[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang = Big Fail

[Hammer]

I saw this image posted in another thread It seems to represent the state of the Big Bang bologna. It's the kind of silly science fiction you'd expect from the Star Trek TV show.

1) Quantum Fluctuations: This is an obfuscation of the assertion that the universe appeared from nothing, and without cause.

2) Inflation: This is the assertion that the light (energy) of the universe traveled much faster than the speed of light.

3) Afterglow/dark ages: This is the assertion that the light (energy) in the universe traveled much slower than the speed of light.

4) Development of galaxies: This is the assertion that in a closed system, order increases over time.

5) Dark energy expansion: This is the assertion that the most powerful force in the universe is yet-to-be-detected anti-gravity.

Atheists didn't reach any of these anti-science assertions following science. These assertions are a result imaginative and desperate efforts to try to explain naturally what they have no natural explanation for, the origin of our universe. If they could dream up a less stupid natural explanation for our universe, they'd drop the Big Bang in a heartbeat.

 

[Grazer]

Again, you're pitching God against a scientific theory. I have issues with a purely naturalistic explanation but that doesn't mean I dismiss an entire theory.

Arno Penzias, who won the Nobel prize for physics with Robert Wilson, has written;

;The best data we have (concerning the Big Bang) are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole

John Lennox has written a brilliant book on Stephen Hawking book where he questions the logic of the purely materialistic explanation.

The irony of it all is that when the data started coming in for a beginning to the universe, it was resisted by some as it would lend ammunition to those who believe in the biblical creation account. The reigning paradigm of the time was the "steady state" I.e the universe didn't have a beginning. Fred Hoyle held this theory and coined the big bang as a joke.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[lordkalvan]

I saw this image posted in another thread It seems to represent the state of the Big Bang bologna. It's the kind of silly science fiction you'd expect from the Star Trek TV show.

On what basis have you determined that it is 'silly science fiction'? Just because Yiu find in incredible?

1) Quantum Fluctuations: This is an obfuscation of the assertion that the universe appeared from nothing, and without cause.

Well, we do know that quantum fluctuations happen without apparent cause:

'Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.'

Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html

2) Inflation: This is the assertion that the light (energy) of the universe traveled much faster than the speed of light.

Rather than an assertion, it is an hypothesis that has been substantiated by some observed predictions, e.g. the consequences of the gravitational collapse of perturbations in the inflationary epoch. However, it is certainly the case that cosmological inflation still stands only as an hypothesis and is subject to criticism because of problems it is unable fully to resolve.

3) Afterglow/dark ages: This is the assertion that the light (energy) in the universe traveled much slower than the speed of light.

I am unsure of your source for this claim. My best understanding is that this period refers to before the decoupling of photons, such that they were still 'coupled' with protons and electrons in the hypothesised proton-baryon fluid.

4) Development of galaxies: This is the assertion that in a closed system, order increases over time.

You suppose a number of uncertainties: that the Universe is a closed system; that, even if it is, local 'increases in order' cannot occur; that galaxies represent an increase in order over a prior state. None of these suppositions is necessarily correct and therefore your claim that the development of galaxies represents an assertion about a closed system is not warranted.

5) Dark energy expansion: This is the assertion that the most powerful force in the universe is yet-to-be-detected anti-gravity.

Dark energy is an hypothesis that may or may not be validated. Certainly something is leading to what appears to be accelerating the expansion of the Universe. Perhaps you would prefer that no testable hypotheses be advanced to explain this acceleration?

Atheists didn't reach any of these anti-science assertions following science. These assertions are a result imaginative and desperate efforts to try to explain naturally what they have no natural explanation for, the origin of our universe. If they could dream up a less stupid natural explanation for our universe, they'd drop the Big Bang in a heartbeat.

First of all, not all cosmologists and astrophysicists are atheists. Secondly, none of these hypotheses is 'anti-science', unless you have a particular definition of 'anti-science' I am unfamiliar with. Thirdly, why do you suppose that naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena are impossible? Fourthly, why do you regard the Big Bang as so stupendously stupid that no one is capable of inventing a naturalstic explanation that is 'less stupid'? Would this inability have anything to do with the fact that the evidence we observe is best explained by the Big Bang hypothesis? I would be happy to discuss your alternative explanations of this evidence and what it suggests.

