I have a question for those who hate creationism

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Glad to educate you. In the first place the question of how the universe started is totally separate from the creation question. I believe at least one line of Genesis is true, "let there be light"(The Big Bang). Creation of life on earth, however, is a different story. That was accomplished by evolution utilizing the Laws of Chemistry and Physics laid down at the beginning. God created the universe, but used evolution to create life, IMO.

Well I think life evolved on earth and I've seen proof of life forms evolving so I'm not getting into that part but I'm really curious as to where the big bang came from.

How does science prove that the big bang happened?
How does science prove how the situation that caused the big bang to happen came to be?

This is where science is trying to pass off "adaptation" for "evolution."

One can ask the very same question you're asking of "where did the big bang come from" as to "where did life on earth come from?" Earth was an extremely hot, molten blob floating around in space with no atmosphere, water or anything, and completely devoid of any kind of life. How did life get here when life couldn't have survived the earth's formative years?

I don't think adaptation and evolution are mutually exclusive...in fact I think they are inseparably connected.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Let's start with your first question since there is no point in answering the second if you don't believe there was a Big Bang in the first place.

WMAP Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

Scientists discover possible cosmic defect, remnant from Big Bang

Scientists from the Institute of Physics of Cantabria (IFCA) and the University of Cambridge may have discovered an example of a cosmic defect, a remnant from the Big Bang called a texture. If confirmed, their discovery, reported today in Science, will provide dramatic new insight into how the universe evolved following the Big Bang.

Textures are defects in the structure of the vacuum left over from the hot early universe. Professor Neil Turok of Cambridge's Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics first showed how textures form in the 1990s, highlighting that some would survive from the Big Bang and should be visible in today's universe. Textures can be observed by the hot and cold spots they create in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) which fills the universe and was released in the Big Bang 14 billion years ago.

The Big Bang theory proposes that the cosmos began in a very high density, high temperature state, cooling as it expands. In the early hot universe, physicists believe that the different types of elementary particle (particles such as a quark from which larger particles are created) behaved identically. As the universe cooled, the vacuum changed and the symmetry between the particles was broken, in a phase transition analogous to the freezing of water. During this kind of phase transition, quarks become distinct from electrons and neutrinos, for example.



Just as misalignments in the crystalline structure of ice lead to defects, misalignments in the symmetry-breaking pattern form cosmic defects. Textures, such as the one which may have been discovered, are one type of defect.

Ok so the theory is based off of faith that the universe once existed in a specific state...that state being very dense and hot.

My issue is im not sure how we know this. how are scientists backing up the idea that the universe was once super hot and super dense then exploded and evolved into what we have today from the explosion?

I see theories and assumptions on how it happened that remind me of many creationist religious peoples assumptions and theories that a god exists and created everything.

This annoys me, its like the bible thumpers and the big bangers are very similar in mindset. They both exhibit faith in something neither can prove and they both try to "Bash" the other as being ignorant or wrong.

I just want to know how the big bang actually happened with solid, scientific evidence.

What annoys me is you spoon feed Creationists exactly what they ask for and they pretend it was never provided to them and call the MEASURED evidence "FAITH." Obviously you are only interested in calling science "faith" and no amount of measured evidence will persuade you otherwise.
Thank you.

But there is no measured evidence provided to me as to how the superhot, superdense mass came into existence in the first place.

Im just interested in understanding why those who appear vitriolic towards people who believe in creationism dont have the same vitriol towards those who have faith that the origins of the big bang are what the theorists are assuming they are.

Both are operating on a faith in something we cant/have yet to prove.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Well that is the problem people have with science. They find something and then teach it as absolute fact until other wise proven to not be correct.
For years text books in schools taught that no life could exist far down into the earth.
They have now found a worm 2 miles down that lives there.
'Worms from hell' found miles down in the Earth - TwinCities.com
They do the same thing with space. They are theories and are not proven facts.
Dismissing God and creation as myth. No proof one way or the other yet.
And those that don't believe in God as just stories.

You just stated the issue im having and the issue that motivated this thread. Doing what I made big in your quote is the same as having faith in something. You believe it without solid, irrefutablel, proof because its seem correct or logical to you.

The whole post is good actually......why are people so closed minded?

 

[edthecynic]

How does science prove that the big bang happened?
How does science prove how the situation that caused the big bang to happen came to be?

Let's start with your first question since there is no point in answering the second if you don't believe there was a Big Bang in the first place.

WMAP Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

Scientists discover possible cosmic defect, remnant from Big Bang

Scientists from the Institute of Physics of Cantabria (IFCA) and the University of Cambridge may have discovered an example of a cosmic defect, a remnant from the Big Bang called a texture. If confirmed, their discovery, reported today in Science, will provide dramatic new insight into how the universe evolved following the Big Bang.

