Big Bang Myth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prieldedi said:
You shouldn’t judge me without knowing why I think the way I think. Let me explain to you why the way I think is not prejudice.

I used to accept everything that scientists said in the field of “earth sciences” and others. I believed what they presented as truth, facts, realities. For over 30 years I took everything they said without doubting for a minute what they said. The internet allowed me to find out that not all scientists accepted the interpretation of the data given by established scientists, in fact there were scientists presenting other interpretations of the data. We know every coin has two faces, I had been watching just one side of the coin. Soon I started to read what others scientists were saying. I didn’t jump immediately to their side, it was a matter of years. I realized they were not in the news, nor in the scientific magazines, nor in the “so called” scientific channels. I started to wonder why.
Click to expand...
It is a common mistake to take what scientists say as the “Gospel truth”, especially when it involves broad scientific theories. Scientific theories are provisional and subject to revision. Science is revolutionary in that an accepted theory can be completely swept away and replaced by a better theory. In that process, for the most part, we get a more accurate understanding of nature, we get closer to the truth. Hopefully, in 200 years Big Bang theory will look very different. And I have no doubt that evolution theory will be quite different.

I think you unwittingly set yourself up for disappointment.
Prieldedi said:
Perhaps the theories, the interpretations, the methods, the procedures, the data were flawed. You said it: “all profession involve humans”, and as humans they didn’t want someone else to show the world their flaws. Whatever their reasons, to me it didn’t look good, honest, fair. Maybe it’s the human inclination of rooting for the underdog, the thing is that the established scientists camp lost my respect and trust.
Click to expand...
My concern with your posts in not so much that you disagree with Big Bang, but that you cannot present any scientific reasons for your disagreement. One’s opinions should be thought out and well supported.

Not every modern and widely accepted scientific theory, explanation or belief is true. Some are just flat out wrong. For instance, it seems that most physicists take the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for fact. Einstein knew that the quantum interpretation was wrong but he was unable to present a convincing counter-argument and thus his view lost out. Nonetheless, the uncertainty principle is scientifically false, and ontologically it is unadulterated nonsense. And I can explain why the uncertainty principle is nonsense.
Prieldedi said:
They were presented as the missing link and were believed to be so for decades until proved hoaxes. They were lies all the way, not honest mistakes but lies.

The Piltdown Man was a fabrication: they “found” a chimpanzee jaw and a human tooth that fitted in the chimpanzee jaw. For 40 years it was the proof of transition from ape to man, only to be rejected when, using more powerful microscopes, it was clearly seen that the tooth had been tampered with to make it fit the jaw. Besides, paint was used to give the jaw and tooth the appearance of aging.
Click to expand...
Piltdown was a fraud, and it is amazing that it was not spotted right away. However, it was scientists who exposed the fraud. I believe that sooner or later frauds generally get exposed by honest scientists.

Creationist sources strive to discredit every scientific find that supports biological evolution. For instance, creationists have skewed the facts about Nebraska Man.
See Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man

So, consider your sources. The other archaeological finds you mentioned were not frauds. It looks like your sources of information are what is fraudulent.

As far a “missing links” are concerned, I think you have some serious misunderstandings. The popular media likes to parade the question of the “missing link” with every archaeological find involving human ancestry. A lot of media hype always attends an archeological discovery. And people are entranced by the hype every time. However, because of common descent and the incompleteness of the fossil record, every lineage actually has numerous missing links.
Prieldedi said:
Search the internet and you’ll find them, there are a lot of scientists that don’t agree with the BBt, YECs and no-YECs.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t look like you are going to offer any links to good scientific arguments against Big Bang.

YEC arguments are not worth anyone’s time since YEC is not science at all. Also, YEC is bad religion, and YECs are incapable of presenting logical and truthful arguments to support their ideology. So, if you are concerned about human arrogance and fraud, there is plenty of that in the YEC cult.
 
ricmat said:
And the reason he loves the world, is…what?
Click to expand...
I put my lot in for human beings as holding a privileged place in creation because only man was created in the image and likeness of God.

Genesis 1:

26 God said, ‘Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild animals and all the creatures that creep along the ground.’

27 God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.
 
Itinerant 1
Not every modern and widely accepted scientific theory, explanation or belief is true. Some are just flat out wrong. For instance, it seems that most physicists take the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for fact. Einstein knew that the quantum interpretation was wrong but he was unable to present a convincing counter-argument and thus his view lost out. Nonetheless, the uncertainty principle is scientifically false, and ontologically it is unadulterated nonsense. And I can explain why the uncertainty principle is nonsense.
Click to expand...
Please explain why you think the uncertainty principle is scientifically false. This is news to me. I am not interested in an argument so you can be candid with me.

