Jump to content


Who Or What Created That Matter For The Big Bang?


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

#1 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 January 2006 - 01:26 AM

Since I saw the question about who created the Creator, I thought I would ask a simular question about the big bang. So who or what created the matter for the big bang?

#2 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 29 January 2006 - 01:56 PM

Since I saw the question about who created the Creator, I thought I would ask a simular question about the big bang. So who or what created the matter for the big bang?

View Post


I, nor anyone else knows. There is no theory. Some mathematical models work in some areas yet fail in others. I have read a couple of books like Hawking’s “The universe in a nut shell” but the explanations get seriously into quantum physics, and theoretical partials, at which point my brain explodes.

My understanding of the current situation is this:

By winding back the expanding universe, everything (the physics) seems to work out mathematically, until you get within a second or two of the start of the big bang, at which point, the math hits a brick wall.

#3 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 30 January 2006 - 09:59 AM

I, nor anyone else knows.  There is no theory.  Some mathematical models work in some areas yet fail in others.  I have read a couple of books like Hawking’s “The universe in a nut shell” but the explanations get seriously into quantum physics, and theoretical partials, at which point my brain explodes.

My understanding of the current situation is this:

By winding back the expanding universe, everything (the physics) seems to work out mathematically, until you get within a second or two of the start of the big bang, at which point, the math hits a brick wall.

View Post


The best I have seen is vague answers like this.
In other words, even though it seems impossible, we believe it happened, just can't prove it. I'll be interested though to see if any can do better.
My view: Only an outside force (any force, not contained in or connected to this universe) can have started it. No other possibility is logical.

#4 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 03 February 2006 - 12:00 AM

The best I have seen is vague answers like this.
  In other words, even though it seems impossible, we believe it happened, just can't prove it. I'll be interested though to see if any can do better.
  My view: Only an outside force (any force, not contained in or connected to this universe) can have started it. No other possibility is logical.

View Post

According to NASA:

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation

So, one day, or however you measure the time, nothing exploded. What's all the controversy about, sounds like a solid theory.

#5 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2006 - 12:19 AM

Maybe someone should do a thread on which is more to have happened. Creation by a Creator, or the big bang that hits a brick wall?

#6 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 03 February 2006 - 05:31 PM

The fact that educated scientists seriously consider the big bang as a tenable theory only emphasizes what extremes to which people will go to explain our world in any terms so long as they exclude Diety.

#7 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 04 February 2006 - 12:59 AM

The fact that educated scientists seriously consider the big bang as a tenable theory only emphasizes what extremes to which people will go to explain our world in any terms so long as they exclude Diety.

View Post


What is your opinion about the scientists who believe in God? The best answer I have heard is that he did not have a role in the process because he is outside of our universe.

#8 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 05 February 2006 - 02:33 PM

Since I saw the question about who created the Creator, I thought I would ask a simular question about the big bang. So who or what created the matter for the big bang?

View Post


The big bang is the supposed very beginning of evolutions process, and that's where the theory also loses all logical status.
I stated in a recent post that you never get something from nothing, and the big bang is what I was referring to.

It's nothing more than a made up story simply put. Atheist scientists trying to articulate/explain God away with a completely made up hypothesis.
Many will try to argue that an atheist and an evolutionist are not the same thing.
That is incorrect, believing in evolution constitutes not believing in a creator/God therefore would be an atheist.

Evolution is no where near being proven a fact, and guess what?! It can never be proven a fact because it's impossible to prove something that isn't so.
The single most powerful thing that helps evolution in the being believed area, is ignorance, the more people learn and know of evolution, the more they can easily see it's nothing more than vain imagination.(Romans 1:21).

Many scientists in the secular scientific community are evolutionists/atheists.
However, there are also many creationists scientists, some who work in the secular community as well. Wether you'r a creationist scientist or an evolutionary scientists, it still boils down to wether or not you believe in God with your outlook on things.




Louie Buren <><
Our web site

Attached Files



#9 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 05 February 2006 - 07:50 PM

For information - You may like to read the updated talkorigins file on the big bang
Specifically, creating something from nothing

In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. See, for instance, the Wikipedia page for the Casimir effect.



#10 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 06 February 2006 - 02:52 AM

For information - You may like to read the updated talkorigins file on the big bang
Specifically, creating something from nothing

View Post

That is a very deceptive statement that TO makes right off the bat. For one thing there has to be something there before that process can occur. Even they say so:

The common point for all of these effects is that they do not violate any known conservation laws of physics (e.g., the conservation of energy, momentum, and charge). Something can indeed come out of nothing as long as these conservation laws permit this.