 

[cupid dave]

I saw this image posted in another thread It seems to represent the state of the Big Bang bologna. It's the kind of silly science fiction you'd expect from the Star Trek TV show.

1) Quantum Fluctuations: This is an obfuscation of the assertion that the universe appeared from nothing, and without cause.

2) Inflation: This is the assertion that the light (energy) of the universe traveled much faster than the speed of light.

3) Afterglow/dark ages: This is the assertion that the light (energy) in the universe traveled much slower than the speed of light.

4) Development of galaxies: This is the assertion that in a closed system, order increases over time.

5) Dark energy expansion: This is the assertion that the most powerful force in the universe is yet-to-be-detected anti-gravity.

Atheists didn't reach any of these anti-science assertions following science. These assertions are a result imaginative and desperate efforts to try to explain naturally what they have no natural explanation for, the origin of our universe. If they could dream up a less stupid natural explanation for our universe, they'd drop the Big Bang in a heartbeat.

But you do agree with them on the main point they make,...

.... that the Universe was not always there,... there was a Beginning when time/space began and all the heavens, including the Earth, appeared.


These scientists are confirming that Gen 1:1 is basically true?
Right.

 

[cupid dave]

I am unsure of your source for this claim.

My best understanding is that this period refers to before the decoupling of photons, such that they were still 'coupled' with protons and electrons in the hypothesised proton-baryon fluid.

You are right.

As the Graphic shows, a Cosmic Dark Age is theorized to have followed the Bi Bang and lasted for 400 million years until the super charged hot plasmic matter in the universe cooled down enought o allow the formation of neutral atoms.


As you kow, visible light comes only from neutral atoms when their electrons miove up and down the seven prime orbital shells.
Light was uncoupled from this matter, the nuclei, until the loose elctrons were cool enough to be captured.


AWhat is amazing about this Science is that it confirms Gen 1:3-5, in that light is said to appear by a second command from the Creator, after the big bang beginning had begun.
The creator says, "let there be light," and only then is there darkness he calls night and light that he calls day.

Here we have a second supporting theory for what Genesis says coming from Science.

 

[Hammer]

Well, we do know that quantum fluctuations happen without apparent cause:

"Without cause" defies conception and logic. But, "not knowing" is a common experience. Quantum fluctuations are not random. There may be no local cause, but there is a cause. We just don't know what the cause is. The universe did not come into existence without a cause.

Rather than an assertion, it is an hypothesis that has been substantiated by some observed predictions, e.g. the consequences of the gravitational collapse of perturbations in the inflationary epoch. However, it is certainly the case that cosmological inflation still stands only as an hypothesis and is subject to criticism because of problems it is unable fully to resolve.

Inflation hasn't been substantiated by observed predictions. Rather, it's a scientific absurdity recruited to reconcile observations with bad theory. It's nonsensical to then turn around and insist those observations support the absurdity.

I am unsure of your source for this claim. My best understanding is that this period refers to before the decoupling of photons, such that they were still 'coupled' with protons and electrons in the hypothesised proton-baryon fluid.

It seems that the decoupled photons don't work like photons that move at the speed of light, but instead stayed somehow tethered to give us the CBR.

You suppose a number of uncertainties: that the Universe is a closed system; that, even if it is, local 'increases in order' cannot occur; that galaxies represent an increase in order over a prior state. None of these suppositions is necessarily correct and therefore your claim that the development of galaxies represents an assertion about a closed system is not warranted.

I suppose a number of uncertainties? I didn't realize science worked by putting the burden of proof on the skeptic. What do you suppose the universe is open to? Where does entropy increase so that it can decrease in other places and form galaxies?

Dark energy is an hypothesis that may or may not be validated. Certainly something is leading to what appears to be accelerating the expansion of the Universe. Perhaps you would prefer that no testable hypotheses be advanced to explain this acceleration?

The acceleration of expansion is itself a hypotheses. Regardless, to invoke anti-gravity as the strongest force in the universe when it doesn't appear to exist in the first place is the height of absurdity. Show me the force of anti-gravity then we can talk about whether it's causing the universe to expand.