Thank you

Yppop
 
StAnastasia said:
God loves the world.
Click to expand...
A little Johannine theology: “the world” and “this world” in John means, and invariably so, the world of men and their affairs, which concretely is a world subject to sin and darkness.
 
yppop said:
Itinerant 1

Please explain why you think the uncertainty principle is scientifically false. This is news to me. I am not interested in an argument so you can be candid with me.

Thank you

Yppop
Click to expand...
What? You don’t want to argue? That’s no fun! 😛

Actually, I’ll be back on CAF within the hour and post a brief sketch of the problems with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
 
itinerant1 said:
I put my lot in for human beings as holding a privileged place in creation because only man was created in the image and likeness of God.

Genesis 1:

26 God said, ‘Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild animals and all the creatures that creep along the ground.’

27 God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.
Click to expand...
Amen, brother.

Those who believe that humans are unexceptional (as in not special, just a small part of nature) are leading us down the wrong path.
 
itinerant1 said:
What? You don’t want to argue? That’s no fun! 😛

Actually, I’ll be back on CAF within the hour and post a brief sketch of the problems with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...
I know all about the Copenhagen Interpretation problem; I lean toward the MWI. You found fault with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. That’s what I want you to explain.

Thanks
Yppop
 
Jim_Baur said:
I do not know, but I believe there are antinomies between the Jewish, Christian and Muslim beliefs and the Big Bang.

To mention one example: We believe that human beings are the reason God created the universe. In my opinion, common sense says that God did not create the universe 15,000,000,000 years ago and then 30,000 or 40,000 years ago humans became human. It seems a rather long time between starting the process and the climax of the process.
Click to expand...
A universe that has “evolved” over 13 - 15 billion years is an inconceivably long time from the human perspective. But since God is outside of time, it is not as if he had a long wait before the evolution and creation of man. Perhaps the Greek gods on Mt. Olympus would get tired waiting, but then again they had plenty of apricot nectar to drink and lots of mischievousness they could get into while waiting for the appearance of man.

But more to the point, is that if you apply your logic about the time span to the physical immensity of the universe, to be consistent you would have to maintain that the universe is not very large. Yet we know we live on a planet orbiting one star among more than 100 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, which in turn is just one of billions of galaxies in the observable universe.

Why such a vast universe? I have some philosophical speculations on that question but I won’t go into those kinds of speculations here. Other considerations might be that there is intelligent life on any number of planets in the universe. There is no sound theological objection to that possibility.

Also, when we consider the meaning of the universe in regard to its age and size, we tend to come up with answers that only pertain to us in the present life, in other words we tend to think of the issue in only terms of our present perspective. However, we know from the NT that the cosmos will be transformed during the End Times and there will be, as the Apostle John saw in a vision, a new heaven and new earth.

To assert the contrary position, that the universe is not anthropic, or that it was not created for man, is a self-centered and provincial outlook since it does not take the universe into consideration from God’s perspective insofar as He has revealed something about it in the NT. And this universe, as revealed in regard to the future, plays a part in the next life and for all eternity.

Just what role the universe will play in the future life is, I believe, unknown. And as long as that remains unknown we cannot formulate a very complete answer to the issues of the immense age and size of the universe.

YEC has no answers to anything. If one assumes that God created everything in a literal six days, the same problems persist. That is, six days is no different time-wise to God than is billions of years since He transcends time and the universe. And so why did it take the YEC God an entire six days to create everything? I guess the YEC God, being so old, was a very slow worker, and he got tired from all that work, and so he had to rest on the 7th day, maybe even had a couple of beers and watched a little EWTN on future television.

I hope you can now see that no problems or questions will find their resolution by disregarding Big Bang theory or the immense age of the universe.

But what cannot be rightfully doubted is that God gave man a privileged place in creation:

"God said, ‘Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild animals and all the creatures that creep along the ground.’

“God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.”
 
yppop said:
I know all about the Copenhagen Interpretation problem; I lean toward the MWI. You found fault with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. That’s what I want you to explain.

Thanks
Yppop
Click to expand...
I guess there is more than one issue that has been labeled as “the Copenhagen interpretation.” I wasn’t thinking of the MWI idea versus “the Copenhagen interpretation.”

Anyway, I never cared much for the multi-verse idea. However, I once met a guy who was grist for the MWI mill. He was a multiple-personality and could testify to the different universes that he (they) could experience.

He was involved in therapy sessions, but they were very expensive since being a multiple personality he would get charged at the group rate. He always worried that the therapist would charge him even more for each of his alters that had personality disorders.

I’m content with a uni-verse and have no need for alternate worlds.

Regarding the uncertainty principle, there is the common assumption that it was formulated in a strictly scientific manner and for strictly scientific reasons. This is far from the truth. We can note such ideological influences at the time as the Machist interpretation of science which threatens confidence in the reality of a causally interconnected universe (M. Planck).

