Jump to content


Photo

Beginning Of The Universe/big Bang Discussion


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
62 replies to this topic

#21 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 29 April 2005 - 05:07 AM

It has never been recorded that there is an effect without a cause... It blows my mind that you would think such a thing. If you do believe it, I am wasting my time here.


Let me first agree with you. This is precisely what I said when it was proposed to me. In fact, this is precisely what almost everyone says when they hear of it. In fact, Einstein not only said that, but fiercely opposed the idea for the rest of his life. However, I must advise you that there has been a literal ton of effects without causes, its just that you didn't know about them, which is fine. Our brain is wired up to instinctively understand cause and effect, and we are educated at high school in Newtonian physics which quantizes such a relationship (every action has an opposite and equal reaction).

I suggest you read this about quantum effects without causes in the context of the big bang. Have a read around about radioactive decay. You will find that there is no way to predict when a given nucleus will decay, this is because there is no cause for their decaying at any given time. For example, we know that there is a 50% chance of a given nucleus in Uranium-238 having decayed after 4.5 billion years. However, it might take 30 seconds to decay or it might take 12 billion years. There is nothing which actually causes it to decay after 30 seconds that doesn't happen to make it decay after 12 billion years when that thing actaully happens. Confusing? Yes. Read around though.

I'm not saying that the big bang did not have a cause (quantum fluctuations in a quantum vacuum, or two branes colliding and more have all be put forwards as hypotheses), but that you might have to accept that there might just not be one. Even if there is a cause, there is probably never going to be a way of finding out what that cause is - it is outside of our observational ability (ie outside of our universe).





I am sorry, I copied the wrong link. Here is the correct one. Our Galaxy is the center of the universe, 'quantized' red shifts show


I'll give it a look over - though I think I've already read it, or something very much like it. [edit - A quick scan reveals I have read it. And it is the based on the same things as the other report: in 1997, an independent study of 250 galaxy redshifts by William Napier and Bruce Guthrie confirmed Tifft’s basic observations. Which I replied was a tiny sample size, and that if you look at the more recent red shift survey with a sample size about a thousand times larger, their effects seem to vanish.]

Oh, but they do explain if you notice the little 8 and the little 9.


I did notice the little 8s and 9s. I even read some of the sources they linked to (though not all of them, naturally). That wasn't my point, my point was that they didn't even spare a paragraph or even a sentence to explaining to the reader what they mean, they just make an assertion and provide some source.

#22 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 29 April 2005 - 07:54 AM

Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, 'quantized' red shifts show

Most of the text is fair, though it is based on the small sample survey, and not the more recent, and more comprehensive survey. So far, no quantization has been found in the larger survey. I'd like to see AiG, or ICR, do a paper about the quantization in the 2dFGRS survey.

Thus the ultimate motive behind the Copernican principle is atheistic naturalism.


Its not a motive, and using the term 'atheistic' with 'naturalism' is a misleading redundancy. It implies that the Big Bang is anti-God. It is not so, Big Bang does not deny God, it just doesn't invoke a supernatural being to explain something. It uses nature to explain things. Naturalism is athiestic (without God), because if it was theistic it wouldn't be naturalistic, but supernaturalistic.

Thus, Christians who support the big bang theory should realize that they are unwittingly denying their God and compromising with a godless worldview.


Is really nasty in my opinion. The Big Bang Theory doesn't deny God. It could be read to deny one God, the God that created the universe 6,000 years ago. Most Christians do not believe in a God that created the universe 6,000 years ago, and so are not denying their God, but the God of Creationists.

#23 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2005 - 01:00 PM

I have decided to delete all posts that started the problem we had in this thread so we can start over. Anymore of these snide remarks from either end will get someone suspended, cooler, or banned.

You have been warned!


Admin3

#24 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 10 May 2005 - 10:12 PM

Quick question, ever heard of the conservation of angular momentum? And by the way, I think I saw something about the red shift up above, but I'm not sure. Were you using this as evidence for a big bang? If so, let me know, because I can explain that too.