First of all, not all cosmologists and astrophysicists are atheists.

However, practically all of them have to express Atheistic views if they want degrees or jobs in cosmology. (Not because science fiction has any practical value, but because cosmology jobs are pretty limited to academia and government.)

why do you suppose that naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena are impossible?

I don't suppose naturalistic explanations are impossible. But, I recognize the Big Bang as contrary to our understanding of nature. And, the only reason I can imagine anyone accepting it is not because of its objective strength, but because of its relative strength to other proposed natural explanations.

 

[Pizzaguy]

The irony of it all is that when the data started coming in for a beginning to the universe, it was resisted by some as it would lend ammunition to those who believe in the biblical creation account. The reigning paradigm of the time was the "steady state" I.e the universe didn't have a beginning. Fred Boyle held this theory and coined the big bang as a joke.

The big bang has ALWAYS sounded to me like the "scientific version" of Genesis. And I guess it did to some physicists as well, because one of them (and it may have been Boyle) was quoted some time ago as saying exactly that - that the big bang sounded to him like the Bible's account of creation.

I got no problem with the BB theory.

 

[Hammer]

The big bang has ALWAYS sounded to me like the "scientific version" of Genesis.

You remind me of when the Roman government persecuted Galileo, they argued that geocentrism always sounded to them like the "scientific [Aristotelian] version" of the Bible. And, just like the Roman government, they then proceed to try to silence the skeptics.

 

[Milk-Drops]

You remind me of when the Roman government persecuted Galileo, they argued that geocentrism always sounded to them like the "scientific [Aristotelian] version" of the Bible. And, just like the Roman government, they then proceed to try to silence the skeptics.

The problem with your comparision is that Galileo was a scientists that spent years gathering data and experimenting and was shunned because he supported the theory that the Earth was not the center contrary to the Church.

You on the other hand argue that Evolution and the Big Bang are incredulous based on your personal opinion and when others try to explain to you, Some of them Scientists and Engineers, you call them tyrants.


I see a pretty big difference there.

 

[Pizzaguy]

You remind me of when the Roman government persecuted Galileo, they argued that geocentrism always sounded to them like the "scientific [Aristotelian] version" of the Bible. And, just like the Roman government, they then proceed to try to silence the skeptics.

Meatballsub seems to understand your post, but I don't. I remind you of.......... what? :

Um, Galileo didn't live in the times of the Roman Empire, his time was during the Renaissance.

 

[Grazer]

The big bang has ALWAYS sounded to me like the "scientific version" of Genesis. And I guess it did to some physicists as well, because one of them (and it may have been Boyle) was quoted some time ago as saying exactly that - that the big bang sounded to him like the Bible's account of creation.

I got no problem with the BB theory.

It may have been Arno Penzias who I quoted earlier

 

[lordkalvan]

"Without cause" defies conception and logic.

But they still happen.

But, "not knowing" is a common experience. Quantum fluctuations are not random.

I would be interested in your explanation that shows how quantum fluctuations are not random.

There may be no local cause, but there is a cause. We just don't know what the cause is.

Which means that there may not be a cause at all, as your assertion to the effect that effects without causes defy 'conception and logic'  is simply that: an assertion.

The universe did not come into existence without a cause.

As you have pointed out, '" not knowing" is a common experience', so you cannot know this. It may also be the case that the Universe (or our part of a Multiverse) emerged from matter previously existing in a different configuration from what we recognise and understand at present, that is from natural origins through natural causes.

Inflation hasn't been substantiated by observed predictions.

Um, yes, it has. The difficulty for the inflation hypothesis is that those observed predictions do not resolve other problems that leave the hypothesis just that.

'Inflation predicts that the observed perturbations should be in thermal equilibrium with each other (these are called adiabatic or isentropic perturbations). This structure for the perturbations has been confirmed by the WMAP spacecraft and other cosmic microwave background experiments,[52] and galaxy surveys, especially the ongoing Sloan Digital Sky Survey.[54] These experiments have shown that the one part in 10,000 inhomogeneities observed have exactly the form predicted by theory. Moreover, there is evidence for a slight deviation from scale invariance. The spectral index, ns is equal to one for a scale-invariant spectrum. The simplest models of inflation predict that this quantity is between 0.92 and 0.98.[55][56][57][58] From the data taken by the WMAP spacecraft it can be inferred that ns = 0.963 ± 0.012,[59] implying that it differs from one at the level of two standard deviations (2σ). This is considered an important confirmation of the theory of inflation.[52]'

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#

Rather, it's a scientific absurdity recruited to reconcile observations with bad theory. It's nonsensical to then turn around and insist those observations support the absurdity.

