What created the matter for the big bang?

[ikester7579]

I start this thread in response to the one that asks: What created God. To show that even science has a god did it excuse. For if you cannot answer where the matter came from, and scientifically prove it to some degree of truth. Then it is only a guess that takes pure faith to believe. No evidence equals faith. To believe something that cannot even reach the first degree level of truth that a theory requires, is not scientific to believe.

So how does nothing create something for the big bang to occur?

I believe the science field has just as big a problem trying to answer that question, as a Christian has answering where God came from.

 

[penlost]

Science has a problem with the big bang theory, let alone what happened before that.

 

[ZeroTX]

What created the "skin" on top of a refrigerated bowl of pudding?.... These are questions that no one on earth knows the answers to. I pray we may all have the opportunity to ask God one day in heaven.

-Michael

 

[peace4all]

Why make up such a complicated answer, for a question. Most people leave it at " The matter always was, and always will be" Christians then scoff and say "How can that be so, someone must have created it"

and then it becomes "what created god"
"God always was, and always will be."

The big bang theory just takes out God pretty much. THe theory can go to a point, and no further, and instead of adding something to the end, they leave it there. They could easily say "god did it" "aliens that are far superior did it" or "Gnesha did it, so lets all be hindu" But, they don't because that is illogical

 

[Quath]

So how does nothing create something for the big bang to occur?

The way I like to envision it is 2 + (-2) = 0. From nothing (0), you can get 2 and -2 (somethings).

Another point of confusion is that the Big Bang marks the beginning of the universe and time, but the universe is eternal (existing for all time). It sounds paradoxial until you really think about it.

Quath

 

[moniker]

One of the thoughts is that the universe expands and contracts producing big bangs once every [large number] of years. It's one of the fundamental questions that theoretical physics is working on but in the end it's essentially an impossible question to know. Particularly since Einstein and Newtonian understanding breaks down as you enter the infinitely small, for instance in a singularity, or why quantum mechanics has its own set of rules. String theory kind of approaches this but it's way out there and most physicists don't accept is as an actual theory and view it as more of a religion of sorts.

If you have no problem with God being His own first cause I don't see how the universe being its own first cause is that difficult to accept.

 

[ikester7579]

Why make up such a complicated answer, for a question. Most people leave it at " The matter always was, and always will be" Christians then scoff and say "How can that be so, someone must have created it"

First off, the Big Bang Theory does not say that the matter was always there. It says that in the begining there was nothing. To take a phrase out of one science book: "Nothing means Nothing". So what your suggesting is not even part of the theory.

and then it becomes "what created god"
"God always was, and always will be."

Yep, just like evolution excuse: Given enough time, anything can happen. When was time created? How was time created?

The big bang theory just takes out God pretty much. THe theory can go to a point, and no further, and instead of adding something to the end, they leave it there. They could easily say "god did it" "aliens that are far superior did it" or "Gnesha did it, so lets all be hindu" But, they don't because that is illogical

And science says: time did it, or they could say natural selection did it, or chance and accident did it, or a lightening strike did it etc.... For every excuse you come up with that you try and make God, and those who follow Him stupid with. I can come up with for the other side.

Problem from your point of view is that every theory needs new excuses. God's word has not changed that much. Only that people keep trying to apply different ideas. Or lie about it.

So if I ask another question, which excuse will you use to explain it away?

1) Time,
2) Matter always was.
3) Natural selection did it.
4) Chance and accidents did it.
5) Lightening strike did it.

etc....

 

[ikester7579]

So how does nothing create something for the big bang to occur?

The way I like to envision it is 2 + (-2) = 0. From nothing (0), you can get 2 and -2 (somethings).

Another point of confusion is that the Big Bang marks the beginning of the universe and time, but the universe is eternal (existing for all time). It sounds paradoxial until you really think about it.

Quath

How did the Big Bang create time? How do you compress gas pass it's latice point? Which is the point that gas turns to liquid when being compressed.

How come more explosion don't create time within time? They happen all the time in space.

How do you compress a liquid to a point the size od a dot?
How do you compress a solid to a point the size of a dot?

Etc...

