Jump to content


Photo

Big Bang...


  • Please log in to reply
194 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 October 2007 - 12:16 AM

It is claimed by all those who believe in old earth and old universe. That all matter, liquid, and gas was compressed into an impossible area the size of a dot (period) on this page. What scientific law works here to allow this? Maybe it poof the compression god.

1) This theory has not been observed.
2) It cannot be repeated, even on a small scale.
3) Science cannot even compress a glass of water into a dot.

But some how, some way, it happened. But then again that would require some faith would it not?

The excuse? The universe is expanding so this proves the big bang theory. Really?

1) When a balloon expands, does that mean a bang happened?
2) When your stomach expands from eating to much, did the food go bang?
3) When you wallet expands from cashing your check, did your check go bang?

And about that spin that is also claimed.

1) Does a balloon have to spin in order to expand as air is being forced into it?
2) Does the food in your stomach spin in order for you gut to expand after you eat it?
3) Does you check spin when cashed so that your wallet can expand?

So where is the evidence of the compression, spin and bang?

#2 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 21 October 2007 - 08:15 AM

It is claimed by all those who believe in old earth and old universe. That all matter, liquid, and gas was compressed into an impossible area the size of a dot (period) on this page. What scientific law works here to allow this? Maybe it poof the compression god.

1) This theory has not been observed.
2) It cannot be repeated, even on a small scale.
3) Science cannot even compress a glass of water into a dot.

But some how, some way, it happened. But then again that would require some faith would it not?

The excuse? The universe is expanding so this proves the big bang theory. Really?

1) When a balloon expands, does that mean a bang happened?
2) When your stomach expands from eating to much, did the food go bang?
3) When you wallet expands from cashing your check, did your check go bang?

And about that spin that is also claimed.

1) Does a balloon have to spin in order to expand as air is being forced into it?
2) Does the food in your stomach spin in order for you gut to expand after you eat it?
3) Does you check spin when cashed so that your wallet can expand?

So where is the evidence of the compression, spin and bang?

View Post


I noticed that no evolutionist has replied to your post I believe it is because they have no evidence. You could also add the question of where all the matter, liquid, and gases came from? How did they come into existence?

Your first 3 points shows that the evolutionists theory of the origin of the earth is based on pure speculation. This speculation is based on their dogmatic approach to science through their religion of evolution. They have to devise a story that is purely materialistic to remove God from the scene.

Evolutionists are always ready to discuss their theory in an after the fact attitude. That is they will talk about elements in the cosmos compressed, cell mutations, the geological column, adaptive variations, etc. Yet when asked to produce evidence of how it all started such as the Big Bang they say we can not prove it but we know it happened because of what we see. When faced with the stark reality and the lack of any proof of their own religion they evade the issue by shifting the burden of proof to some one else. They continually ask YECers to prove that God exists or ask if your story is be testable or falsifiable but fail miserably with their own religion. They like to reverse the situation and take the burden of proof form their end and put it on someone else. Any time a person states something they can not prove, test, or falsify they are making a statement of faith. If they adhere to the statement after it is found that there is no proof, testing, or falsifying of the statement it has become a religion. Since evolution is a religion it should not be allowed to be taught in public schools and colleges.

Let them can start their own schools with their own funding and teach it to their hearts content just as the creationists have had to do.

Bob Barclay

#3 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 21 October 2007 - 10:28 AM

It is claimed by all those who believe in old earth and old universe. That all matter, liquid, and gas was compressed into an impossible area the size of a dot (period) on this page. What scientific law works here to allow this? Maybe it poof the compression god.

1) This theory has not been observed.
2) It cannot be repeated, even on a small scale.
3) Science cannot even compress a glass of water into a dot.

View Post


There was no matter at the start of the big bang. There was just energy, a very hot universe that expanded quickly. Work into the Grand Unification Theory goes some way to describing the state of matter and the laws of physics at this time. The conditions have been reproduced in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. There you have a reproducible observation, and compression.

But some how, some way, it happened. But then again that would require some faith would it not?

The excuse? The universe is expanding so this proves the big bang theory. Really?

1) When a balloon expands, does that mean a bang happened?
2) When your stomach expands from eating to much, did the food go bang?
3) When you wallet expands from cashing your check, did your check go bang?

View Post


The observed evidence of a expanding universe led to the construction of the theory.
1) No.
2) No.
3) No.


And about that spin that is also claimed.

1) Does a balloon have to spin in order to expand as air is being forced into it?
2) Does the food in your stomach spin in order for you gut to expand after you eat it?
3) Does you check spin when cashed so that your wallet can expand?