No, the observations postdate the hypothesis. Simply declaring something 'a scientific absurdity' does not make it so. What is your better and 'scientifically sound' hypothesis?

It seems that the decoupled photons don't work like photons that move at the speed of light, but instead stayed somehow tethered to give us the CBR.

I see you don't provide the source for your claim. The coupling of photons in the proton-baryon fluid is the 'somehow' that is hypothesised to explain this. This hypothesis may or may not be valid, but simply handwaving it away because you doubt it based on some unspecified reasoning is insufficient to invalidate it. 

I suppose a number of uncertainties? I didn't realize science worked by putting the burden of proof on the skeptic.

It's not an issue of 'burden of proof', it's an issue with your supposition as to whether or not the Universe constitutes a closed system in the way you seem to imply.

What do you suppose the universe is open to? Where does entropy increase so that it can decrease in other places and form galaxies?

Well, to draw a parochial analogy, do you suppose that entropy can both increase and decrease on Earth, given that Earth is a part of this supposedly closed system in which entropy can only increase? In other words, neither Earth nor galaxies are in and of themselves closed systems. Put simply, the Universe began in a state of low entropy when there was -and still remains - energy which can be 'put to use' by, for example, creating galaxies.

The acceleration of expansion is itself a hypotheses.

Which conforms with observation. So what's your point? That hypotheses which we can test for validity shouldn't be proposed?

Regardless, to invoke anti-gravity as the strongest force in the universe when it doesn't appear to exist in the first place is the height of absurdity. Show me the force of anti-gravity then we can talk about whether it's causing the universe to expand.

The 'fingerprint' of dark energy has been detected:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080811-dark-energy.html

So your dismissal of its hypothesised effects appears to be premature. I agree that understanding the properties of this dark energy is another matter, however, but that it does exist and that its distribution and influence seems to be consistent with the hypothesis that it contributes to the observed expansion of the Universe cannot simply be ignored. Again, what alternative hypothesis would you propose that we can test to explain our observations?

However, practically all of them have to express Atheistic views if they want degrees or jobs in cosmology.

Really? And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly? This website would seem to give the lie to your assertion...

http://www.calvin.edu/~dhaarsma/chr-astro/people.html

(Not because science fiction has any practical value, but because cosmology jobs are pretty limited to academia and government.)

...and you have failed to establish your case that 'Atheistic views' constitute 'science fiction'.

I don't suppose naturalistic explanations are impossible.

Well, you seem to have spent most of your time on this thread railing against them, but maybe my impression is mistaken.

But, I recognize the Big Bang as contrary to our understanding of nature.

By 'our' you seem to mean your own, because it's  not contrary to mine.

And, the only reason I can imagine anyone accepting it is not because of its objective strength, but because of its relative strength to other proposed natural explanations.

Then please present some of these 'other proposed natural explanations' that have 'objective strength'. So far, all you have done is offer us negatives. How about some positives?

 

[cupid dave]

The big bang has ALWAYS sounded to me like the "scientific version" of Genesis. And I guess it did to some physicists as well, because one of them (and it may have been Boyle) was quoted some time ago as saying exactly that - that the big bang sounded to him like the Bible's account of creation.

I got no problem with the BB theory.

I agree with you.

However, people who do not want Genesis to make rational and even scientific sense will reverse the whole point you make here, i.e.; Gensis does ot contradict Science.

They will say that the Big Bang is an expansin of simething tht was always there, as if that omehow translates into no beginning of said expansion.
They will complain that Genesis is way skimpy on the details of the Big Bang Theory, and this somehow means your simple point is not very sih=gnificant.

