Big Bang Myth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
Itinerant1, Phil Plait’s *Death from the Skies *has some amazing explanations of astronomical issues, including the Big Bang. Right now I’m reading about the eventual probable fate of the universe trillions of years from now, when there is no more hydrogen from which to make stars. The universe will be a cold and dark place by then. although it won’t matter to us personally, presumably.

What will matter to our descendants is the orange dwarf star that has been discovered to be heading straight for our solar system. It probably will not collide with the sun or earth, as its trajectory is toward the outer reaches of the solar system, the Oort Cloud of comets and asteroids. But it could seriously destabilize things by sending a bunch of comets our way, which could have life-ending implications. That’s slightly more than a million years in the future.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
I’m a firm believer that there will be a new earth before then and the former things will be past away, I have no proof of this but i do believe if we keep up with the word of God we will know the times by the signs Jesus talked about. What you are talking about is an estimate on mans behalf and man has proven to be wrong, God is never wrong. The stars right now are moving away from the earth soon there will be a dark sky and very little stars in this galaxy. In 2012 the earth will be lined up with Venus and it will really be in a position that will cause a very large eclipse, and we will have problems with time as we know it.
 
StAnastasia said:
At a conference I was corrected by a cosmologist: I said 13.7 billion years; he said “Actually it’s 13.715 years.”
Click to expand...
That’s good enough for me. I will have to write down the latest revision so as not to forget.
 
Jim_Baur said:
stenlis and ChadS

I want to thank both of you.

I am reading and studying many different schools of thought.

This is most interesting.

Again, thanks to both of you.

The complexities of these issues ar too much for me as of now.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Jim,
May I recommend three books that may help you deal with the complexities associated with modern astronomical and cosmological theories. They are:
  1. *The Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos *by Dennis Overbye
  2. *Before the Big Bang *by Brian Clegg
  3. The Day We Found the Universe by Marcia Bartusiak
All three take a non-mathematical, historical approach to the Astro and Cosmo. sciences and are very readable.

This forum is badly in need of an upgrading of knowledge in those fields.

Yppop
 
itinerant1 said:
That’s good enough for me. I will have to write down the latest revision so as not to forget.
Click to expand...
Well don’t take it as gospel; I can only rely on what cosmologists say. They disagree as to methods and calculations, but I’ve never heard a cosmologist at a conference say, “OK, that settles it – it’s only 6,000 years old!”
 
yppop

THANKS!

I am going to read as much as possible.

As of now, I am working on several areas.

I have read many of the popular or lay accounts.

Mostly, I have a good background in the philosohpy, philosophy of science and math.

Also, I have a great background in theology.

This is an area that human reason must use all of its tools.

It is not limited to one or two tools.

Again, thank you for your help yppop!
 
Jim_Baur said:
yppop

THANKS!

I am going to read as much as possible.

As of now, I am working on several areas.

I have read many of the popular or lay accounts.

Mostly, I have a good background in the philosohpy, philosophy of science and math.

Also, I have a great background in theology.

This is an area that human reason must use all of its tools.

It is not limited to one or two tools.

Again, thank you for your help yppop!
Click to expand...
Best of luck on your new extended reading list. I stick with laymen’s science and sometimes that can be a little more complicated than I like. I’m sure it will be very enlightening for you.

ChadS
 
itinerant1 said:
… Multi-verse theory blurs the line between science and science-fiction or fantasy. Physicists who write about multi-verses commit a genre error with their writing. They write as if they are writing science when in fact they should be spinning off their fantastical theories as science-fiction novels. Perhaps they are just bored with doing real physics. …
Click to expand...
Multi-verse fanticizers are (atheists) merely congering imaginary methods to deny that the “Big Bang” necessarilly needs a “Big Banger.” Not very scientific; no evidence of other universes exists. They make a leap of faith to avoid a leap of faith.
 
o_mlly said:
Multi-verse fanticizers are (atheists) merely congering imaginary methods to deny that the “Big Bang” necessarilly needs a “Big Banger.” Not very scientific; no evidence of other universes exists. They make a leap of faith to avoid a leap of faith.
Click to expand...
What’s your evidence that multiverse proponents are atheists? Or did you just make that up?
 
StAnastasia said:
I never made a claim for a multiverse.
Click to expand...
What’s your evidence that you never claimed a multiverse? Or did you just make that up? 😃

Read Life After Death by Dinesh D’souza. The multiverse claim, D’sousa explains, is the atheists (non-empirical) invention to argure against a fine-tuned universe (the Anthropic prinicple) that permits the existence of life which leads logically to the existence of God. In a Darwinian-like attempt at escaping the inevitable, the atheists out of thin air invent the idea of infinite universes in which at least one is bound to have exactly the right conditions to allow life. Lucky us!
 
The Big Bang is incorrect if we hold onto Genesis 1, 2, 3.

Our Jewish Christian faith clearly teaches that God created all from no pre-existing being.

The Holy Bible is without error and it clearly teaches that creation was from nothing.

How we reconcile our faith with science is difficult to do.

I love our faith.

I love God’s gift of reason.

Reason must be submissive to love and faith.

Science must be submissive to love, faith and reason.

As a side note, I have read and heard too many different opinions even on PBS concerning the expansion of the universe, the size, and the limits of our knowledge as of today.

Science is really, really, really, really limited and they said it on PBS. It was said by Ph.Ds of astronomy. “We just don’t know.”

The “We just don’t know” is the area for scientific myths.

These myths are not from primitive people, but from really, really good scientists. But they are still in the land of myth.
 
Jim_Baur said:
The Big Bang is incorrect if we hold onto Genesis 1, 2, 3. Our Jewish Christian faith clearly teaches that God created all from no pre-existing being. The Holy Bible is without error and it clearly teaches that creation was from nothing. How we reconcile our faith with science is difficult to do.
Click to expand...
The Holy Bible teaches flat earthism. It teaches us to stone adulteresses. It teaches us that we may enslave foreigners. Go figure.
 
grannymh said:
Could that be sounding like slander or mockery, maybe ridicule…:sad_yes:
Click to expand...
:sad_yes:
…For many generations now… …we ourselves have witnessed the great sails of our ships descending into the mighty deep, the great oceans, - as they leave us for distant horizons.
Great was our fear indeed they had fallen from the very edge of the earth… but lo …for every one which did descend from our eyes they did return anon, safe and well… [accompanied by gasps of relief from the young listeners]
 
Our local meterologists say fourteen times a week, the sun will come up in the morning; the sun will set today.

I tell my wife that my world revolves around her; no, my universe revolves around her.

To stone someone meant to remind them of the two stone tablets of the Ten Words of God and to hold them accountable; the literalist misunderstood the figures in the Bible then and now. Jesus said His apostles were the salt of the earth. He used this figure of speech. Also, John the Baptist said that Jesus was the Lamb of God, another figure.

The Big Bang is a scientific myth.

There are different kinds of hypotheses.
Some we can actually test and find out if they are close to correct.

Others hypotheses, we do not have enough information to come anywhere near verification. It is these that drive the scientists to create their scientific myths or hypotheses. The Big Bang, String, Multiple Universes and the like are not theories or hypotheses. They are myths because we are dealing in theoretical concepts. Listen carefully and you will discern it. They are myths. They cannot be tested and retested. They cannot be verified.

Science is too weak even to tell for certain the nature of math, the nature of the scientific laws, from where that little point of matter and energy originated; and I heard them with my own ears say so on PBS. I have also read it in Hawking and others. Listen carefully and you too will discern they are myths.

Hawking and Eistein believed in a supreme being, too.
 
StAnastasia said:
The Holy Bible teaches flat earthism. It teaches us to stone adulteresses. It teaches us that we may enslave foreigners. Go figure.
Click to expand...
Not everything a writer says is identical with what he is teaching, what his message is. Biblical writers expressed their messages in the context of the flat-earth cosmology of the time, but flat-earth is not part of the message or what the writer is teaching.

The Old Testament portrays a primitive morality gradually being raised over centuries to new levels, which reaches its peak in the NT period. This does not mean that the OT is teaching us to stone adulterers or enslave foreigners, or that we should imitate everything we read in the OT.
 
Jim_Baur said:
The Big Bang is incorrect if we hold onto Genesis 1, 2, 3.

Our Jewish Christian faith clearly teaches that God created all from no pre-existing being.

The Holy Bible is without error and it clearly teaches that creation was from nothing.

How we reconcile our faith with science is difficult to do.

I love our faith.

I love God’s gift of reason.

Reason must be submissive to love and faith.

Science must be submissive to love, faith and reason.

As a side note, I have read and heard too many different opinions even on PBS concerning the expansion of the universe, the size, and the limits of our knowledge as of today.

Science is really, really, really, really limited and they said it on PBS. It was said by Ph.Ds of astronomy. “We just don’t know.”

The “We just don’t know” is the area for scientific myths.

These myths are not from primitive people, but from really, really good scientists. But they are still in the land of myth.
Click to expand...
You exhibit a profound misunderstanding of Big Bang Theory. BBT is not an alternative theory to Creation ex nihilo. BBT. As a strictly scientific theory, it is not attempting to give an “ultimate” explanation for the existence of the universe. That is, BBT does not deal with existence itself.

BBT only attempts to explain why the universe is the way it is based on physical causes or antecedent conditions.

What is the evidence for BBT?
  1. First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning. (If we add what we know from Revelation, that the universe had beginning in time, and was created ex nihilo, the Big Bang model, on this point, is consistent with Revelation.)
  2. Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called “Hubble’s Law,” named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
  3. Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
  4. Finally, the abundance of the “light elements” Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
There are other models of the universe that also account for our scientific observations, but BBT is currently the more popular of the theories.
 
Jim_Baur said:
The Big Bang is a scientific myth.

There are different kinds of hypotheses.
Some we can actually test and find out if they are close to correct.

Hawking and Eistein believed in a supreme being, too.
Click to expand...
In some sense science is a myth, but I understand “myth” in that sense different than you do. You might want to watch this short video by the Vatican’s lead astronomer in which he addresses this issue: Bro. Guy Consolmagno

It was not very many posts back in which your knowledge of Big Bang theory appeared rudimentary at best. I am surprised that in such a very short time you have acquired enough understanding of BBT to write it off as merely a myth. I would suspect that some unusual feat of learning had taken place except that you have utterly confused the relation of BBT to Creatio ex nihilo. This tells me that you still do not understand BBT.

Also, Hawking is an agnostic, and Einstein appears to me to have a leaning toward pantheism.
 
Thing said:
:sad_yes:
…For many generations now… …we ourselves have witnessed the great sails of our ships descending into the mighty deep, the great oceans, - as they leave us for distant horizons.
Great was our fear indeed they had fallen from the very edge of the earth… but lo …for every one which did descend from our eyes they did return anon, safe and well… [accompanied by gasps of relief from the young listeners]
Click to expand...
“in another moment we were caught by a terrific squall from the West that snapped the forestays of the mast so that it fell aft, while all the ship’s gear tumbled about at the bottom of the vessel. The mast fell upon the head of the helmsman in the ship’s stern, so that the bones of his head were crushed to pieces, and he fell overboard as though he were diving, with no more life left in him.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top