The Big Bang

[RetiredGySgt]

Explain to me what existed before the big bang. Then explain to me HOW what ever that was came to exist. THEN explain why THAT is more believable then my belief in a God.

 

[doniston]

Explain to me what existed before the big bang. Then explain to me HOW what ever that was came to exist. THEN explain why THAT is more believable then my belief in a God.

Why should anyone beleive that the Big bang is true? or that God is real? or that neither one is real for thast matter. None of us will ever know ---at least while we are alive.

 

[Dr Grump]

Explain to me what existed before the big bang. Then explain to me HOW what ever that was came to exist. THEN explain why THAT is more believable then my belief in a God.

I'd say generally that your belief is just as valid as the Big Bang, with one main qualifier.

The belief in a god - in most societies - has been constant throughout the ages. Almost all of these gods have required nothing but a belief.

Science has morphed over the centuries. From those believing the sun revolved around the Earth to those believing that lightening was caused by Gods letting off steam.
These days we know what can stop people from catching measles, mumps or any one of a number of diseases. Science has allowed people to go into space, fly in aeroplanes, play on computers. The one constant in science is the ability to prove how certain things come about. The only constant belief in a god is faith. Guess which one is more provable? Hint, it ain't god..

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The question is asked because lately this board has been hit with the " God doesn't exist because you can not prove it" garbage, in fact it has even been more blatant then that. Believers in Gods have been labeled on this board as idiots and fools.


One of the arguments used is " how did God come to be" so I ask, how did what ever caused the Big Bang come to be? If you do not believe in Gods and do not believe in the Big bang, then the question remains, how did things come to be?

As for "proof" it all comes back to what started it all. All science can do is show us processes. It can not provide any answers to the "where did it come from" questions.

The argument that a complex being like God can not exist out of nothing begs the question how did all life actually begin. Science can NOT answer the question. All science claims is that by pure dumb luck we evolved from rocks.

 

[onedomino]

All science can do is show us processes. It can not provide any answers to the "where did it come from" questions.

The argument that a complex being like God can not exist out of nothing begs the question how did all life actually begin. Science can NOT answer the question. All science claims is that by pure dumb luck we evolved from rocks.

Your post is evidence that we have not evolved very far from rocks. We have been able to write our names for barely 5000 years. If we were much younger, we would not exist. Modern humans have been here for less than 200,000 years. Our planet is more than 20,000 times older than we are. If we are still here, what will we know ten thousand years from now? One million years from now? Compared to what will be known, what we know now is very close to zero. There are more scientists alive today than all the scientists that have previously existed added together. Categorical statements about what we cannot do, or cannot understand, are premature to say the least. Even now we know the ingredients of life, we will figure out the recipe.

 

[Shogun]

I'm still inviting you to post YOUR evidence, RGS. I want to know if you realyl understand the principals that make science what it is beyond blind dogma thumping. I want to see of you will step up to the challenge of the Scientific standard instead of talking rhetorical shit that would have made Socrates stifle a giggle.

 

[midcan5]

Explain to me what existed before the big bang. Then explain to me HOW what ever that was came to exist. THEN explain why THAT is more believable then my belief in a God.

The fact that we do exist is proof something exists and that something existed. I'm not sure saying what existed before the big bang is a relevant argument as we can see the result. God is another big bang and an act of faith. The problem for most of those who don't believe is they do not see proof of a caring being. God is a more complex concept than the big bang, but actually everyone is an atheist except for the one God they believe in.

 

[Gunny]

I'm still inviting you to post YOUR evidence, RGS. I want to know if you realyl understand the principals that make science what it is beyond blind dogma thumping. I want to see of you will step up to the challenge of the Scientific standard instead of talking rhetorical shit that would have made Socrates stifle a giggle.

The challenge is to post the evidence that proves the Big Bang. You cannot. There is none. It is a theory. In layman's terms, guesswork.

The belief in a Creator is no more or less substantianted by evidence than "the Big Bang." You're just willing to accept the latter because it contradicts the former, and suits YOUR beliefs.

 

[doniston]

The challenge is to post the evidence that proves the Big Bang. You cannot. There is none. It is a theory. In layman's terms, guesswork.

The belief in a Creator is no more or less substantianted by evidence than "the Big Bang." You're just willing to accept the latter because it contradicts the former, and suits YOUR beliefs.

You want him to post his evidence but apparently you are not willing to post yours. Because that suits YOUR belief system.

I happen to agree that the proof is wasnting in both cases.

 

[onedomino]

The challenge is to post the evidence that proves the Big Bang. You cannot. There is none. It is a theory. In layman's terms, guesswork.

The belief in a Creator is no more or less substantianted by evidence than "the Big Bang." You're just willing to accept the latter because it contradicts the former, and suits YOUR beliefs.