What hese people do not admit is that 3362 years ago, when the Torah was given to Moses, people until this last century by and large believed that the Cosmos was eternal and had always been there.
They ignore how the Bible writers went out on the lomb, clerly insisting thatthe very first verse that flew in the face of what all generations had believed, was actually correct.

These people refuse to say, "Wow, that was a really chancy gamble to take on the very first sentence of a book claiming to be coming directly from God."

 

[cupid dave]

You remind me of when the Roman government persecuted Galileo, they argued that geocentrism always sounded to them like the "scientific [Aristotelian] version" of the Bible. And, just like the Roman government, they then proceed to try to silence the skeptics.

You mean it sounds to you like the role has been reversed, right?
here we have the science people trying to silence the Bible people.

Jesus did say, "What comes around goes around."

 

[Hammer]

You mean it sounds to you like the role has been reversed, right?
here we have the science people trying to silence the Bible people.

Jesus did say, "What comes around goes around."

Nope, just more of the same.

It was the government, using secular-origin science, which persecuted and tried to silence the Christian man Galileo. Also, that government conflated the secular-origin science with the Bible, just as Theistic Evolutionists do today, or those who say they see the Big Bang in the Bible.

One thing that's different, the oppressive religious zealots who control the government today tend to be Atheists.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Nope, just more of the same.

It was the government, using secular-origin science, which persecuted and tried to silence the Christian man Galileo.

So the Catholic church was using theories that weren't even in existence for a few hundred years were using secualr science when they put Galileo under house arrest for speaking blasphemy against the church for claiming that the Earth is not the center of the universe or our solar system? Man, I think you need to re-read some history.

Also, that government conflated the secular-origin science with the Bible, just as Theistic Evolutionists do today, or those who say they see the Big Bang in the Bible.

You mean people who refuse to stay ignorant of how the world and our universe actually functions and use it to better man kind? May I ask if you are one of those anti science types?

One thing that's different, the oppressive religious zealots who control the government today tend to be Atheists.

Problem with that is that Atheists are ranked the most hated group in the US and in many US states there are still laws in place where Athesists can't hold position of government power. So that shoots that notion right in the foot. Also, the current Government science committe is almost unanimously Christian and are pushing for "teach the Controversy" and anti "Climate Change" people. So that is another shot to your assertion.


So far you have done nothing but make wild accusation, but when we actually examine what you say, it starts to look as if you might not know what you are talking about. Sorry man, maybe next time.

 

[cupid dave]

Nope, just more of the same.

It was the government, using secular-origin science, which persecuted and tried to silence the Christian man Galileo. Also, that government conflated the secular-origin science with the Bible, just as Theistic Evolutionists do today, or those who say they see the Big Bang in the Bible.

One thing that's different, the oppressive religious zealots who control the government today tend to be Atheists.

So do you believe that the Universe had a beginning, even if that beginning was silently, and no bang involved????

 

[Vanguard]

Here's my take on the Big Bang theory:

It may have happened, just like Genesis may have happened, just like evolution may have happened. We can't prove any of them beyond a shadow of a doubt, so why worry about it?

If the Big Bang did happen, then God pulled the trigger.

That pretty much sums it up for me. I don't lose sleep over it.

 

[Barbarian]

It was the government, using secular-origin science, which persecuted and tried to silence the Christian man Galileo.

Heliocentrism was condemned by Luther and Calvin as being anti-Christian. Calvin was government, of course, but it looks like religion, not government that went after Galileo.

 

[cupid dave]

Heliocentrism was condemned by Luther and Calvin as being anti-Christian. Calvin was government, of course, but it looks like religion, not government that went after Galileo.

Remember that the RCC was a theocracy which ordained and crowned the Kings.

This was similar to what is now the powers to be in Iran, today.
As the RCC has specifically indicated, Galileo was threatened with the Rack and confined to his home not because of his science, but because he challenged to government by ignoring the imposition of silence on the subject and opposing what the official church rules were on the subject involved.

Theocracies enforce their opposition to rebels as do the other six types of political entities when they are threatened by dissent.
In 1998, I believe, the RCC church forgave Galileo for obstruction and undermining of authority, or something like that.

But, a historical review in a recent book shows that the church was the leading scienitific force of the Middle Ages, and far from the evil obstructionists the atheists contend today: