Big Bang Myth

[Jim_Baur]

When looking back from 2010 to 15,000,000,000 years ago, there are new laws that have come into existence which did not exist at the time of the big bang.

The laws that we see that govern life did not come into existence until life came into existence.

The laws that govern the planets did not come into existence until the planets and movement of the planets.

How did the laws develop or evolve?

Which laws have become extinct (assuming that so have)?

What is the order of development of the laws?

What is the law that governs the development of laws? Or, what is the law of laws?

 

[Thing]

Another principle that adds to the myth of the Big Bang: every assumption and every unknown adds to the myth.
We do not even know that number of unknowns. The number could be infinite.

Any unknowns are as infinite as matter; that is, the unknowns are finite.

Also, we do not know the nature of space itself.

I know the nature of space.

Is space expanding?

Yes.

We do not know the size of the universe.

I do, or rather I would if someone helped me with the sums.

The unknowns are unknown.

We don’t really know that.

Is space’s movement causing the shift in light?

Indirectly.

Is there beings outside the observable universe pulling the light shifts?

Sort of, but they’re not beings.

Are those beings coming towards us even if there pull is causing the shift in lights?

Sort of, their substance is both coming and going.

Well, the number of questions toward our quest is perhaps infinite.

But the answers are probably 2.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Concerning the Big Bang ideas: When the Big Bang ideas use concepts such as “If,” “We believe,” “We assume,” and “We just do not know,” the myth becomes more and more manifest.

If there is a God, and He is excluded, the myth is more and more manifested.

I believe there is a God of love and beauty.

I do not believe in the Big Bang myth.

If the Big Bang is correct, then the myth is good.

But as of now it is a myth.

 

[StAnastasia]

But as of now it is a myth.

Sorry Jim – you’re incorrect all the way around. The Big Bang theory just gets stronger and stronger as an explanatory framework, in the same way that biological evolution has gotten stronger and stronger since 1859. There is no competing theory to evolution, and no cogent competing theory to the Big Bang that I know of.

StAnastasia

"GENEVA – The world’s largest atom smasher conducted its first experiments at conditions nearing those after the Big Bang, breaking its own record for high-energy collisions with proton beams crashing into each other Tuesday at three times more force than ever before.

In a milestone for the $10 billion Large Hadron Collider’s ambitious bid to reveal details about theoretical particles and microforces, scientists at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, collided the beams and took measurements at a combined energy level of 7 trillion electron volts.

The collisions herald a new era for researchers working on the machine in a 17-mile (27-kilometer) tunnel below the Swiss-French border at Geneva."

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100330/ap_on_sc/eu_big_bang_machine

 

[StAnastasia]

And an inadequate one. Since the universe is expanding at an accelerating not declerating rate scientists have to graph onto the Big Bang theory a few band-aids such as “dark energy” and “dark matter” theories to hold the thing together. With too many band-aids, a theory is usually best abandoned for a new one.

What does “to graph onto” mean?

 

[o_mlly]

What does “to graph onto” mean?

“Google” the phrase … tell me what you find. If it doesn’t make sense to you, then assume I just made it up!

 

[StAnastasia]

I was taught that God created all things by thought! he would just think things and it would happen, Why do we have to believe he made allot of noise when he did it? Even if you did believe in the big bang it would not prove there was not a higher power at all. I remember Dawins theory and it was a fluke also.

No Boxie, Darwin’s theory was no fluke. In fact, its cogency is assumed by virtually all professional biologists working today.

 

[mistfall]

Yes. It’s an opinion that is completely and totally wrong, being based on nothing but your own imagination.

All of these claims are incredibly vague and not even remotely true.

One could. One would also be completely and totally wrong to do so.

For those interested in facts, the Big Bang theory was confirmed when we detected the cosmic background radiation that the theory predicted we would find.