Textures are defects in the structure of the vacuum left over from the hot early universe. Professor Neil Turok of Cambridge's Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics first showed how textures form in the 1990s, highlighting that some would survive from the Big Bang and should be visible in today's universe. Textures can be observed by the hot and cold spots they create in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) which fills the universe and was released in the Big Bang 14 billion years ago.

The Big Bang theory proposes that the cosmos began in a very high density, high temperature state, cooling as it expands. In the early hot universe, physicists believe that the different types of elementary particle (particles such as a quark from which larger particles are created) behaved identically. As the universe cooled, the vacuum changed and the symmetry between the particles was broken, in a phase transition analogous to the freezing of water. During this kind of phase transition, quarks become distinct from electrons and neutrinos, for example.



Just as misalignments in the crystalline structure of ice lead to defects, misalignments in the symmetry-breaking pattern form cosmic defects. Textures, such as the one which may have been discovered, are one type of defect.

Ok so the theory is based off of faith that the universe once existed in a specific state...that state being very dense and hot.

My issue is im not sure how we know this. how are scientists backing up the idea that the universe was once super hot and super dense then exploded and evolved into what we have today from the explosion?

I see theories and assumptions on how it happened that remind me of many creationist religious peoples assumptions and theories that a god exists and created everything.

This annoys me, its like the bible thumpers and the big bangers are very similar in mindset. They both exhibit faith in something neither can prove and they both try to "Bash" the other as being ignorant or wrong.

I just want to know how the big bang actually happened with solid, scientific evidence.

What annoys me is you spoon feed Creationists exactly what they ask for and they pretend it was never provided to them and call the MEASURED evidence "FAITH." Obviously you are only interested in calling science "faith" and no amount of measured evidence will persuade you otherwise.
Thank you.

But there is no measured evidence provided to me as to how the superhot, superdense mass came into existence in the first place.

Im just interested in understanding why those who appear vitriolic towards people who believe in creationism dont have the same vitriol towards those who have faith that the origins of the big bang are what the theorists are assuming they are.

Both are operating on a faith in something we cant/have yet to prove.

You asked 2 questions and I said I would START with the first question because there is no point answering the second if you will not accept the measured facts that show that a Big bang took place. You have made it clear that you do not accept the MEASURED background microwave radiation as anything other than "FAITH." It is your FAITH that anything science can measure is just faith.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Because it still doesn't explain how it actually came into existence.

that evidence shows that there may have been something but it doesnt show how it came to be.

Im not trying to prove or disprove either side here im just trying to get past the conception that the big bang theorists run on as much faith as the creationists.

 

[peach174]

I have a problem with scientists who do not think that there is a God and only their answers are the only way and true. They dismiss believers as intellectually inferior.
I believe in the big bang theory. It goes right along with Genesis as do several other scientific theories.

 

[edthecynic]

Well that is the problem people have with science. They find something and then teach it as absolute fact until other wise proven to not be correct.
For years text books in schools taught that no life could exist far down into the earth.
They have now found a worm 2 miles down that lives there.
'Worms from hell' found miles down in the Earth - TwinCities.com
They do the same thing with space. They are theories and are not proven facts.
Dismissing God and creation as myth. No proof one way or the other yet.
And those that don't believe in God as just stories.

I know of no such science "text book" that teaches that. A Creationist text book might. Would you please link to these text books?

Your own linked article admits that it was already known that bacteria lived below the surface using the energy from radioactive rocks to break apart the molecules they feed on. Your link simply reports that these worms are the most COMPLEX forms of life found deep in the Earth.

 

[edthecynic]

Because it still doesn't explain how it actually came into existence.

that evidence shows that there may have been something but it doesnt show how it came to be.

Im not trying to prove or disprove either side here im just trying to get past the conception that the big bang theorists run on as much faith as the creationists.

No, it's not "there MAY have been" there WAS something, and that "something" is called the Big Bang, for want of a better name. Since you will not accept the measured microwave evidence as proof of anything, then there is no point of trying to go further. You doggedly want to cling to your premise that science is faith based and no amount of evidence will ever change your mind. Why try to answer your second question if you won't accept the answer to your first question!!!!!

 

[peach174]

I'm talking about science text books that taught there was no complex life forms deep below the earths surface.
Organisms yes complex life no, until now.

 

[geauxtohell]

How did the universe come into being?

Opine and Educate me please.

It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know" and that in no way defaults to "God did it".

I am not an athiest, but I find the rhetoical game of hiding behind the fact that science can't explain every single facet of the natural as a de facto affirmation of a supernatural force to be asinine and intellectually dishonest.

On that note, explain the discrepancies between the biblical account of creationism and the well established scientific findings that the world is well over 6000 years old and a variety of other questions.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Because it still doesn't explain how it actually came into existence.

that evidence shows that there may have been something but it doesnt show how it came to be.

