[_ Old Earth _] Did the Big Bang happen? [Added For Debate]

[Slevin]

A slow leak doesn't make a blow out.

The Universe isn't a black hole, either.

How do you know there was a Big Bang if:

1) we don't know why the inflation occurred.
2) the laws of physics break down the hotter and denser the universe gets.
3) our classical mathematics cannot answer that question.

1) Not knowing why it occurred doesn't mean we don't know that it occurred. That's like asking how we know that Gravity works if we don't know why. We know that inflation occurred, based on a number of independent discoveries.
2) We're talking about the classical physical laws. They are mathematically invalid in quantum states like the universe at the moment of the Big Bang. That's where Quantum Mechanics comes in.
3) It's called Quantum Physics.

Not knowledge but data gathered through the use of science. The data is most likely correct. I hope "knowledge" is not confused with "conclusion". Even a defense attorney and prosecutor will conclude differing things when presented forensic evidence. And they are professionals in their chosen field also.

If the conclusions yield consistent results, then knowledge has been acquired. Defense attorney's and prosecutors are not scientists, they are lawyers.

"If and if and if then who are you to question..."
I'll question those "if"s. :wink:

By all means, make sure you're questioning your own if's too.

Again, the data is neutral, not the conclusion/s made.

The conclusions are neutral when it comes to theology, don't take my statements out of context.

There seems to be some sort of thing that by using the word "science" then a statement including the word is irrefutable.

Uh, no. When people like you who have no understanding of what you're talking about make ignorant comments, you are going to be corrected on what is actually being said in the scientific world. They are always refutable, if you have a valid refutation.

Science does not produce conclusions. I've never seen a voltmeter make the conclusion that the problem is with my alternator and not the regulator, wiring or a blown fuse. The user makes that judgment, not his instrument which uses science to display what is sensed.
(bad analogy, yes, but you get my point)

Science does produce conclusions, a voltmeter isn't science. The user makes the conclusion, and it is checked by other people who replicate his experiments and analyze the data. That is what science is.

True, but so what? That's the nature of science, to attempt to find the best explanation and then try your darndest to falsify it.

"nature of science"

Science itself has no nature. It can't.
[/quote]

Of course it can. Somethings nature is the qualities that make up that thing. Science is the pursuit of explaining reality the best way possible. The Scientific Method, Empiricism, etc, are the qualities that make up Science.

It's man who has the nature to "attempt to find the best explanation and then try your darndest to falsify it".
And if they're trying their darndest to falsify certain things they sure aren't showing it.
:-D

Where do you get that idea? Read Newtons theories and then read Einstein. Read about Piltdown Man and then read about how scientists uncovered that hoax. Read about String Theory and the massive criticism it receives. Read about Everett's Many Worlds Hypothesis and the massive criticism it received. Read about the "steady-state" theories of the universe and then read about how that was falsified.

Replace or lose. That's all a mutation can do.

Uh, no. That is patently false. Try reading about mutation before making comments like these.

In some instances a string is replicated like a calf with two heads. But that's still not going from a bovine to something else. Replication does not make a type change anyway but reconstructs something the organism already has... it adds nothing.

Adds nothing? You mean like bacteria that wasn't able to digest nylon but is now able to? Or how a mutation causes much stronger bones in a human family? Or how bacterial diseases that could be destroyed with antibiotics have now a resistance to it where there was none before? The list is endless.

That IS evolution. Speciation IS evolution.

Cows turning into other animals is NOT evolution.

A canine can have both the genes for long and short fur from a certain beginning. In cold climate the animal can lose the short fur gene. In warmer climate the long fur gene is lost. Bring one animal to the other climate does not mean that animal will adapt since the gene to do so has been bred out already by natural selection.

What are you talking about?

Bovine
canine
feline
Arthropod
Arachnid
etc.

A bird is a different type from say a fish or a frog or a horse.

Are you talking about Families, Sub-Families, Species, Tribes, Order, Class?

And Arachnid is an Arthropod...how can they be two different types?

And?

And you seem to indicate that science is against God.

Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is the formation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to the chemical origin of life, such as from a 'primordial soup' or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis). The current models of abiogenesis are still being scientifically tested.

We're talking about the theory of origin of life on earth by molecular happenstance. Abiogenesis.

Again, that is not a theory. No model of abiogenesis states that life originated on Earth by molecular happenstance, try again.

"criticize" is your own conclusion. Refutation or objection or opposition would be my conclusion.
We both see the data, what I posted, and came to two differing conclusions. Science (electronics etc.) shows you the words but you make your own opinion. Which by the way differs from mine.

You don't see the data, or you wouldn't have to be corrected all the time on everything you say.

Again:
The NT testifies to the miracle of creation for Christ to feed the multitudes... twice.
By observation of everything you know those fish would be fully grown and mature. You would conclude with the evidence in hand that the fish you held was much older than say an hour or two. The fish were created from nothingness and so was the universe. The problem lies in the fact that we can't fathom the laws of creation. Heck, we don't even know if there are laws of creation. So instead we prefer to make our own judgement using the laws we do know. But that's like applying ohm's law to solve for the volume of a cylinder. And creation isn't scientific ONLY because we know nothing about it.

The problem lies in the fact that you're taking mythology, assuming it to be an actual event and then concluding that we can't fathom the laws of creation.

 

[Rick W]

Uh, no. That is patently false. Try reading about mutation before making comments like these.

No time to reply to all of that except I'll tackle this one first.
A DNA string, or DNA sentence, is a very long structure taken by frames, groups of components called bases... the A T C G we're familiar with. Insertion mutations cause frame-shifts by inserting a component into the sentence which moves each successive frame by the amount of the components inserted rendering the remaining frames useless or nonsensical. In other words, the protein is shortened, it has lost the remaining information following the insertion.
For insertion to work an entire frame, a group of bases that make sense, must be inserted to retain proper frame sequencing or synchronization. Upset the framing and the protien is truncated, information is lost. The chances of a "frame" of bases that work AND are inserted properly of happening totally by accident are very slim indeed. And if by some quirk it did happen then it must also be transferable to the offspring... another happenstance that further increases the odds against a mutant addition that will be successfully replicated. On top of that it must also serve to benefit the organism in some meaningful manner, that is, the development of a cell that actually "fits" within a specified part of the organism AND heightens the organism's chances of survival.
Germline mutations are those that are passed from parent to offspring. These are responsible for hereditary diseases, cancers and other maladies. Not exactly the kind of mutation needed to successfully continue the line.
Many microbiologists are getting a closer look at the mechanics of DNA replication and are coming away with doubts about mutated DNA sentences fueling an evolutionary process.
And I can't blame them.

Think of it as a computer program. Each group of one's and zero's ( the A T C G) makes up one instruction . To mutate the group means the instruction is either wrong or the mutation invalidates the instruction altogether (a syntax error) or throws the program counter out of sync (the frames). The result? It won't work or worse, the computer crashes, it dies. IF by some chance a valid instruction is inserted AND satisfies the counter it must also be placed within the program at a point it will not upset the remaining code AND benefit the outcome. That is beyond slim as chances go. I've done a lot of programming in my time from machine code (assembly) to C++ to basic and I assure you an error or mutation anywhere within the program does not benefit the whole. Then there's the "checksum" to worry about during a copy procedure or replication. If that doesn't match the program is useless and the replication process invalidated.

The more that is learned about this the less likely it's becoming that mutation is responsible for evolution. Remember, 100 years ago it was much easier to sell evolution since most of what was known was by looks, the appearance of the animals in question. But the study of microbiology isn't supporting a lot of the past views, opinions or conclusions.

 

[jwu]

A DNA string, or DNA sentence, is a very long structure taken by frames, groups of components called bases... the A T C G we're familiar with. Insertion mutations cause frame-shifts by inserting a component into the sentence which moves each successive frame by the amount of the components inserted rendering the remaining frames useless or nonsensical. In other words, the protein is shortened, it has lost the remaining information following the insertion.

No, the sequence continues to be transcribed; only the last codon of the section is affected as it doesn't consist of exactly three base pairs then anymore - there is one excess base pair that is disregarded.

The chances of a "frame" of bases that work AND are inserted properly of happening totally by accident are very slim indeed.

Do you have an actual number?

And if by some quirk it did happen then it must also be transferable to the offspring... another happenstance that further increases the odds against a mutant addition that will be successfully replicated.

That's a non-issue unless you intend to dispute the existence of mutations that are being transferred to the offspring. Every human has about 130 or so...

On top of that it must also serve to benefit the organism in some meaningful manner, that is, the development of a cell that actually "fits" within a specified part of the organism AND heightens the organism's chances of survival.
Germline mutations are those that are passed from parent to offspring. These are responsible for hereditary diseases, cancers and other maladies. Not exactly the kind of mutation needed to successfully continue the line.

Yet plenty of beneficial mutations have been directly observed; Slevin gave examples of such cases.
In one experiment with bacteria about 12% of the mutations turned out to be beneficial, if i correctly.

Many microbiologists are getting a closer look at the mechanics of DNA replication and are coming away with doubts about mutated DNA sentences fueling an evolutionary process.
And I can't blame them.

How many percent of the overall number of microbiologists are they? How many of them do so for non-religious reasons?

Think of it as a computer program. Each group of one's and zero's ( the A T C G) makes up one instruction . To mutate the group means the instruction is either wrong or the mutation invalidates the instruction altogether (a syntax error) or throws the program counter out of sync (the frames). The result? It won't work or worse, the computer crashes, it dies. IF by some chance a valid instruction is inserted AND satisfies the counter it must also be placed within the program at a point it will not upset the remaining code AND benefit the outcome. That is beyond slim as chances go. I've done a lot of programming in my time from machine code (assembly) to C++ to basic and I assure you an error or mutation anywhere within the program does not benefit the whole. Then there's the "checksum" to worry about during a copy procedure or replication. If that doesn't match the program is useless and the replication process invalidated.

Being a programmer myself i see plenty of problems with that line of reasoning. A finished program is designed to operate at peak efficiency; any change of course will degrade it - it operates at a local maximum of its fitness curve. Besides, DNA is not like a computer program at all - a program will simply not compile due to syntax errors, whereas DNA has no such problems.

However, are you familiar with avida? It's an experiment of small assembler-like programs evolving by mutation and selection. It works nicely.

Moreoever, genetic algorithms have been successfully used to create designs that exceed even the solutions that the best human engineers could come up with.

Then there's the "checksum" to worry about during a copy procedure or replication.

The reason is different though. These checksums are used because in these use cases any change is considered bad by definition. Moreover, it's not a situation comparable to evolution at all, as there is no differential reproductive success.

 

[Rick W]

Bacteria? Adaptation sure such as resilience to drugs etc. but not changing from one class of bacteria to another or changing to another type of higher class of organism that's not a bacteria. By your system a bacteria should be able to change to an amoeba or something along those lines.
So when and how does a bacteria develope into something of a higher order on the so-called evolutionary chain or tree?
A search for something in between a bacteria and the higher order organism isn't proof that it evolved from the bacteria to the target organism for that does not prove an evolutionary mechanism but rather the variety of life found on this planet. The supposed mechanism isn't proven simply because something exists. That's theory and conclusion on the part of the one wanting to believe it's so.

 

[jwu]

Bacteria? Adaptation sure such as resilience to drugs etc. but not changing from one class of bacteria to another or changing to another type of higher class of organism that's not a bacteria.

What else is required to cause massive changes to the genome?

When exactly would you say that a population of bacteria has evolved to a different "class" of bacteria? Please define the term "class" so we can fix this goalpost.

By your system a bacteria should be able to change to an amoeba or something along those lines.
So when and how does a bacteria develope into something of a higher order on the so-called evolutionary chain or tree?

If that were to happen, evolution would be disproved.

However, such things as multicellular colonies of bacteria which previously used to live on their own has been directly observed.

What evolutionary chain?

A search for something in between a bacteria and the higher order organism isn't proof that it evolved from the bacteria to the target organism for that does not prove an evolutionary mechanism but rather the variety of life found on this planet.

Of course it isn't proof of any such thing. Science doesn't even deal with "proof" but evidence, nothing is ever proven in science and such a search is not used as evidence for evolution either. What actually is used as evidence for evolution if things are found exactly where the ToE predicts them to be, and a lack of finds where the ToE predicts that none should be found.

 

[Slevin]

Bacteria? Adaptation sure such as resilience to drugs etc. but not changing from one class of bacteria to another or changing to another type of higher class of organism that's not a bacteria. By your system a bacteria should be able to change to an amoeba or something along those lines.

No, why would that happen, by "my" system?

So when and how does a bacteria develope into something of a higher order on the so-called evolutionary chain or tree?

There's no such thing, you just fabricated the concept "higher order". There is no evolutionary chain or tree.

The supposed mechanism isn't proven simply because something exists. That's theory and conclusion on the part of the one wanting to believe it's so.

Except that again you have demonstrated that you don't read anything except creationist literature.

 

[Rick W]

I've said my peace.
You'll trust in man's wisdom regardless of what is said.

 

[Slevin]

I've said my peace.
You'll trust in man's wisdom regardless of what is said.

Good, take your ball and go home. The hallmark of dogmatic thinking.

 

[Rick W]

/Man in the multitude
Who brought the fish?

/Disciple
See that man over there? He created it about 20 minutes ago.

/Man
Hogwash. It came from the sea like any other fish.

/Disciple
That's what you see. That's what you know.
Believe me. Or better yet believe Him that created it.

/Man
Anyone can tell you fish must come from somewhere and not just instantly created.
It came from the sea.

/Disciple
I'll not argue.
You trust only in your eyes and man's wisdom. I'll leave you to enjoy your meal.
:smt039

/Man
Good, take your ball and go home. The hallmark of dogmatic thinking.

 

[Jayls5]

/Man in the multitude
Who brought the fish?

/Disciple
See that man over there? He created it about 20 minutes ago.

/Man
Hogwash. It came from the sea like any other fish.

/Disciple
That's what you see. That's what you know.
Believe me. Or better yet believe Him that created it.

/Man
Anyone can tell you fish must come from somewhere and not just instantly created.
It came from the sea.

/Disciple
I'll not argue.
You trust only in your eyes and man's wisdom. I'll leave you to enjoy your meal.
:smt039

/Man
Good, take your ball and go home. The hallmark of dogmatic thinking.

false analogy.

natural ----> natural being argued by man in your scenario while supernatural ---> natural is being argued by you.

 

[bacord]

I say yes and it agrees with these last days discovery by scientist.
Through their telescopes and computers they discovered the big bang.

Their computers told them something they are not shouting out to the public.
The beginning of all matter happened so quickly they are having a hard time explaining
the number (it was that quick).

The real problem presented to them they found it came about in a perfect order holding all things in a perfect place in order to give life in our universe.

It disturbed them so much they went through their equations over and over.

Amazingly they had discovered an in order creation they had discovered God.

They had discovered a creator of unlimited power.

Still not many believe in the same Father we believe they just must agree all was created by design.

Didn’t God say he was revealed in the heavens, wonder if that was a prophecy for our time?

At this time I haven’t been able to find this on-line I watched a group of scientist talk about this on tv.
I sat there with my mouth open and then fell over laughing.

Of course they will try to keep this from John Q this would change what they are teaching our children in school.

What would happen to their funding?

 

[jwu]

The beginning of all matter happened so quickly they are having a hard time explaining
the number (it was that quick).

Actually the processes following the big bang are quite well understood...matter condensed later on.

What do you mean by "quickly"?

The real problem presented to them they found it came about in a perfect order holding all things in a perfect place in order to give life in our universe.

It disturbed them so much they went through their equations over and over.

What is the supposed problem with this?

Still not many believe in the same Father we believe they just must agree all was created by design.

Why?
(I am a Christian but i cannot follow your line of reasoning)

What would happen to their funding?

The one making such a discovery and providing solid evidence for it would become rich and famous. Galileo, Newton and Einstein would appear insignificant in comparison.

 

[Slevin]

/Man in the multitude
Who brought the fish?

/Disciple
See that man over there? He created it about 20 minutes ago.

/Man
Hogwash. It came from the sea like any other fish.

/Disciple
That's what you see. That's what you know.
Believe me. Or better yet believe Him that created it.

/Man
Anyone can tell you fish must come from somewhere and not just instantly created.
It came from the sea.

/Disciple
I'll not argue.
You trust only in your eyes and man's wisdom. I'll leave you to enjoy your meal.
:smt039

/Man
Good, take your ball and go home. The hallmark of dogmatic thinking.

Show me fish being created from nothing and then maybe you'll have a point, anything else and it's just hubris on your part.

 

[Guest]

I love how the "church-going" Christians start talking about a topic, "Did the Big Bang happen?" for example, and then they just side-track to something about fish being created in 20 minutes .

I thought we're going to discuss the Big Bang...

 

[Slevin]

I love how the "church-going" Christians start talking about a topic, "Did the Big Bang happen?" for example, and then they just side-track to something about fish being created in 20 minutes .

I thought we're going to discuss the Big Bang...

That and bringing up Evolution. Apparently correcting people on what the science of Evolution and the Big Bang actually say rather than their misrepresentations and ignorance is saying that Science is irrefutable... :

 

[Dunamite]

this topic is a interesting one;

first off i believe that God created everything, and thus he put it into motion

in genesis 1

it states that the Earth was a lifeless viod

so what is to say that the Earth is not millions of years old?
life is not millions of years old

so in reality the big bang could have happened.

Yes, it happened, but that does not explain anything. Matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed according to the laws of thermodynamics, so it impossible for the Big Bang to create the universe. It had to pre-exist in some form. It merely expanded outward, but something had to put it in there in the first place.