So where is the evidence of the compression, spin and bang?

View Post


I'm not sure what you are talking about here. If you are refering to a spining universe, then that is a subject of ongoing research.

#4 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 October 2007 - 05:14 AM

There was no  matter at the start of the big bang.  There was just energy, a very hot universe that expanded quickly.  Work into the Grand Unification Theory goes some way to describing the state of matter and the laws of physics at this time.  The conditions have been reproduced in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider.  There you have a reproducible observation, and compression.
The observed evidence of a expanding universe led to the construction of the theory.


Would you say that the theory is as true as gravity or electricity? Because unlike evolution. It does not have even 2% of the evidence to support it. Expanding universe does not point to only one conclusion. Especially since it does not have that much evidence.

If a creation theory had such weak evidence, the evolutionists would laugh it right out of the room. And deem it debunked without any debunking effort.

1) No.
2) No.
3) No.
I'm not sure what you are talking about here.  If you are referring to a spinning universe, then that is a subject of ongoing research.

View Post


The rest was almost like a joke of sorts, but to make a point.

#5 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 22 October 2007 - 07:24 AM

There was no  matter at the start of the big bang.  There was just energy, a very hot universe that expanded quickly.  Work into the Grand Unification Theory goes some way to describing the state of matter and the laws of physics at this time.  The conditions have been reproduced in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider.  There you have a reproducible observation, and compression.
The observed evidence of a expanding universe led to the construction of the theory. 

View Post


What observed evidence? The Grand Unification Theory (GUT) is based on matter and forces that are observed today already in existence. It is suppose to answer how matter weak, electromagnetic, strong, and gravity come into existence, and how did gravity come into existence. The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) uses existing materials. The claim is that when this testing is completed it will show what was in the universe before the Big Bang (BB). Well how did that preexisting material come into being?

This is my point evolutionists use preexisting materials in tests such as GUT and RHIC and say this is how it happened and this is what it was before our religion says the BB happened. You still have to answer the question of where did all the materials involved in the BB come from?

The evolutionists say that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing exploded. Now they changed their story to in the beginning there was nothing then there was some elementary particles then they exploded. The force produced by the explosion miraculously began to rotate as can be seen by the rotation of the earth and other stars and planets. Now they say it was not in the form as we see it now the BB changed it's appearance and we are going to test the materials we see today to find out what they looked like before the BB. Yet never do they tell us how all the materials they use got here.

As far as I am concerned I think that RHIC is proving the creation story and showing us how God took nothing and created everything right down the

Bob Barclay

#6 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 22 October 2007 - 11:24 AM

Would you say that the theory is as true as gravity or electricity? Because unlike evolution. It does not have even 2% of the evidence to support it. Expanding universe does not point to only one conclusion. Especially since it does not have that much evidence.

View Post


Yes I would. All three merit further investigation. If the universe is expanding, then it stands to reason that it was smaller in the past.

If a creation theory had such weak evidence, the evolutionists would laugh it right out of the room. And deem it debunked without any debunking effort.

View Post


I wasn't aware there was a creation theory in the room. The only person to get close was Dr Russell Humphreys.

The rest was almost like a joke of sorts, but to make a point.

View Post


Oh. I see.

#7 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 22 October 2007 - 11:53 AM

What observed evidence? The Grand Unification Theory (GUT) is based on matter and forces that are observed today already in existence.  It is suppose to answer how matter weak, electromagnetic, strong, and gravity come into existence, and how did gravity come into existence. The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) uses existing materials.

View Post


Saying "What observed evidence?" doesn't suddenly make things like red shifts and CMB radiation dissappear. GUT is based on the way matter and energy behave in extreme conditions, such as those that would have been experienced by the existing contents of the universe not long after the big bang. Matter and energy that is still in existence today.

The claim is that when this testing is completed it will show what was in the universe before the Big Bang (BB).  Well how did that preexisting material come into being?

View Post


Are you sure about that claim? I'd like a citation please.

This is my point evolutionists use preexisting materials in tests such as GUT and RHIC and say this is how it happened and this is what it was before our religion says the BB happened. You still have to answer the question of where did all the materials involved in the BB come from?

View Post


This is the subject of the scientific investigation! This is why scientists are sending subatomic particles whizzing around at fantastic speeds and energies in order to get a little closer each time to answering that question. 2000 years of prayer hasn't helped, so what is the harm in observing, theorising, and testing what happens when you smash two copper atoms together at near light speeds?