I think you’re overstating the matter to say the background radiation proves the Big Bang theory. Contemporary plasma cosmologists make a very compelling scientific argument against it. (although I agree that the original poster’s assertions seem illogical)

The Big Bang theory (along with all current understanding of astronomical distances and ages) assumes that the “red shift” in the light from galaxies is a result of an electromagnetic Doppler Effect due to their moving away from each other. It then assumes that the only way to explain this “fact” is by assuming an initial explosion that generated the force necessary for the (presumed) motion. And if galaxies are all moving away from each other, if we extrapolate back through time, all matter must have started out all compressed together in one infinitely small point.

The dissenters say that the color differences in galaxies has nothing to do with their movement, and therefore the Big Bang theory rests on a false premise. Their claims are backed by research and astronomical observation, although they’re anathema to the majority. They also point out that there are other perfectly plausible explanations for background cosmic radiation that have not been considered because conventional astronomers are so wedded to their paradigm.

The theory extrapolates

 

[StAnastasia]

The dissenters say that the color differences in galaxies has nothing to do with their movement, and therefore the Big Bang theory rests on a false premise. Their claims are backed by research and astronomical observation, although they’re anathema to the majority. They also point out that there are other perfectly plausible explanations for background cosmic radiation that have not been considered because conventional astronomers are so wedded to their paradigm.

So does this mean the 3500-year-old cosmogonic myth of a nomadic people must be true?

 

[ricmat]

So does this mean the 3500-year-old cosmogonic myth of a nomadic people must be true?

Don’t get your hopes up StA. They are not related.

 

[itinerant1]

itinerant1

itinerant1 said: "Big Bang theory does not transcend science. It is strictly a scientific theory. I am not sure how anyone can get so confused on this matter. "

The issues of the origin of the universe transcends science.

That is what I was trying to say, sorry.

There is an ambiguity with the word “origin”. Origin of the universe can refer to
(1) Creation itself, creatio ex nihilo; or
(2) Origin can mean the production or formation of something from pre-existing matter or some other already existing stuff from which matter was derived.

Origin in the first sense transcends science. Origin in the second sense is studied by science.

Big Bang Theory treats of the origin of the universe in the second sense only. Science cannot say anything in regard to how the infinitely dense stuff from which the universe evolved came into existence in the first place.

To put matters bluntly, the Big Bang occurred “after” God created the stuff from which the universe evolved.

 

[StAnastasia]

Don’t get your hopes up StA. They are not related.

For some people they are: one biologist posts a challenge to some aspect of evolution, and the YECs say, “See, scientists don’t agree, so the biblical account must literally be true.”

 

[itinerant1]

I think you’re overstating the matter to say the background radiation proves the Big Bang theory. Contemporary plasma cosmologists make a very compelling scientific argument against it. (although I agree that the original poster’s assertions seem illogical)

The Big Bang theory (along with all current understanding of astronomical distances and ages) assumes that the “red shift” in the light from galaxies is a result of an electromagnetic Doppler Effect due to their moving away from each other. It then assumes that the only way to explain this “fact” is by assuming an initial explosion that generated the force necessary for the (presumed) motion. And if galaxies are all moving away from each other, if we extrapolate back through time, all matter must have started out all compressed together in one infinitely small point.

The dissenters say that the color differences in galaxies has nothing to do with their movement, and therefore the Big Bang theory rests on a false premise. Their claims are backed by research and astronomical observation, although they’re anathema to the majority. They also point out that there are other perfectly plausible explanations for background cosmic radiation that have not been considered because conventional astronomers are so wedded to their paradigm.

The theory extrapolates

Sure, there are other models of the universe consistent with observation. And a scientist may prefer one of those models. However, the majority of scientists still think the BBT is the most accurate model. It is a model that has been modified many times as new data and better interpretations occur. Accordingly, the BB model will continue to evolve.

However, to say that red-shift has nothing to do with movement is the weaker argument. In the Big Bang model we have moved a step beyond expansion. Not only is the universe expanding, but new evidence says that the expansion is accelerating.