Quantum mechanics deals with what happens when we approach infinity. As gravity approaches infinity a black home forms. Matter approaches zero as it becomes infinitely dense. Energy in the form of light cannot escape and it becomes infinitely small.

Infinity is hard to comprehend, but as the universe shrinks to a single theoretical point it is mathematically verifiable. This is referred to as the Singularity. As we look at infinity in other scenarios we get the same thing, singularities. Recent theories such as string theory look at the universe as a multi-verse.

The Bible looks at it from the opposite end. It looks from God outward. God exists outside of space and time as a singularity. There is one God. He says that he is I AM. He alone exists and is self aware. All life and creation comes from him. God spoke the universe into being.

These two ideas are not incompatible. They are two ways of looking at the same thing.

The more we look at matter and sub-atomic particles the more abstract things become. Solid objects are mostly filled with space. Electrons become not fixed objects because you cannot locate them accurately. The uncertainty principle says that if you know its speed you can't know the location and if you know the location you can't know its speed. Atoms themselves it seems are mostly made of space and there are sub-atomic particles that act in the same way. The closer we look the less things seem to be what they are on the surface.

Is the universe open or closed? Is there a multi-verse or one universe? Science is no closer to finding out. The questions keep on coming and we just keep on guessing. Big Bang is not an answer, but it is just a stop along the way.

 

[Dunamite]

An eminent physicist wrote an interesting book called the Physics of Christianity. He makes a case as a scientist for the existence of God. It is by Frank Tipler. It is tough slogging for people who do not have a background in science, but it is a worthwhile read if you can persevere.

Another good scientist who is also a Christian is Francis Collins who led the Human Genome Project. He has written on the subject of science and Christianity working in tandem to show God's hand in creating life and the universe. He believes in evolution and sees no contradiction to evolution and a Christian view of creation. Here is a link to an interview with Collins.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... drelig.DTL

 

[John]

1.The big bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can't happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The big bang is a theoretical extreme, just as a black hole. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. Let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.

2. Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.

3.A vacuum has no density, It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded,. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.

4. There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there was no atoms!

5.There is no way to expand it. How could you expand what isn't there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" witch brought it together would keep it from expanding

6.Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source.

7.The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a big bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out in others they are too exacting.

7 out of about 167 reasons why BBT is complete crap.

This is how it happened

Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth.

What i see a lot of here is a lot of people putting a box around God and limiting his capability, how can you expect to fathom an infinite being with our feeble little minds.

 

[jwu]

1.The big bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can't happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The big bang is a theoretical extreme, just as a black hole. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. Let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.

Actually, the effects of black holes have been directly observed, as have been traces and evidence of the big bang. Red shift, cosmic background radiation etc.

2. Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.

Fortunately, the BB theory makes no such claim.

3.A vacuum has no density, It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded,. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.

Since the BB isn't about an explosion of nothingness, but an expansion of spacetime, this point misses the mark as well.

4. There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there was no atoms!

The BB was no explosion...

5.There is no way to expand it. How could you expand what isn't there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" witch brought it together would keep it from expanding

Since it's not about nothingness, this point is based on wrong premises.

6.Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source.

A vaccuum can contain energy in form of radiation.

7.The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a big bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out in others they are too exacting.

Please provide specific examples.


Please, learn about the BB theory before you criticize it. What you described sounds like it came from an elementary school textbook which is supposed to give a rough overview for children by means of gross simplification. Of course, this makes an easy straw man to burn, but in order to achieve something, you haveto take it up with the real thing.

 

[John]

Okay lets assume the BB did happen, please answer these.

1. There is no way to unite outward rushing particles. as the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting farther and farther apart from one another.

2. Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles. The BB is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of a ll matter, in witch a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter. There would be no way those particles could ever slow.

3. The particles would maintain the same vector forever. Assuming the particles were moving outward through totally empty space, there is no way they could change direction. they could not get together and begin circling one another.

4. There is no way to slow said particles. They are traveling at supersonic speed and every kilomete would separate them even more from each other.

5. There is no way to change the direction of even one particle. They would keep racing on forever, never slowing, never changing direction. There is no way to get the particles to form into atoms or cluster into gaseous clouds. Angular momentum would be needed, and the laws of physics could not produce it.

6. how could their atomic structures originate ? atoms, even hydrogen and helium, have complex structures. there is no way that outward shooting particles, continually separating farther from each other as they travel, could arrange themselves into atomic structures.