The evolutionists say that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing exploded. Now they changed their story to in the beginning there was nothing then there was some elementary particles then they exploded.  The force produced by the explosion miraculously began to rotate as can be seen by the rotation of the earth and other stars and planets.  Now they say it was not in the form as we see it now the BB changed it's appearance and we are going to test the materials we see today to find out what they looked like before the BB. Yet never do they tell us how all the materials they use got here.

View Post


To say that nothing exploded is a gross oversimplification. Elementary particles (I am assuming you are talking about baryons and leptons) didn't come into existence until about between 1 second and 3 minutes after the big bang, well after the inflationary epoch.

The universe doesn't need to be rotating for a collapsing gas cloud to aquire angular momentum.

They aren't testing materials to find out what they were like before the big bang. They are testing them to see how they behaved after the big bang.

As far as I am concerned I think that RHIC is proving the creation story and showing us how God took nothing and created everything right down the

Bob Barclay

View Post


You never know, you might be right :lol: Scientists might discover a workable, testable theory about what happened during the Planck epoch and find an unambiguous message from God.

I hope you'll forgive me for siding with the people that discovered the quantum effects that allow me to type the message and send it to you.

#8 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 22 October 2007 - 08:18 PM

It is claimed by all those who believe in old earth and old universe. That all matter, liquid, and gas was compressed into an impossible area the size of a dot (period) on this page. What scientific law works here to allow this? Maybe it poof the compression god.

1) This theory has not been observed.
2) It cannot be repeated, even on a small scale.
3) Science cannot even compress a glass of water into a dot.
....

So where is the evidence of the compression, spin and bang?

View Post



I think it is worth remembering the history here. At the beginning of the last century, the most popular theory was the steady state theory of the universe: a universe with no beginning. A Belgian priest and mathematician (Georges Lemaitre: a man who dedicated his life to God) followed the evidence - and his math - and argued that the universe had a beginning. Lemaitre argued that this work pointed to "a day without yesterday". Initially, this theory was rejected by most scientists: including Einstein.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the term "Big Bang" was coined by the atheist Fred Hoyle to mock the concept which he saw as a 'Christian' creation theory. However, the multiple lines of evidence for the "Big Bang" convinced Einstein and today most of the scientific community - despite the religious overtones.

I therefore find it curious when I see Christians use the phrase "Big Bang" in a mocking tone much as Hoyle did. This is one of the great examples of a theory proposed by a devoted Christian and becoming the dominant theory because it was supported by the evidence.

Here is a nice photo of Einstein with Lemaitre
Posted Image
http://www.catholice...nce/sc0022.html

I would be happy to discuss some of these various lines of evidence - some mentioned by Jason -if you are interested in discussing it. However, I was not sure from your first post that you were interested. There are still a number of unknowns. It is not clear how dark matter will fit into all this. There is even some evidence that the rate of expansion is actually increasing.

However, the "Big Bang" theory still represents the theory that best explains the known data. If one can generate a new theory that does a better job at explaining the available data, then that should always be encouraged. However, there is a lot of data to explain, and a lot of math behind the current theories.

#9 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 24 October 2007 - 09:26 AM

Saying "What observed evidence?"  doesn't suddenly make things like red shifts and CMB radiation dissappear.  GUT is based on the way matter and energy behave in extreme conditions, such as those that would have been experienced by the existing contents of the universe not long after the big bang.  Matter and energy that is still in existence today.
Are you sure about that claim? I'd like a citation please.
This is the subject of the scientific investigation!  This is why scientists are sending subatomic particles whizzing around at fantastic speeds and energies in order to get a little closer each time to answering that question.  2000 years of prayer hasn't helped, so what is the harm in observing, theorising,  and testing what happens when you smash two copper atoms together at near light speeds?
To say that nothing exploded is a gross oversimplification.  Elementary particles (I am assuming you are talking about baryons and leptons) didn't come into existence until about between 1 second and 3 minutes after the big bang, well after the inflationary epoch.

The universe doesn't need to be rotating for a collapsing gas cloud to aquire angular momentum.

They aren't testing materials to find out what they were like before the big bang.  They are testing them to see how they behaved after the big bang.
You never know, you might be right :lol:  Scientists might discover a workable, testable theory about what happened during the Planck epoch and find an unambiguous message from God.

I hope you'll forgive me for siding with the people that discovered the quantum effects that allow me to type the message and send it to you.

View Post


As far as the redshift is concerned it has not been proven to be evidence for the Inflationary Epoch (IE) except for those who believe in the IE. Dr. Halton Arp, who also does not believe in the IE, has brought the redshift measurements into question when he found two objects that appear to be the same distance from earth yet their redshift values very greatly. He believes that we are misunderstanding the redshifts and that if the measurements are wrong scientists will have to change their current view of space and distances. If this is true then there goes the theory of the expanding universe. Unfortunately because he is going against the status quo, that is supporting the IE, he is now being denied time with the telescopes to pursuing his research.

CMB is also another piece of evidence that does not necessarily prove the IE theory. Sir Author Eddington believes the CMB is simply background radiation from all other heat sources in the universe. I tend to think he is right. Dr. Tom Van Flandern thinks it could be from radiation of microwaves from intergalactic medium. He also claims that the CMB is too smooth and that it is to cool in temperature to be from the IE. Sir Fred Hoyle believes it is just hydrogen being burned in stars. So as you see CMB is not evidence of the IE.

Here is the quote and the site I got it from:

The Grand Unification Theory attempts to postulate what the physical laws have acted like at time=0 (before the creation of the universe) or even what we would observe near a black hole. Before the massive explosion of the big bang and assumed continuing expansion of the universe through the collision of matter and anti-matter. The Grand Unification Theory attempts nearly to touch every aspect of Physics, and unite them through a common force.
http://ffden-2.phys....berger/main.htm

Yes it is the subject of scientific investigation to it to bad evolution is not science it is a religion. Also the comment about 2000 years of prayer not being answered is displaying your lack of knowledge of past discoveries. It was the Pasteur’s prayers being answered in the development of vaccines. Joseph Lister’s prayers were answered in developing the sterile operating procedures. The prayers of Robert Boyle in chemistry and gas dynamics, Johann Kepler’s in celestial mechanics, How about recently with Dr. Francis Crick’s work on DNA, Dr. Raymond Damadian inventing the MRI. There are many other names I could put here so I am not sure where you are coming from on your prayers not helping statement.

Alright what was there before the explosion and where did the baryons and leptons come from. Also if you believe that there was a quantum fluctuation in a vacuum before the explosion I would have to ask where the vacuum comes from and how could there be quantum laws before there was anything? You also state that there where gas clouds where did they come from? So if they are testing materials that came after the explosion where did the materials come from in the first place? Also you seem to have problem staying with the term Inflationary Epoch and keep referring to the Big Bang so what do you want me to call it?

I do not mind anyone using the advanced technologies of today I think they are great tools. I do not mind your siding with evolution that is your choice and I respect your belief. I also do not have anything against science if I did I would not have gone back to college a few years ago and earn my B.S. in Biology(graduated 2003). My problem is evolutionists stating the dogma of their religion as fact when it has not been proved to be true and not allowing YECers or anyone else who does not go along with the Status quo to have say in the matter. This is wrong and needs to be changed.

Bob Barclay

#10 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 29 October 2007 - 02:38 PM

As far as the redshift is concerned it has not been proven to be evidence for the Inflationary Epoch (IE) except for those who believe in the IE.  Dr. Halton Arp, who also does not believe in the IE, has brought the redshift measurements into question when he found two objects that appear to be the same distance from earth yet their redshift values very greatly. He believes that we are misunderstanding the redshifts and that if the measurements are wrong scientists will have to change their current view of space and distances.  If this is true then there goes the theory of the expanding universe. Unfortunately because he is going against the status quo, that is supporting the IE, he is now being denied time with the telescopes to pursuing his research. 

CMB is also another piece of evidence that does not necessarily prove the IE theory. Sir Author Eddington believes the CMB is simply background radiation from all other heat sources in the universe. I tend to think he is right.  Dr. Tom Van Flandern thinks it could be from radiation of microwaves from intergalactic medium. He also claims that the CMB is too smooth and that it is to cool in temperature to be from the IE.  Sir Fred Hoyle believes it is just hydrogen being burned in stars. So as you see CMB is not evidence of the IE.

Here is the quote and the site I got it from:

The Grand Unification Theory attempts to postulate what the physical laws have acted like at time=0 (before the creation of the universe) or even what we would observe near a black hole. Before the massive explosion of the big bang and assumed continuing expansion of the universe through the collision of matter and anti-matter. The Grand Unification Theory attempts nearly to touch every aspect of Physics, and unite them through a common force.
http://ffden-2.phys....berger/main.htm

Yes it is the subject of scientific investigation to it to bad evolution is not science it is a religion. Also the comment about 2000 years of prayer not being answered is displaying your lack of knowledge of past discoveries. It was the Pasteur’s prayers being answered in the development of vaccines. Joseph Lister’s prayers were answered in developing the sterile operating procedures. The prayers of Robert Boyle in chemistry and gas dynamics, Johann Kepler’s in celestial mechanics, How about recently with Dr. Francis Crick’s work on DNA, Dr. Raymond Damadian inventing the MRI. There are many other names I could put here so I am not sure where you are coming from on your prayers not helping statement.