Steady-state models, for instance, all have their own problems as does a model of the universe that is infinite in extension and time. That model was discarded in light of Olber’s Paradox.

 

[ricmat]

For some people they are: one biologist posts a challenge to some aspect of evolution, and the YECs say, “See, scientists don’t agree, so the biblical account must literally be true.”

Can you provide evidence of the above?

Or is this some imaginary straw man YEC?

 

[StAnastasia]

Can you provide evidence of the above?

It’s anecdotal. I hope it is not the default position!

 

[ricmat]

It’s anecdotal. I hope it is not the default position!

Hey, anecdotal positions are your strongest arguments. But I also hope that it’s not your default position.

 

[Jim_Baur]

There is an ambiguity with the word “origin”. Origin of the universe can refer to
(1) Creation itself, creatio ex nihilo; or
(2) Origin can mean the production or formation of something from pre-existing matter or some other already existing stuff from which matter was derived.

Origin in the first sense transcends science. Origin in the second sense is studied by science.

Big Bang Theory treats of the origin of the universe in the second sense only. Science cannot say anything in regard to how the infinitely dense stuff from which the universe evolved came into existence in the first place.

To put matters bluntly, the Big Bang occurred “after” God created the stuff from which the universe evolved.

It is creation in the first sense.

Furthermore, after the creation from no pre-existing material, human reason must use all of the tools that it has created. If God used a Big Bang, then human reason should use the philosophy of science, philosophy, math, science, revelation and theology. The last two were listed last because they are not as important, but they can’t be discarded. However, they might be really important accidentally.

 

[StAnastasia]

Hey, anecdotal positions are your strongest arguments. But I also hope that it’s not your default position.

Your usual sarcasm, ricmat! Is kindness not in your nature?

 

[RobbyS]

Right – it’s structural. Our entire way of life is premised on cheap, abundant petroleum, and that era is drawing to a close. It’s not a matter of running out of oil, but of oil becoming so prohibitively expensive that air travel is only for the wealthy, and fifty mile commutes are ruinous.

Except we are a long way from running out of oil and gas. Furthermore, this end of oil has been a recurring them going back to the late 19th century, before the automobile arrived on the scene. It was constantly talked about during the 1920s until the discovery of the great East Texas Oil field brought a glut of oil onto the market. Of course there must be a limit. No material is unlimited, but we are no where near the end of “running out.” of fossil fuel. The development of plastics has of course led to a revolution in materials, so that without petroleum, we would be virtually naked until we learned to use cotton and wool–especially the latter-- again. INHO, wool is underutilized. It has many advantages over synthetic materials, especially as fabric science has learned better ways to use it. It has the advantage over cotton of not requiring fertilizer.

 

[itinerant1]

I was taught that God created all things by thought! he would just think things and it would happen, Why do we have to believe he made allot of noise when he did it? Even if you did believe in the big bang it would not prove there was not a higher power at all. I remember Dawins theory and it was a fluke also.

God did create through His Word. Yet, Big Bang Theory is not about Creation itself… BBT, as a scientific theory, does not attempt to be substitute for Creation. Creation occurred “prior” to the Big Bang. God’s act of Creation, though, was not a once and for all event. Creation is, rather, a continuous act in which God governs the universe (Divine Providence) and holds it in existence.

The BB should not be thought of as Creation in Genesis 1:1, though it is consistent with the fact Genesis 1:1 teaches us the universe is finite and had a beginning in time. BBT originated with a Catholic priest, Fr. Georges Lemaître, and was enthusiastically supported by Pope Pius XII.

Whatever one may think about Darwin, evolution science involves solid scientific theory. Pope Benedict XVI supports a theistic version of evolution theory. Darwin certainly increased our knowledge of how nature nature works when he disproved a once commonly held idea that each species originated from a special or individual act of creation.