#25 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 10 May 2005 - 10:27 PM

Red shift:
http://www.pathlight...edia/01-ma3.htm

#26 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 May 2005 - 10:43 PM

Red shift:
http://www.pathlight...edia/01-ma3.htm

View Post


Can you explain in your own words how this link is related to the question? A link should support a point of view, else we will just be posting duelling (banjos) links, yes?

And yes I have heard of the conservation of angular momentum, elaborate please.

#27 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 11 May 2005 - 03:52 AM

Quick question, ever heard of the conservation of angular momentum? And by the way, I think I saw something about the red shift up above, but I'm not sure. Were you using this as evidence for a big bang? If so, let me know, because I can explain that too.

View Post


I hope you are not trying trying to put forward h*vind's absurd physics? If you are, I warn you, you are going to have to do a lot of work to put your case forward. Just to help you out here, watch this flash animation, is that what you are going to tell us? If it is, then you will need to provide sources and maths to support your case. I wish you luck.

As far as redshift goes, I agree with chance, put your neck out and tell us what aspect you wish to discuss. The website you posted seems to have some fundamental errors in its understanding (it claims the omnidirectionality of the background radiation is proof against the Big Bang theory, yet the opposite is true).

#28 ret

ret

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Hillsboro, OR

Posted 14 May 2005 - 09:50 PM

The big bang theory, if anything, is an entirely old earth creationist theory. There is simply no good reason to think that it could have happened naturalistically, which is why Stephen Hawking resents it. In fact, he went as far as to say that it "smacks of divine intervention." The only reason that evolutionists cling to it is that they can't find any other feasible explanation of the beginning of the universe. I have yet to fully investigate the big bang myself, but I can confidently say that, if the big bang did occur, it is ridiculous to say that God wasn't leading it.

#29 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 14 May 2005 - 10:32 PM

The big bang theory, if anything, is an entirely old earth creationist theory. There is simply no good reason to think that it could have happened naturalistically, which is why Stephen Hawking resents it. In fact, he went as far as to say that it "smacks of divine intervention." The only reason that evolutionists cling to it is that they can't find any other feasible explanation of the beginning of the universe. I have yet to fully investigate the big bang myself, but I can confidently say that, if the big bang did occur, it is ridiculous to say that God wasn't leading it.

View Post


I'd be interested to see your source on Hawking's resentment of Big Bang Theory. I did find this quote:

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them... There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.


And he goes on to say:

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation.


Source

#30 ret

ret

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Hillsboro, OR

Posted 14 May 2005 - 11:26 PM

Hmm, maybe my quote was outdated or something. I had seen that he, in an attempt to go around the big bang theory, tried to come up with other theories for the beginning of the universe. He failed, because the only other model he could come up with involved the use of imaginary time. Of course, I've never read the entire book in question, so my source could be lying about his motives. I found the quote here.

#31 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 14 May 2005 - 11:40 PM

Hmm, maybe my quote was outdated or something. I had seen that he, in an attempt to go around the big bang theory, tried to come up with other theories for the beginning of the universe. He failed, because the only other model he could come up with involved the use of imaginary time. Of course, I've never read the entire book in question, so my source could be lying about his motives. I found the quote here.

View Post



AAAhhhh, if you are not familiar with quote mining, then you are now going to learn a lesson. Creationists are famed for it, though I'm sure both sides are guilty in varying degrees. The quote comes from 'Brief History of Time', this is the full quote:

Correspondingly, if, as is the case, we know only what has happened since the big bang, we could not determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang.

Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible.) There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang.


I trust that puts the matter at rest?

#32 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 18 May 2005 - 08:52 PM

"We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang.

Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention."

So he just said that time DID have a beginning at the big bang. And then said that that very thing speaks of supernatural intervention.

#33 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 19 May 2005 - 02:22 AM

So he just said that time DID have a beginning at the big bang.

View Post


That's right. I never contested when time itself began. I agree with Hawking's interpretation...most physicists also agree.