Alright what was there before the explosion and where did the baryons and leptons come from. Also if you believe that there was a quantum fluctuation in a vacuum before the explosion I would have to ask where the vacuum comes from and how could there be quantum laws before there was anything? You also state that there where gas clouds where did they come from? So if they are testing materials that came after the explosion where did the materials come from in the first place?  Also you seem to have problem staying with the term Inflationary Epoch and keep referring to the Big Bang so what do you want me to call it?

I do not mind anyone using the advanced technologies of today I think they are great tools. I do not mind your siding with evolution that is your choice and I respect your belief. I also do not have anything against science if I did I would not have gone back to college a few years ago and earn my B.S. in Biology(graduated 2003).  My problem is evolutionists stating the dogma of their religion as fact when it has not been proved to be true and not allowing YECers or anyone else who does not go along with the Status quo to have say in the matter. This is wrong and needs to be changed.

Bob Barclay

View Post


I'm going to stop here. Can you explain the Big Bang Hypothesis without using the Inflationary Epoch? If so, I'd like to hear it.

Did you understand the last few posts that I have made? If not, I will attempt to explain them more clearly. Do you know what a vacuum is? Do you know what a perfect vacuum is? I am well prepared and well equipped to answer this and more. Are you?

#11 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 30 October 2007 - 06:59 AM

I'm going to stop here.  Can you explain the Big Bang Hypothesis without using the Inflationary Epoch?  If so, I'd like to hear it.

Did you understand the last few posts that I have made?  If not, I will attempt to explain them more clearly.  Do you know what a vacuum is?  Do you know what a perfect vacuum is?  I am well prepared and well equipped to answer this and more.  Are you?

View Post


Yes I know what a perfect vacuum is it is a space with nothing in it. Just as explained by Dr. Edward Tryon, an evolutioist, one of the first to propose that the earth was created spontaneously from nothing. Dr. Tryon also claimed that the universe was created by a quantum fluctuation of a true vacuum or state of nothingness. From there other evolutionists have added that there was matter in this nothingness and this has become known as the cosmic egg. If the Big Bang (BB) theory I would like you to clearify what exactly you do believe happened in the beginning. Do you believe that there was a perfect vacuum and a quantum flucuation caused the BB? Or do you belive that there was a cosmic egg? I would like you to explain this to me.

Bob Barclay

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 October 2007 - 07:50 AM

I think it is worth remembering the history here. At the beginning of the last century, the most popular theory was the steady state theory of the universe: a universe with no beginning. A Belgian priest and mathematician (Georges Lemaitre: a man who dedicated his life to God) followed the evidence - and his math - and argued that the universe had a beginning.  Lemaitre argued that this work pointed to "a day without yesterday". Initially, this theory was rejected by most scientists: including Einstein.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the term "Big Bang" was coined by the atheist Fred Hoyle to mock the concept which he saw as a 'Christian' creation theory. However, the multiple lines of evidence for the "Big Bang" convinced Einstein and today most of the scientific community - despite the religious overtones.

I therefore find it curious when I see Christians use the phrase  "Big Bang" in a mocking tone much as Hoyle did. This is one of the great examples of a theory proposed by a devoted Christian and becoming the dominant theory because it was supported by the evidence.

Here is a nice photo of Einstein with Lemaitre
Posted Image
http://www.catholice...nce/sc0022.html

I would be happy to discuss some of these various lines of evidence - some mentioned by Jason -if you are interested in discussing it. However, I was not sure from your first post that you were interested.  There are still a number of unknowns. It is not clear how dark matter will fit into all this. There is even some evidence that the rate of expansion is actually increasing.

However, the "Big Bang" theory still represents the theory that best explains the known data. If one can generate a new theory that does a better job at explaining the available data, then that should always be encouraged. However, there is a lot of data to explain, and a lot of math behind the current theories.

View Post


When only temporal (physical) evidence is allowed, you only get temporal answers.

The creation goes far beyond the comprehension of a creationist or a evolutionist. It even goes beyond physics. This is why creationist have a hard time explaining it, and science rejects it.