These laws exist before 'something can come from nothing' so that is not really what argument is about. The argument is about the beginning of the universe. If we are discussing the origins of the universe the origins of the laws must be accounted for as well, yes? What is the best explanation for their origins?

There are several valid counterarguments against this: first, as already pointed out, the BBT is not about the origin of the universe, but rather its development with time. Hence, any statement that the appearance of the universe "out of nothing" is impossible has nothing to do with what the BBT actually addresses. Likewise, while the laws of thermodynamics apply to the universe today, it is not clear that they necessarily apply to the origin of the universe

That seems to side step the question about the origin of the universe, where did the vacum fluctuation come from, that created the singularity, that eventually birthed our universe, come from?

#11 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 06 February 2006 - 01:46 PM

For information - You may like to read the updated talkorigins file on the big bang
Specifically, creating something from nothing


That is a very deceptive statement that TO makes right off the bat. For one thing there has to be something there before that process can occur. Even they say so:


One can hardly claim deception when a clarifying paragraph immediately follows! I.e.

The common point for all of these effects is that they do not violate any known conservation laws of physics (e.g., the conservation of energy, momentum, and charge). Something can indeed come out of nothing as long as these conservation laws permit this.


These laws exist before 'something can come from nothing' so that is not really what argument is about. The argument is about the beginning of the universe. If we are discussing the origins of the universe the origins of the laws must be accounted for as well, yes? What is the best explanation for their origins?


IMO the example given is only given to show that intuitive assumptions like “something can not come from nothing” can be misleading, and that one should not exclude that premise without evidence . Perhaps the ‘laws of conservation’ do not apply under the conditions of a big bang, it’s just too early to say such things are imposable. It’s one thing to ask questions like why and how, but entirely different to dismiss things of a lack of evidence.

There are several valid counterarguments against this: first, as already pointed out, the BBT is not about the origin of the universe, but rather its development with time. Hence, any statement that the appearance of the universe "out of nothing" is impossible has nothing to do with what the BBT actually addresses.


Agreed. BBT breaks down just before time zero.


Likewise, while the laws of thermodynamics apply to the universe today, it is not clear that they necessarily apply to the origin of the universe


Agreed.

That seems to side step the question about the origin of the universe, where did the vacum fluctuation come from, that created the singularity, that eventually birthed our universe, come from?


A valid question. I suspect it will take a breakthrough of the likes of E=MC^2, to reveal what the universe is actually made of. Tools like these partial accelerators are designed to investigate such matters. Posted Image

#12 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 06 February 2006 - 03:30 PM

One can hardly claim deception when a clarifying paragraph immediately follows! I.e.


It is still quite deceptive as this process requires the existence of those natural laws to abide by them. This still side steps the issue of material before the big bang and where it came from. All that is offered as an explanation is 'well that is not the BBT'

IMO the example given is only given to show that intuitive assumptions like “something can not come from nothing” can be misleading

Maybe so, but as it applies to the origin of the universe it is still accurate to say that there probably was a cause. They claim this process of electrons, photons and positrons appearing out of nowhere happens and it violates no known laws.

they do not violate any known conservation laws of physics (e.g., the conservation of energy, momentum, and charge)

Then they say that these laws probably were not in affect yet:

while the laws of thermodynamics apply to the universe today, it is not clear that they necessarily apply to the origin of the universe; we simply do not know.

So then how does that process apply to the issue at all? And how do we know the laws were not in effect at
the time of the big bang?

t’s one thing to ask questions like why and how, but entirely different to dismiss things of a lack of evidence.

There is nothing wrong with proposing alternative explanations for the origin of the universe, who says we have to wait until the Big bang issue is settled? There are competing models in all fields of science and this subject is no different.

A valid question. I suspect it will take a breakthrough of the likes of E=MC^2, to reveal what the universe is actually

This is exactly why there is nothing wrong with exploring alternatives to the big bang.

#13 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 February 2006 - 01:44 PM

One can hardly claim deception when a clarifying paragraph immediately follows! I.e.


It is still quite deceptive as this process requires the existence of those natural laws to abide by them. This still side steps the issue of material before the big bang and where it came from. All that is offered as an explanation is 'well that is not the BBT'


Upon re reading I think you have a point, i.e. the Casimir effect is within the universe while the origin of matter precedes it. I must admit that I was in no doubt about this, but can see how it can be misinterpreted as evidence when it is more correctly, an analogy or at best circumstantial evidence.

I suspect it will take a breakthrough of the likes of E=MC^2, to reveal what the universe is actually


This is exactly why there is nothing wrong with exploring alternatives to the big bang.


Scientifically, the only competitor to BBT was the Steady State universe (now out of favour), neither of which address the origins.