 

[ikester7579]

One of the thoughts is that the universe expands and contracts producing big bangs once every [large number] of years. It's one of the fundamental questions that theoretical physics is working on but in the end it's essentially an impossible question to know. Particularly since Einstein and Newtonian understanding breaks down as you enter the infinitely small, for instance in a singularity, or why quantum mechanics has its own set of rules. String theory kind of approaches this but it's way out there and most physicists don't accept is as an actual theory and view it as more of a religion of sorts.

If you have no problem with God being His own first cause I don't see how the universe being its own first cause is that difficult to accept.

Then the actual written theories need to be re-written to show that things always was. Problem for science is that no one likes to admit they were wrong. And this is more so when the replacement brings up more questions than it has answers for.

 

[Drew]

One of the thoughts is that the universe expands and contracts producing big bangs once every [large number] of years. It's one of the fundamental questions that theoretical physics is working on but in the end it's essentially an impossible question to know. Particularly since Einstein and Newtonian understanding breaks down as you enter the infinitely small, for instance in a singularity, or why quantum mechanics has its own set of rules. String theory kind of approaches this but it's way out there and most physicists don't accept is as an actual theory and view it as more of a religion of sorts.

If you have no problem with God being His own first cause I don't see how the universe being its own first cause is that difficult to accept.

Then the actual written theories need to be re-written to show that things always was. Problem for science is that no one likes to admit they were wrong. And this is more so when the replacement brings up more questions than it has answers for.

I do not really follow this reasoning. It appears (as I think Moniker is saying) that any view of the origin of the universe will run into the "first cause" problem. So all models are on the same footing in this regard - in terms of providing a neat explanation with all loose ends tied, the "theistic" view and the "atheistic" view have the exact same status.

So the Christian has no more justification to ask the atheist to "rewrite the theories to show that things always was" than does the atheist to ask the Christian to give an account of how God comes to be.

I was quite surprised to read the claim that "Problem for science is that no one likes to admit they were wrong". If anything, the scientific method entails a willingness to let nature dictate truth to us. And if new facts suggest a need to rework our models, so be it. This is a better approach that applying a "religious" worldview to the world and forcing evidence to fit, no matter how awkward things get. It is a strength of science that there is all this reworking of theories. The scientific method is only responding to the fact that the real world is complex and subtle.

 

[ikester7579]

One of the thoughts is that the universe expands and contracts producing big bangs once every [large number] of years. It's one of the fundamental questions that theoretical physics is working on but in the end it's essentially an impossible question to know. Particularly since Einstein and Newtonian understanding breaks down as you enter the infinitely small, for instance in a singularity, or why quantum mechanics has its own set of rules. String theory kind of approaches this but it's way out there and most physicists don't accept is as an actual theory and view it as more of a religion of sorts.

If you have no problem with God being His own first cause I don't see how the universe being its own first cause is that difficult to accept.

Then the actual written theories need to be re-written to show that things always was. Problem for science is that no one likes to admit they were wrong. And this is more so when the replacement brings up more questions than it has answers for.

I do not really follow this reasoning. It appears (as I think Moniker is saying) that any view of the origin of the universe will run into the "first cause" problem. So all models are on the same footing in this regard - in terms of providing a neat explanation with all loose ends tied, the "theistic" view and the "atheistic" view have the exact same status.

So the Christian has no more justification to ask the atheist to "rewrite the theories to show that things always was" than does the atheist to ask the Christian to give an account of how God comes to be.

I was quite surprised to read the claim that "Problem for science is that no one likes to admit they were wrong". If anything, the scientific method entails a willingness to let nature dictate truth to us. And if new facts suggest a need to rework our models, so be it. This is a better approach that applying a "religious" worldview to the world and forcing evidence to fit, no matter how awkward things get. It is a strength of science that there is all this reworking of theories. The scientific method is only responding to the fact that the real world is complex and subtle.

If they have no problem admitting to being wrong. Why was the haeckel lie still taught 150 years after it was found to be a fraud?

Why was Piltdown man still left in the books for so long?

In fact, Haeckels lies will be reprinted. And taught to out kids again. I guess it's light Hitler said. You tell a lie long enough and loud enough, people will soon start to believe it.