Science will ponder both different demnisions and parallel universes. But they won't ponder what exactly exists in them. Because then they might have to ponder God, and that is unthinkable.

#13 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 06 November 2007 - 01:07 PM

When only temporal (physical) evidence is allowed, you only get temporal answers.

View Post


When it comes to physics, the study of the physical universe and its properties is all I'm interested in.

The creation goes far beyond the comprehension of a creationist or a evolutionist. It even goes beyond physics. This is why creationist have a hard time explaining it, and science rejects it.

View Post


It's not beyond physics yet. Every year that goes by pushes back the bounderies of what physicists know about the way the universe works.

Science will ponder both different demnisions and parallel universes. But they won't ponder what exactly exists in them. Because then they might have to ponder God, and that is unthinkable.

View Post


Yes they will. Physics is about what actually exists in reality. Scientists aren't investigating the spiritual, so it wont interfere with whatever you chose to believe about your faith.

#14 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 06 November 2007 - 01:37 PM

Yes I know what a perfect vacuum is it is a space with nothing in it.  Just as explained by Dr. Edward Tryon, an evolutioist, one of the first to propose that the earth was created spontaneously from nothing.  Dr. Tryon also claimed that the universe was created by a quantum fluctuation of a true vacuum or state of nothingness.  From there other evolutionists have added that there was matter in this nothingness and this has become known as the cosmic egg.  If the Big Bang (BB) theory I would like you to clearify what exactly you do believe happened in the beginning. Do you believe that there was a perfect vacuum and a quantum flucuation caused the BB? Or do you belive that there was a cosmic egg? I would like you to explain this to me.

Bob Barclay

View Post


I'm going to use the word believe a lot now. While this implies faith, these things can be demonstrated and corroborated by other observations.

I believe that the universe as we see it is expanding. I believe that galaxies are moving away from each other, because the space in between them is getting bigger. This can be demonstrated by observations of local and remote galaxies.

I also believe that if things are moving away from each other then there must have been a time when they were closer together. The laws of physics seem to remain constant. I assume they always have been. I am certain they haven't changed over the last 150,000 years, and from the observations from the Hubble Telescope it would seem that my assumption holds true.

Following this line of reasoning, the universe had to have been denser and hotter in the past. We can work out how the matter in the universe would have been behaving by investigating how very hot energetic matter behaves in the lab.

Working back from there, we have a model of a universe that in its infancy was very small and very very hot. Hopefully further experiments will shed light on what happened further and further back. I would quite like to find out what happened before 10^-32 seconds after the Big Bang.

Personally, I like the 10 dimensional string theory approach. It's a good model that makes some very good predictions and may help find answers to questions that are not answered by quantum chromodynamics.

#15 Al650

Al650

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 06 November 2007 - 06:49 PM

Can energy be created or destroyed? The universe does not contain much matter, so dark energy and dark matter have recently been created.

Imagine a cube at the "beginning" of the universe. It has an unknown density and an unknown amount of energy, but it is extremely small, perhaps the 'planck length' defines each side. Then, for no known reason, it explodes. What does it explode into? It explodes into a void with zero matter and zero energy. The energy expands in an unimpeded state. Technically, it should never stop. There are no forces acting upon it, so it should not 'pause' to form stars, planets or galaxies.


God bless,
Al

#16 Countic16

Countic16

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 07 November 2007 - 06:24 AM

This thread reminds me of a certain joke about God and an evolution scientist:

Evolution Scientist: God, you ain't as big as everyone thinks you is.

God: Oh yea? Hows come.

Evolution Scientist: Mankind is able to anything and everything you have ever made, and better! Even I, myself, could make a human being.

God Oh really? Care to put that to test?

Evolution Scientist: Absolutely! What are the wagers?

*they discuss the wagers of the bet*

God: Ok, lets get this started, here we go!

*God takes all of matter, space, time, energy, total existence away into non-existence*

God: Make your human being.

#17 Black Cat

Black Cat

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • The Hague

Posted 08 November 2007 - 06:36 AM

This thread reminds me of a certain joke about God and an evolution scientist:

Evolution Scientist:  God, you ain't as big as everyone thinks you is.

God:  Oh yea?  Hows come.

Evolution Scientist:  Mankind is able to anything and everything you have ever made, and better!  Even I, myself, could make a human being.

God Oh really?  Care to put that to test?

Evolution Scientist:  Absolutely!  What are the wagers?

*they discuss the wagers of the bet*

God:  Ok, lets get this started, here we go!

