[_ Old Earth _] BANG!

[John]

Well there are only two options. Either the universe had a beginning or it is eternal. An eternal universe doesn't need a creator. The big bang says the universe has a beginning in the finite past. Thus the big bang says the universe was created and not eternal.

Yes but the difference is why is was created and how. I think it is insane to say that the universe came into being out of nothing without having a creator outside of said universe, and i think it is even worse to be teaching that to young impressionable minds.

 

[happyjoy]

Well there are only two options. Either the universe had a beginning or it is eternal. An eternal universe doesn't need a creator. The big bang says the universe has a beginning in the finite past. Thus the big bang says the universe was created and not eternal.

Yes but the difference is why is was created and how. I think it is insane to say that the universe came into being out of nothing without having a creator outside of said universe, and i think it is even worse to be teaching that to young impressionable minds.

What scientists are referring to when they talk about the big bang theory is really only a description of the aftermath of the bang. Conventional big bang theory says nothing about, what banged,why it banged or what happened before it banged.

 

[John]

What scientists are referring to when they talk about the big bang theory is really only a description of the aftermath of the bang. Conventional big bang theory says nothing about, what banged,why it banged or what happened before it banged.

Then perhaps they should fix the education system to stop teaching BB theory because the text books keep pushing stuff like how and why when no one even knows.

Also if the BB occurred and no one was around to witness it did it make a sound? :rolling

 

[happyjoy]

Also if the BB occurred and no one was around to witness it did it make a sound? :rolling

Your cleverness boggles the mind.

 

[John]

Also if the BB occurred and no one was around to witness it did it make a sound? :rolling

Your cleverness boggles the mind.

ah lighten up bud

 

[logical bob]

Just my but...

We also have the background radiation discovery that won Penzias and Wilson the Nobel Prize. This is the leftover radiation from the BB.

Isn't that a assumption based on the presupposition that there was a Big bang event?

The universe is expanding and the cosmic background radiation exists. That's observed fact, not assumption.

Any theory has to conform to the observed facts. A strength of the Big Bang theory is that it explains both the expansion and the radiation. Its rival back in the day, the Steady State theory, accounted for the expansion but didn't explain the radiation. That's why the Big Bang won out in the 1960s.

 

[Crying Rock]

Just my but...

We also have the background radiation discovery that won Penzias and Wilson the Nobel Prize. This is the leftover radiation from the BB.

Isn't that a assumption based on the presupposition that there was a Big bang event?

The universe is expanding and the cosmic background radiation exists. That's observed fact, not assumption.

Any theory has to conform to the observed facts. A strength of the Big Bang theory is that it explains both the expansion and the radiation. Its rival back in the day, the Steady State theory, accounted for the expansion but didn't explain the radiation. That's why the Big Bang won out in the 1960s.

I personally think the Big Bang is consistent with a beginning. The theory shouldn't cause any major problems for creationists.