Form YEC sources the only one to address such matters (I think) has been Dr. Humphreys, Starlight and Time (1994), but that also only deals with the universe and how it’s perceived an not how it originates.

#14 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 07 February 2006 - 02:33 PM

Upon re reading I think you have a point, i.e. the Casimir effect is within the universe while the origin of matter precedes it. I must admit that I was in no doubt about this, but can see how it can be misinterpreted as evidence when it is more correctly, an analogy or at best circumstantial evidence.

Fair enough, as long as we can amke that distinction.

Form YEC sources the only one to address such matters (I think) has been Dr. Humphreys, Starlight and Time (1994), but that also only deals with the universe and how it’s perceived an not how it originates.

That is the best know but, there several others.

#15 Joshua

Joshua

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Planet Earth

Posted 28 February 2006 - 05:22 PM

For information - You may like to read the updated talkorigins file on the big bang
Specifically, creating something from nothing

View Post


Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so how does talkorigin calim that matter and energy are completely annihilated ? Are talkorigins changing the laws of Physics by means of wikipedia, a perfect example of how not to run things at random.

E=MC2 - Energy and mass are interchangable. At the fundamental level of them all, what was the source of the energy at the momnet of the big bang ?

#16 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 February 2006 - 08:23 PM

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so how does talkorigin calim that matter and energy are completely annihilated ? Are talkorigins changing the laws of Physics by means of wikipedia, a perfect example of how not to run things at random.

E=MC2 - Energy and mass are interchangable. At the fundamental level of them all, what was the source of the energy at the momnet of the big bang ?


I will need the quote to properly answer your question, but that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, holds true, with a small qualifier, i.e. “the sum total” remains the same, so that in this universe the total sum total of energy/mass is constant.

‘At the moment of the big bang’ is still subject of much investigation, as I said earlier, by winding back the clock the math hits a brick wall a few moments before the big bang. Post number 10 onwards between myself and willis discuss this something from nothing and what it really means re the Casimir effect, which I think you are referring to.

#17 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 March 2006 - 02:31 AM

Can a liquid be compressed?

Can a solid mass be so condensed?

Can it all fit within a dot(.) on this page?

Does all this defy all known science?

If so, why does science believe something that defies all of it laws?

God defies all the laws of science, but yet God is never considered by science.

#18 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 01 March 2006 - 01:23 PM

Can a liquid be compressed?

Can a solid mass be so condensed?

Can it all fit within a dot(.) on this page?

Does all this defy all known science?

If so, why does science believe something that defies all of it laws?

God defies all the laws of science, but yet God is never considered by science.

View Post


Yes, there is good evidence for it.

Matter is mostly empty space and gravity is king.

So under enough gravitational pressure the electrons an nucleus get crushed together, as in a Neutron star. Increase the gravity even further and even a Neutron star cannot maintain integrity and you get to a black hole, even radiation cannot escape, and the matter (if one can still call it that) reduces to a singularity within the black hole.

Big bang goes a stage further (in reverse).

#19 Christopher_John

Christopher_John

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Messianic Prophecy.<br /><br /> I work very odd hours, I will eventually get back into the discussion with you, just be patient I'm not avoiding any topic.
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 05 March 2006 - 04:06 PM

Yes, there is good evidence for it.

Matter is mostly empty space and gravity is king.

So under enough gravitational pressure the electrons an nucleus get crushed together, as in a Neutron star.  Increase the gravity even further and even a Neutron star cannot maintain integrity and you get to a black hole, even radiation cannot escape, and the matter (if one can still call it that) reduces to a singularity within the black hole.

Big bang goes a stage further (in reverse).

View Post



Theoretically speaking of course.

Any and all theories (including mathematical models) on black holes is based solely on conjecture. Nobody knows what a black hole is, physical laws may not even be applicable.

CJ

#20 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 05 March 2006 - 07:26 PM

Theoretically speaking of course.

Any and all theories (including mathematical models) on black holes is based solely on conjecture.


It’s not as bad as that, one can infer a black hole indirectly (but of course you are right in that direct observation has not occurred, and caution is advised) e.g. Cygnus X1 is a binary star it’s orbital properties suggest that it is orbiting around a very dense object indeed (mathematically is should be a black hole). There are other forms of observational evidence like the production of X rays as matter is drawn into the accretion disk, and again, mathematically, this should be around a black hole. Paradoxically black holes are rather violent areas and betray their presence.


Nobody knows what a black hole is, physical laws may not even be applicable.

somewhat agree.


I would point out that such hypothetical physics rests upon other assumptions, and you are quit right in that one observation could cause the whole conjecture to be re-examined, but currently it’s holding up.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users