*God takes all of matter, space, time, energy, total existence away into non-existence*

God:  Make your human being.

View Post

Typical. First set a bet then change the rules. :rolleyes:

#18 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 11 November 2007 - 07:20 PM

I'm going to use the word believe a lot now.  While this implies faith, these things can be demonstrated and corroborated by other observations.

I believe that the universe as we see it is expanding.  I believe that galaxies are moving away from each other, because the space in between them is getting bigger.  This can be demonstrated by observations of local and remote galaxies.

I also believe that if things are moving away from each other then there must have been a time when they were closer together.  The laws of physics seem to remain constant.  I assume they always have been.  I am certain they haven't changed over the last 150,000 years, and from the observations from the Hubble Telescope it would seem that my assumption holds true.

Following this line of reasoning, the universe had to have been denser and hotter in the past.  We can work out how the matter in the universe would have been behaving by investigating how very hot energetic matter behaves in the lab.

Working back from there, we have a model of a universe that in its infancy was very small and very very hot.  Hopefully further experiments will shed light on what happened further and further back.  I would quite like to find out what happened before 10^-32 seconds after the Big Bang.

Personally, I like the 10 dimensional string theory approach.  It's a good model that makes some very good predictions and may help find answers to questions  that are not answered by quantum chromodynamics.

View Post


I deeply appreciate your admitting that it is a matter of faith when it comes to the Big Bang (BB) it is very refreshing for me to read that.

I to admit that the creation story requires faith and I also believe that my belief can be demonstrated and corroborated by what is observed.

I believe that the universe is bounded when it was created and that the latest findings show that this is true (misunderstanding of redshift measuring, the Hubble constant is not constant, the slowing down of the speed of light, low temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB), etc.).

I also believe that the laws of Physics have not changed over the past 10,000 or less years since creation. This is a problem for the BB cosmology because of the huge Nonconservation-of-Energy Losses. This problem comes form the CMB temperature at the BB was very large but now it is not. This leaves the question where did all the energy go? I do not believe the universe started out very hot from the BB this is confirmed by the low temperature of the CMB because there was no BB the universe was created and the laws of physics bears this out.

I believe that the experiments that are attempting to show what it was like at time zero is attempting to show what it was like when God created the world.

If you want to believe the 10 dimensional string theory that is great it your choice. I personally believe the God created everything we see reality because it is the perfect model and science is now showing this.

Bob Barclay

#19 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 11 November 2007 - 08:13 PM

I deeply appreciate your admitting that it is a matter of faith when it comes to the Big Bang (BB) it is very refreshing for me to read that.

View Post


It's not a matter of faith, its a matter of evidence, and being able to reproduce experimental results.

I to admit that the creation story requires faith and I also believe that my belief can be demonstrated and corroborated by what is observed.

View Post


How do you reconcile Genesis 1 with what is observed? How do you then reconcilie it with Genesis 2?

I believe that the universe is bounded when it was created and that the latest findings show that this is true (misunderstanding of redshift measuring, the Hubble constant is not constant, the slowing down of the speed of light, low temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB), etc.).

View Post


I agree with you when you say the universe is bounded. Many theories about the current state of the universe wouldn't work if it weren't. There is a correlation between red shift and distance, what misunderstanding are you refering to? You speak of the slowing down of the speed of light as if it were a fact, when it has been experimentaly proven that the speed of light is a constant. The low temperature of the CMB was expected, and also what you would expect to find left over from a universe completely bathed in radiation.

I also believe that the laws of Physics have not changed over the past 10,000 or less years since creation. This is a problem for the BB cosmology because of the huge Nonconservation-of-Energy Losses.  This problem comes form the CMB temperature at the BB was very large but now it is not. This leaves the question where did all the energy go?  I do not believe the universe started out very hot from the BB this is confirmed by the low temperature of the CMB because there was no BB the universe was created and the laws of physics bears this out.

I believe that the experiments that are attempting to show what it was like at time zero is attempting to show what it was like when God created the world.

View Post


If you replace 10,000 years with 15 billion years then we are on the same page. The problems that Big Bang Cosmology faces has to do with how things happened between T=0 and T=10^-32 seconds afterwards.

If you want to believe the 10 dimensional string theory that is great it your choice. I personally believe the God created everything we see reality because it is the perfect model and science is now showing this.

Bob Barclay

View Post


It's not a choice. I wish it were! If I could chose to live in a reality where wishing for something made it true I would. But that isn't the way the world works. String theory is palletable to me because it is predictive when it comes how thing actually work in the universe, not because I like it. I'd love a theory that explains how things work without having to do a load of difficult math. But it would seem that if there is a god behind all this, then he loves numbers.

#20 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 15 November 2007 - 06:53 PM

It's not a matter of faith, its a matter of evidence, and being able to reproduce experimental results.
How do you reconcile Genesis 1 with what is observed?  How do you then reconcilie it with Genesis 2?
I agree with you when you say the universe is bounded.  Many theories about the current state of the universe wouldn't work if it weren't.  There is a correlation between red shift and distance, what misunderstanding are you refering to?  You speak of the slowing down of the speed of light as if it were a fact, when it has been experimentaly proven that the speed of light is a constant.  The low temperature of the CMB was expected, and also what you would expect to find left over from a universe completely bathed in radiation.
If you replace 10,000 years with 15 billion years then we are on the same page.  The problems that Big Bang Cosmology faces has to do with how things happened between T=0 and T=10^-32 seconds afterwards. 
It's not a choice.  I wish it were!  If I could chose to live in a reality where wishing for something made it true I would.  But that isn't the way the world works. String theory is palletable to me because it is predictive when it comes how thing actually work in the universe, not because I like it.  I'd love a theory that explains how things work without having to do a load of difficult math.  But it would seem that if there is a god behind all this, then he loves numbers.

View Post


Again you claim evidence and experimental results that are not there. Here is what an open letter to the Scientific Community from other evolutionists that do not believe in the BB have to say about your evidence (you can find the entire letter at http://cosmologystatement.org).

Here is a few quotes from the letter:

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory."

"Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe."

"Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed."

The quotes state the exact opposite of what you have claimed about observable evidence and this letter was signed by 540 cosmologists and at the top of the list is the foremost astronomer Dr. Halton Arp. Now if the foremost astronomer and 539 other cosmologists say that no observed evidence exist that must mean there is no observed evidence. Yet you say there is. What do you know that they do not know? Also they are saying what creationists have been saying since the BB theory was dreamed up that there is no evidence for it so it did not happen. The experiments you bring up are also said to not be in favor of the BB. Also in an article entitled "The 'Science' of the Big Bang" (found at http://www.thunderbo...angscience.htm) states that BB science media is reporting that the BB is confirmed is far from being true and that the BB "has already failed." Dr. Gentry states that the BB believers have no experimental evidence to prove the BB happened ("Collapse of the Big Bang Cosmology and the Emergence of the New Cosmic Center of the Universe" http://www.halos.com).

I am not sure what you mean by reconcile the Genesis account with what is observed. Please be specific?

If you are a BB believer you must believe that the universe is unbounded for your belief to work. As far as the redshifts are concerned Dr. Arp has discovered galaxies interacting with each other having different redshift values yet are the same distances from earth. He postulates that some "extra-galactic objects had to have redshifts which were not caused by a recession velocity" (Redshifts and the Hubble Law http://www.heretical.../redshift.html). His work has called a big question mark on the Hubble Law and the use of redshifts to measure distances and recessions. For more information on his work you can go to his website http://haltonarp.com and read some of his work. Dr. Robert Gentry has been doing work in the redshift area and he is confirming Dr. Arp's work that redshifts do not necessarily mean expansion (Collapse of Big Bang Cosmology and the Emergence of the New Cosmic Center of the Universe found at http://www.halos.com).

As far as light speed slowing down there are experiments that are proving this and is gaining ground in the scientific community.

In regards to your low CMB temperatures expected by BB believers is not correct look at these quotes from the "Open Letter to the Scientific Community" and 'The "Science" of the Big Bang.'

"Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for the parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation."

"In popular discussion of the Big Bang, the most frequent statement made is that discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) "confirmed" the hypothesis. But this interpretation requires a gross distortion of history."

The distortion mentioned is the fact that BB believers Robert Dick and George Gamow predicted the CMB would be between 45 to 50K respectively. Predictions made by those who did not believe the BB had predictions of the CMB to be 1.9, 2.3, or 3K. When the CMB was discovered it was found to be 2.7K and as you can see the lower CMB was expected by those who did not believe in the BB. Dr. Gentry has written papers that have called attention to the loss of energy in the CMB, that is 3000K to the present reading of 2.7K had not been accounted for by the BB believers. This nonconversation-of-energy loss as Gentry calls it is still unaccounted for so how can you claim this stays within sound physics?

the BB has more problems than just how they happened as you can see by the evidence presented. Yes there is a choice and you have gone with something that could not have happened.

Bob Barclay




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users