So I wonder how long it will be before they reprint piltdown man in the books. After all, the fraud of piltdown man is not any worse than what Haeckel did. So why not?
Haeckel:
http://www.yecheadquarters.org/catalog2.0.html5.29.html

Piltdown man:
http://www.yecheadquarters.org/catalog2.0.html5.4.html

One man faked drawings, another faked a skull. If one gets reprinted, why not the other as well?

 

[Drew]

If they have no problem admitting to being wrong. Why was the haeckel lie still taught 150 years after it was found to be a fraud?

Why was Piltdown man still left in the books for so long?

In fact, Haeckels lies will be reprinted. And taught to out kids again. I guess it's light Hitler said. You tell a lie long enough and loud enough, people will soon start to believe it.

So I wonder how long it will be before they reprint piltdown man in the books. After all, the fraud of piltdown man is not any worse than what Haeckel did. So why not?
Haeckel:
http://www.yecheadquarters.org/catalog2.0.html5.29.html

Piltdown man:
http://www.yecheadquarters.org/catalog2.0.html5.4.html

One man faked drawings, another faked a skull. If one gets reprinted, why not the other as well?

I know nothing about these items and I certainly grant that there are frauds perpetrated in the world of science - as there are in the Christian church as well.

My point is that the scientific method has worked so well and improved our lives greatly because of its "humility" - a commitment to drop dogma and let nature tell us what she is like. An alternative where we approach nature with a pre-commitment to believe, for example, that the universe is 6,000 years (I am not suggesting that you beleive this, by the way), just does not work.

 

[ikester7579]

If they have no problem admitting to being wrong. Why was the haeckel lie still taught 150 years after it was found to be a fraud?

Why was Piltdown man still left in the books for so long?

In fact, Haeckels lies will be reprinted. And taught to out kids again. I guess it's light Hitler said. You tell a lie long enough and loud enough, people will soon start to believe it.

So I wonder how long it will be before they reprint piltdown man in the books. After all, the fraud of piltdown man is not any worse than what Haeckel did. So why not?
Haeckel:
http://www.yecheadquarters.org/catalog2.0.html5.29.html

Piltdown man:
http://www.yecheadquarters.org/catalog2.0.html5.4.html

One man faked drawings, another faked a skull. If one gets reprinted, why not the other as well?

I know nothing about these items and I certainly grant that there are frauds perpetrated in the world of science - as there are in the Christian church as well.

My point is that the scientific method has worked so well and improved our lives greatly because of its "humility" - a commitment to drop dogma and let nature tell us what she is like. An alternative where we approach nature with a pre-commitment to believe, for example, that the universe is 6,000 years (I am not suggesting that you beleive this, by the way), just does not work.

Does God lie?

 

[Quath]

How did the Big Bang create time? How do you compress gas pass it's latice point? Which is the point that gas turns to liquid when being compressed.

The Big Bang is the creation of time (accordiing to most version of the theory I have heard). The Big Bang does not create time.

I am not sure why you are asking the other questions. Is that something to do with stellar evolution?

How come more explosion don't create time within time? They happen all the time in space.

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. It was an existance that filled 3D space full of energy. So explosions don't create time.

But there could be an infinite number of Big Bangs. Our universe does not intersect those universes, so we have no knowledge of them.

How do you compress a liquid to a point the size od a dot?
How do you compress a solid to a point the size of a dot?

With enough energy, the quantum waves of the subatomic particles will overlap. When the density of this energy gets high enough, it cancels out the space and they disappear into nothingness.

Quath

 

[Drew]

Does God lie?

No, God does not lie. And I now assume that you might be a "young earth creationist". If so, you still need to show that the creation account is to be taken literally. And your argument cannot be simply that we need to take the Bible literally, unless you think that trees clap hands and mountains sing, as per this text from Isaiah:

You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.

 

[moniker]

I could have sworn that biology had long since left Haekel and Piltdown in the dust. Do you have any sources where modern understandings and claims are tied on to their frauds?

 

[ikester7579]

Does God lie?