Physicists (such as Pauli, etc.) exhibited a disregard for ontology and easily took (or rather, mistook) knowledge of a thing with the limited ability to measure it. Science was reduced to a sophistry in which there was a reduction of exact science to exact measurement.

Accordingly, by the summer of 1921 a number of physicists openly repudiated the principle of causality. The list includes Exner, Weyl, von Mises, Schottksy, Nerst, and so on.

For Heisenberg, this took the form of what cannot be measured exactly does not occur exactly. At bottom, this is a repudiation of causality and ontology.

Einstein (and certain other prominent physicists) deplored the “dangerous game” which the “Copenhagen people” were playing with reality.

The flaw in fundamental logic is apparent in the sophism which reduces exact existence to exact measurement (Jaki). However, the apparent indeterminacy of a quantum action is due to the limitations of our ability to measure, and in no way implies a true indeterminacy in nature.

Along with the flippant disposal of ontology goes a disposal of reality. The uncertainty principle, when its logical implications are followed, disposes of the validity of our knowledge of the external world as well as disposes of the world itself. Leave it to Niels Bohr to openly abolish the ontological reality of the universe: “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.”

The false philosophical ideologies, which generated the denial of causality, has led physicists into a world that is no less insane than is the world of the insane multiple-personality man I had met some time ago.
 
Jim_Baur said:
I do not know, but I believe there are antinomies between the Jewish, Christian and Muslim beliefs and the Big Bang.

To mention one example: We believe that human beings are the reason God created the universe. In my opinion, common sense says that God did not create the universe 15,000,000,000 years ago and then 30,000 or 40,000 years ago humans became human. It seems a rather long time between starting the process and the climax of the process.
Click to expand...
It is amusing that you apply **human **ideas of economy to the Creation of human beings. We have instant coffee, instant photos and now you expect instant (or at least speedier) Creation? What’s the hurry? :rolleyes:

Common sense is notoriously deficient when it is applied to uncommon events…
 
I am not alone.

I am in good company.

St. Augustine believed that the literal interpretation of Creation was that God created all things instantaneously. He believed that it was a possible interpretation.

He was not the only one that believed this to be a possible interpretation.
 
Jim_Baur said:
I am not alone.I am in good company. St. Augustine believed that the literal interpretation of Creation was that God created all things instantaneously. He believed that it was a possible interpretation.

He was not the only one that believed this to be a possible interpretation.
Click to expand...
St. Augustine was not aware of the evidence for evolution… Instant Creationism is as unreasonable as interpreting Genesis literally.
 
itinerant1 said:
I put my lot in for human beings as holding a privileged place in creation because only man was created in the image and likeness of God.
Click to expand...
As far as we know. With ten to the twenty-second stars in three hundred billion galaxies, I think there is a fair chance we are not alone as the apple (or extraterrestrial fruit) of God’s eye. As one seventeenth-century theologian asked, “Do you think God made all the rest of the stars just to twinkle for us?” (That was before people knew anything about galaxies.)
 
As I said, I am in good company with St. Augustine and many others.

I am the OP.

I started this thread because science is not enough to answer these questions.

Human reason created mathematical and scientific methods.

Math and science are great tools of reason.

Reason has more tools than just math and science.

Theology and philosopher are powerful tools.

I use as many tools as possible.

The origins of being transcendents math, science, philosophy and their creators, the human reason.

Hawkings and Einstein knew this.

I know it.

As of now, human reason does not have the answers.

I am not sure of these statements, but I believe Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They thought they knew it all, too. Again, I am not sure if I am correct about the above two sentences.
 
Jim_Baur said:
As I said, I am in good company with St. Augustine and many others. I am the OP… I started this thread because science is not enough to answer these questions.
Click to expand...
Jim Baur, in your first post, you said “I hold the OPINION that the Big Bang is a myth.” I am not sure what the questions are that you think “science is not enough to answer,” because you did not in fact pose any questions in that first post.

The “Big Bang” is not a myth, but a scientific theory proposed by George Lemaitre.

StAnastasia
 
I have stated some of my philosophical reasons why it is indeed a myth.

Myth is not a bad word.

It is saying we do not know all of the answers and supply scientific constructs to fill in the blanks.

Some of those scientific constructs have not been observed, and that is a fact.

It is, in fact, a myth.

I also stated it is my opinion.

I stand by my opinion.

Only a few posts have addressed the philosophical issues. They are really, really, really, really, big.

Also, Hawkings and Einstein taught that God is part of the equations.

This is really, really, really, really, big.

Again, this is my own personal opinion. I have the definitions and the reasons in other posts.

I did not start this thread to cause fights are hard feelings, that is why I said an opinion.

For the hurt feelings that I caused, I truly apologize. Honestly, that was not my intention or goal.

To bring in my Catholic faith, I believe in Love. I do not believe in fighting.

So, I am truly sorry if I hurt any person with the expression of an opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top