Im not trying to prove or disprove either side here im just trying to get past the conception that the big bang theorists run on as much faith as the creationists.

No, it's not "there MAY have been" there WAS something, and that "something" is called the Big Bang, for want of a better name. Since you will not accept the measured microwave evidence as proof of anything, then there is no point of trying to go further. You doggedly want to cling to your premise that science is faith based and no amount of evidence will ever change your mind. Why try to answer your second question if you won't accept the answer to your first question!!!!!

thats simply not true ed. Not true at all.

there is no empirical proof of how the matter that caused what is theorized to be the big bang came to be into such a state to allow for the big bang.

You just dont have an answer and instead of admitting you must have some faith to believe in the big bang you want to try to insult me for asking about the proof in the first place.

Let me try out your technique:

Good thing scientists aren't like you or we would still believe the scientific "proof" that the earth was flat.

 

[geauxtohell]

What are evolutionists afraid of?
Objective subjects need more than one point of view studied. It's called education.

Feel free to try and fit religion into the standards of the scientific method. You may succeed where others have failed.

 

[ABikerSailor]

First off, I believe like another poster on this thread does. God said "let there be Light" and the Big Bang kicked off.

Scientists have figured out (using the Doppler effect) where the origins of the Big Bang are, and it holds some of the oldest stars in the Universe.

Now, to explain the Big Bang........

Scientists have several theories on this. One is called M theory (membrane) and they think that when 2 membranes collide (walls of other universes) a big bang is the result.

Then......there's bubble theory, which states our universe is only 1 of many in the multiverse. They've theorized and mathematically, it is possible.

Now. Where did the Big Bang come from? Well......in the process of things dropping down a black hole, they tend to get spaghettified and torn apart, making really long strings in the process.

Nobody knows where they end up.

Who knows? Maybe our Big Bang and subsequent universe came from a black hole in another universe eating a galaxy.

Or.........maybe our black hole is the center of another galaxy (like the center of the Milky Way is).

 

[geauxtohell]

First off, I believe like another poster on this thread does. God said "let there be Light" and the Big Bang kicked off.

Scientists have figured out (using the Doppler effect) where the origins of the Big Bang are, and it holds some of the oldest stars in the Universe.

Now, to explain the Big Bang........

Scientists have several theories on this. One is called M theory (membrane) and they think that when 2 membranes collide (walls of other universes) a big bang is the result.

Then......there's bubble theory, which states our universe is only 1 of many in the multiverse. They've theorized and mathematically, it is possible.

Now. Where did the Big Bang come from? Well......in the process of things dropping down a black hole, they tend to get spaghettified and torn apart, making really long strings in the process.

Nobody knows where they end up.

Who knows? Maybe our Big Bang and subsequent universe came from a black hole in another universe eating a galaxy.

Or.........maybe our black hole is the center of another galaxy (like the center of the Milky Way is).

What the theocrats don't get about the scientific venture is that it's expected to not have all the answers. It doesn't impeach a solid theory to have holes in it. You just keep studying and filling in the holes.

They don't understand because they view everything through faith based lenses where there is an infallable creator who can not be questioned or doubted.

Sad, really.

 

[peach174]

Christians question God all the time. We may not like the answers but we do ask questions and we do have doubts, geauxtohell

 

[eots]

it seems simple to me you cant create something out of nothing...there is no beginning and no end..these are the concepts of mortals

 

[geauxtohell]

Christians question God all the time. We may not like the answers but we do ask questions and we do have doubts, geauxtohell

I said "theocrats", not "Christians". There is a difference.

The Catholic Church accepts evolution. They don't try and fit God into a 1200 page box.

 

[peach174]

Christians question God all the time. We may not like the answers but we do ask questions and we do have doubts, geauxtohell

I said "theocrats", not "Christians". There is a difference.

The Catholic Church accepts evolution. They don't try and fit God into a 1200 page box.

OK I agree with that, but most regular Christians accept adaptation not evolution.

 

[geauxtohell]

Christians question God all the time. We may not like the answers but we do ask questions and we do have doubts, geauxtohell

I said "theocrats", not "Christians". There is a difference.

The Catholic Church accepts evolution. They don't try and fit God into a 1200 page box.

OK I agree with that, but most regular Christians accept adaptation not evolution.

Great. As long as they keep their non-scientific wild-eyed theories out of the science curriculum, I am cool with people believing whatever.

 

[peach174]

I said "theocrats", not "Christians". There is a difference.

The Catholic Church accepts evolution. They don't try and fit God into a 1200 page box.

OK I agree with that, but most regular Christians accept adaptation not evolution.

Great. As long as they keep their non-scientific wild-eyed theories out of the science curriculum, I am cool with people believing whatever.

Fits right in with what I said at the top of this page.