No, God does not lie. And I now assume that you might be a "young earth creationist". If so, you still need to show that the creation account is to be taken literally. And your argument cannot be simply that we need to take the Bible literally, unless you think that trees clap hands and mountains sing, as per this text from Isaiah:

You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.

And I take it your a OEC and a theistic evolutionist. I like to see you explain why everything does not date back to the big bang. And after 18 billion years, some planets and moons are still hot.

Coming from one source means all matter dates back to it. Or is the dating process flawed?

Excuse options for science:
1) it's according to how accurate you want to be about dating something.
2) Dating markers are not present until object starts to cool (which brings the question: how long was it hot?).
3) Multible bangs made these problems (no evidence, only an excuse).
etc....

Earth coming from matter that exploded, came apart, or what ever is claimed for more confusion. Means all matter is 18 billion years old, if truth be told. But what does earth date back to? 4.5 billion years?

So we have 18 billion year old matter that dates 4.5 billion years. sounds like the dating methods are not working. That date is off by about 12 billion years.

In fact, if dating markers are not left until objects start to cool. The coldest objects should date the oldest, and the hotest should date the youngest. But that's not what we find do we?

As far as trees clapping go. Do you think trees in Heaven will be the same as on earth? After all, was it not a serpent who tempted Eve. But no serpent speaks today. Which means that Heaven is very different from what we comprehend. But if you only believe what you see, then I can't help you there.

 

[ikester7579]

I could have sworn that biology had long since left Haekel and Piltdown in the dust. Do you have any sources where modern understandings and claims are tied on to their frauds?

Haeckel is going to be raised to evolution hero status. Evolutionist are already coming up with ways to explain his fraud away so his ideas can be reprinted ans used in our school text books.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... eckel.html

Haeckel admitted to lying, was even convicted of fraud by his own university. But that does not matter when it comes to Haeckel's ideas. So His fraudulent ideas, and reworked pics get reprinted, and the lies continue. So I guess all the rest of evolution's frauds will be dug up and re-done, reprinted, and retaught as truth. :roll:

So if this is allowed, where will it stop?

 

[Quath]

And I take it your a OEC and a theistic evolutionist. I like to see you explain why everything does not date back to the big bang. And after 18 billion years, some planets and moons are still hot.

The Earth is still hot due to the radioactivity. I would assume that applies to some of the other planets as well.

Coming from one source means all matter dates back to it. Or is the dating process flawed?

There are two sources of "matter." The Big Bang produced hydrogen, helium and lithium. However, a star made all the elements up to iron while it burned. When it novaed, it made all the elements up to uranium. Some of this matter reformed into our solar system.

Earth coming from matter that exploded, came apart, or what ever is claimed for more confusion. Means all matter is 18 billion years old, if truth be told. But what does earth date back to? 4.5 billion years?

The age of the universe has been estimated to 13.7 billion years old with an uncertainty of 200 million years. Many dating methods such as microwave background, estimation of other ages of stars and figuring out how long it took light to get here show that the universe is between 10 to 20 billion years old. The 13.7 billion years comes from very detailed look at the microwave background radiation.

The Earth is 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). A good source to explain this dating method is at Talk Origins.

So we have 18 billion year old matter that dates 4.5 billion years. sounds like the dating methods are not working. That date is off by about 12 billion years.

There is a star that novas in the middle of all of this and that is why we have two different age references.

As far as trees clapping go. Do you think trees in Heaven will be the same as on earth? After all, was it not a serpent who tempted Eve. But no serpent speaks today. Which means that Heaven is very different from what we comprehend. But if you only believe what you see, then I can't help you there.

Wow. :o That kind of creeped me out. Clapping trees and singing mountains sounds kind of weird.

Quath

 

[moniker]

I could have sworn that biology had long since left Haekel and Piltdown in the dust. Do you have any sources where modern understandings and claims are tied on to their frauds?

Haeckel is going to be raised to evolution hero status. Evolutionist are already coming up with ways to explain his fraud away so his ideas can be reprinted ans used in our school text books.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... eckel.html

. . . so did evolutionary biologists, and Haeckel's idea was quickly discarded.

Thank you for proving my point?