And then said that that  very thing speaks of supernatural intervention.


emphasis mine

No, what he said was that some people were uncomfortable with the idea because it smacks of divine intervention. It is a far cry from Stephen Hawking objecting to the Big Bang as you initially implied. It is Stephen Hawking explaining why some people at the time of its postulation objected to it, and why the Catholic Church accepted it.

The Big Bang theory says that there was a 0 point in existance when everything came into being. It does ring of divine intervention, and I am not saying that God could not have created the universe at that 'time'. Indeed, it is a fair conclusion to arrive at.

#34 ret

ret

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Hillsboro, OR

Posted 21 May 2005 - 09:12 PM

It is a far cry from Stephen Hawking objecting to the Big Bang as you initially implied.


Just wanted to point out that I was the one that implied it, not crystaleaglesprings. I don't want the blame for my lack of proper research to go to the wrong person.

It does ring of divine intervention, and I am not saying that God could not have created the universe at that 'time'. Indeed, it is a fair conclusion to arrive at.


Is this you officially admitting that it is not only possible, but likely that God created the universe with the big bang? Just want to clarify before going too much further with that point. By the way, is there any naturalistic attempt to explain what could have caused the big bang, or are atheists content with the fact that they can't know what happened in the first moment of time?

#35 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 22 May 2005 - 03:28 AM

Just wanted to point out that I was the one that implied it, not crystaleaglesprings. I don't want the blame for my lack of proper research to go to the wrong person.

View Post


Ooops, sorry, my mistake.

Is this you officially admitting that it is not only possible, but likely that God created the universe with the big bang? Just want to clarify before going too much further with that point.


Look to the left <--- you will se the following phrase 'Theistic Evolutionist'. My own philosophy on the issue is one I tend to keep out of the discussion. I don't believe that God created the universe with the big bang. However, I do associate the event with the divine. Make of that what you will :blink:


By the way, is there any naturalistic attempt to explain what could have caused the big bang, or are atheists content with the fact that they can't know what happened in the first moment of time?


Its difficult. It is said that the laws of nature came into being at the time of the big bang. We do not know if that is true yet. If it is true, then we can not use natural law to postulate what happened before because there was no natural law before :) However, there are some ideas based on what we know from quantum physics, but the ideas are incomplete hypotheses. Such as M-Theory, and baby universes.

#36 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 30 May 2005 - 09:48 PM

You DON'T believe that God created the universe with the big bang? So basically you don't believe in the big bang? correct me if I'm wrong, because the big bang isn't logical without God.

#37 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 30 May 2005 - 10:02 PM

You DON'T believe that God created the universe with the big bang? So basically you don't believe in the big bang? correct me if I'm wrong, because the big bang isn't logical without God.

View Post


No, I don't believe God created the universe with the Big Bang. Why is the big bang not logical without God? I don't 'believe in' the big bang, I simply think that it is the most compelling explantion for the evidence.

#38 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 May 2005 - 12:08 AM

No, I don't believe God created the universe with the Big Bang.  Why is the big bang not logical without God? I don't 'believe in' the big bang, I simply think that it is the most compelling explantion for the evidence.

View Post


Well it's one thing we agree on. I don't believe big bang either. From a naturalist point of veiw, I could see where it would work. Though I don't agree with it.

#39 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 31 May 2005 - 03:10 AM

Well it's one thing we agree on. I don't believe big bang either. From a naturalist point of veiw, I could see where it would work. Though I don't agree with it.

View Post


I think you might have misread me there. I said that I didn't 'believe in' the big bang. It is not a belief. It is simply an explanation for the evidence, and the one I consider best.

#40 ManhattanProject

ManhattanProject

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • San Jose, CA

Posted 11 June 2005 - 01:31 PM

I think you might have misread me there. I said that I didn't 'believe in' the big bang.  It is not a belief. It is simply an explanation for the evidence, and the one I consider best.

View Post


It is a belief, because you dont quite know all of the evidence of what was before the big bang and how it happened, therefore you are putting a lot of faith in the idea. I would even call that a religon because it requires faith.....




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users