furthermore, Earth existed roughly 400-600 million years before life began to appear... which in and of itself provides an incredible, seemingly infinite number of possibilites... and a number of opportunities for the "right" elements to come together in the same place, at the right time, to form organic compounds.

    One must understand that all organic life on earth is fundamentally separated from inorganic compounds by one unifying factor: All organic life is, at its core, made up of four elements: Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and Oxygen. Carbon is abundant in the universe. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Nitrogen and Oxygen are the two primary constituents of our atmosphere.

    Life isn't fundamentally different from nonlife at an atomic level... but at a molecular and cellular level, the distinction is that the organic nature of some compounds allows them to respond to stimuli in ways that inorganic compounds do not. It took four billion years of Earth's existence before multicellular life appeared here... and when it did, life exploded because of the ability of complex organisms to now obtain their nourishment not just from inert minerals, elements, etc... but from other complex hydrocarbons and carbohydrates (other organic compounds...). This, time, and the simple mathematics of probability, created stunning matrixes of life in a "relatively" short period of time... in the last 600 million years, the forms of complex, multicellular life have exploded... and produced a distinct side-effect of multiple receptor cells, organs, tissues... self-awareness.

    But what fundamentally connects self-aware life to simple organic compounds is still those four elements... still present.

    Now, this discussion was primarily about the Big Bang... but the Big Bang theory is a constituent element of the multidisciplinary range of sciences known as astrobiology which deals with pursuing the origins of the universe and the interstellar origins of the constituents of life.

    Some hypotheses as to how life suddenly accelerated from simple organic compounds to complex multicellular life are currently being tested by scientists around the world... one of these includes experiments by NASA/JPL which have postulated that some amino acids were formed in space and were transplanted here with the help of a meteor, asteroid or comet entering the earth's atmosphere. Now, these hypotheses are currently being tested... but the results so far are pretty startling. NASA scientists have already replicated the formation of amino acids in a space-like environment to demonstrate that it is possible for this to have occurred.
  18. SaberGiiett7 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2002
    star 6
    I'll stop annoying you guys if you tell me how a mass void can produce a material explosion.
  19. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Saber: I'm curious about that myself... which is why I support the sciences... to keep investigating. However, I'm not entirely convinced that evidence of a Big Bang means it was preceded by a void.. but that's just me.

    Of course, I'm not convinced that the universe has a beginning... or an end, either.
  20. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Saber, Don't you know everything in nature had a beginning but the beginning?

    Nature's always a reliable indicator except in naturalistic philosophy.

    LOl.

    Into the breach once more...

    Invincible ignorance has a home again, home again, jiggitty jig.
  21. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    "Of course, I'm not convinced that the universe has a beginning... or an end, either."

    Praytell, what are you convinced of?

    You've expressed some wonderful Men in Black-esque sci-fi playtime notions, such as a universe in which the BB is just another agate out of the marble sack, but where does hard science even remotely suggest that is any such rational possibility?

    This most be one of those more "exotic" (the pc word curteous astrophysicists use) hypothesis.


  22. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Snow-Dog,

    "What I find interesting, and ironic, about Darth_Brooks' reference to Hoyle is that... while the Big Bang implies some sort of origin, some sort of catalyst (or creation "event") if you will that must have set it into motion, the steady-state model of the universe, as championed by Hoyle and his collaborator Chandra Wickramasinghe, if it were true... implies that the universe does not have a beginning, has always been, and therefore has absolutely no need for a creator."


    Why would that be "ironic"?

    We are discussing the Big Bang, and if you had read my words you'd have seen that I actually lean towards the BB as opposed to Hoyle's Steady State ideas. However, I'm interested in exploring the "bugs" of the BB, aren't you?
    Personally, I think all criticisms of each theory need to be explored. Don't you? How do you arrive at a determination of which hypothesis is most plausible if not considering the criticisms of each?

    Why did you omit Hoyle's other collaborator's? Such as Geoffrey Burbidge?

    But more important than contributions by Wickramasinghe, who came along decades later in jumping on board with Hoyle, were Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold back in the 1940's. It was this triumvirate of scientists who proposed the Steady State, not Wickramasinghe.

    Incidentally, the late Sir Hoyle is also credited with coining the term "Big Bang." Somewhat derisively no doubt.

  23. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Here's how it goes, I'm obviously some sort of threat to certain people on here, as the criticisms begin immediately, criticisms that no one else on the board is subjected to, and criticisms that are actually petty and merely distractive.

    Majoring on minors.

    Before I ever mentioned Loeb, who was only quoted to show what virtually any legitimate astrophysicist would say (after having been rudely flamed): 'we don't know all the nuts and bolts of star formation. We have ideas based on mathematical assumptions to try to explain thoughts on the universe cosmology and cosmogony(think, CDM for an example).'

    So, what do I get? Everyone is going to make pointless insinuations regarding my use of Loeb's words. I could have just as easily used myriad statements from Lerner.

    But the actual point is simply that science doesn't have all the answers.
    Nothing particularly controversial about that, excepting, of course, that I happened to be the one to say it.

    [S-D]"Does that mean there is no evidence for the Big Bang? Nope. Does it mean astrobiologists should "throw in the towel"? Nope. Does it mean Creation occurred instead? Not at all."

    Did I say anything remotely like that? Nope.
    More pointless veiled ad hominem. That's how it comes across. Perhaps some people should put more concentrated effort into reading what I actually wrote than in searching for a superfluous quote reference.





    Here is the question I asked that is pertinent, and preceded the quote by A. Loeb, that it seems everyone is stepping around, trying not to acknowledge like a poop on the floor of a cocktail party left behind by the host's poodle;

    "Solar systems form along with stars out of primordial materials like hydrogen, helium, and some carbon/silicon-based dust. The first generation of stars in the universe likely did not have solar systems."


    My response;

    It is generally believed, in certain circles, that stars formed by the collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.

    However, such gas clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would rule out the needed collapse. So, a problem faced is to come up with a plausible mechanism for cooling the cloud down, theoretically speaking, right? Yes, that is correct. One scenario (operative term here) might be through molecular collisions radiating off enough heat .

    However, allegedly the main element caused in the Big Bang theory was hydrogen, with helium to a much lesser extent, with all other elements speculated to have formed within stars. As helium can't form molecules at all, the only molecules to be formed would be H2, right? Sounds right to me. This is destroyed by ultraviolet light, right? And besides, molecular H2 depends upon dust grains to form, and those require heavier elements. So, this is pretty much untenable at the moment. The only coolant left then is atomic hydrogen, but that isn't a solution to the problem, as that would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot for collapse.



  24. SaberGiiett7 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2002
    star 6
    Thats alot of info Brooks!
  25. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Perhaps somepeople should put more effort into reading what I actually wrote than in searching for superfluous quote referances.

    Don't assume I'm disparaging you, Darth_Brooks... I'm merely noting what I find interesting about those comments without attaching any value to them. My intent is that people should not misinterpret Hoyle's position... and I also caution people about pseudoscience, but I'm not suggesting what you presented was pseudoscience or that my commentary was entirely a response to your post. The comments weren't necessarily all dedicated to responding to your post, DB.

    At any rate, the majority of us in here are lay people discussing science... and anything any of us say should be taken with a grain of salt. By all means if you have concern with "bugs" in the theory, present them... but I wouldn't hastily throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.