Gunny, the possibility that the Big Bang occurred does in no way contradict the existence of God.

Essentially there are three mathematically described ideas about the life of the Universe. First, that the Universe came into existence with the Big Bang and that it did not exist prior to that event. Second, that our observable Universe is just the latest iteration of an infinite number of expansions and contractions, the cusps of these oscillations are Big Bangs. Third that there have been no Big Bang(s) and that the Universe is in a "Steady State." Current empirical observations (measurements) best support the first of these ideas.

This is no place for a discussion of mathematical cosmology so I'll just list some of the observational evidence for the Big Bang.

In 1929 Edwin Hubble (after whom the famous telescope is named) discovered that the Universe is expanding. In particular he discovered that all galaxies (except the local group) are receding from us at a rate that is proportionate to their distance. The further they are away, the faster they are receding.

Data indicates that our position in the Universe is not special. We speak of the homogeneity of the Universe. That is, the composition, or the structure, of the Universe is the same no matter the position of the observer.

The Universe is isotropic. That is, the distribution of matter and energy seems to be the same no matter which direction an observation takes. The sky looks the same in every direction to one part in 100,000.

Radio source data and quasar counts indicate that the Universe has evolved over time. Very deep space measurements show that the structure of the Universe has changed over time.

The existence of uniform background blackbody radiation demonstrates that the Universe evolved from a dense state of uniform temperature. This empirical data eliminated the Steady State theory from serious consideration.

The current distribution of light isotopes of hydrogen, helium, and lithium agrees remarkably well with that distribution mathematically predicted by the Big Bang theory.

These are some of the observations that support the Big Bang theory and diminish the possibility that the Steady State theory is correct. How can we decide between the singular Big Bang and multiple Big Bang theories? We do not know for sure, but the data seems to best support the fact that not only is the Universe expanding, but the rate of that expansion is increasing. When we wind the clock back on the expansion of the Universe to time zero, we find that the Big Bang took place about 15 billion years ago. From that point, the Universe has expanded and the critical question has been: is there enough matter in the Universe to slow through gravitation the expansion and ultimately cause a contraction to yet another singularity and another Big Bang. The answer appears to be that there is not enough matter to slow the expansion. In fact, the expansion rate is increasing.

Does any of this prove the Big Bang theory? No. But as increased amounts of more precise data are accumulated, the support for the Big Bang theory grows stronger. As the clock winds back to time zero, mathematical physics can adequately describe the model to beyond a trillionth of a second just after the actual Big Bang. But there the model breaks down and fails to describe the singularity (as it's called) that existed at the moment of the Big Bang. So we need to develop new mathematics to improve the model.

If the Big Bang is correct, it in no way precludes the existence of God. We cannot say what the singularity was, or what, if anything, existed before it. We are free to propose that all of what we describe is within the realm of God. And no preacher, or book, can tell you different.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You want him to post his evidence but apparently you are not willing to post yours. Because that suits YOUR belief system.

I happen to agree that the proof is wasnting in both cases.

Again for the criminally incompetent. I nor anyone else is claiming there is PROOF God exists. At least not proof that anyone would accept. After all that would be the whole "Faith" part of religion.

However the argument is routinely made that Science does have proof and that it ONLY works on proof. This is simply NOT true. And in the case of the Big Bang there is NO evidence it is true. The very premise is as far fetched as the argument by non religious types that God can not exist because " where did he come from".

We are offered as evidence bits and pieces of stuff in space, with no evidence the supposed correlation exists. I can do that too.

Using the theory, because I decide what something means is proof, I can argue that Earth's existance is proof God exists. He made it. Further since he made all living things, more "proof" he exists. Get the drift?

 

[onedomino]

And in the case of the Big Bang there is NO evidence it is true.

That is false. Why do you keep saying that? Does it mean you are posting opinion with no knowledge of the topic? Have you done any reading on this subject? If you have, then it would not be possible to say that there is no evidence that supports Big Bang theory. See the post above. There is no proof that the Big Bang theory is correct, but there is lots of evidence. Above, I posted some of the easy to understand observations that support Big Bang theory. There are much more detailed aspects of this evidence and rigorous mathematical models that are beyond the scope of this message board that support the theory.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That is false. Why do you keep saying that? Does it mean you are posting opinion with no knowledge of the topic? Have you done any reading on this subject? If you have, then it would not be possible to say that there is no evidence that supports Big Bang theory. See the post above. There is no proof that the Big Bang theory is correct, but there is lots of evidence. Above, I posted some of the easy to understand observations that support Big Bang theory. There are much more detailed aspects of this evidence and rigorous mathematical models that are beyond the scope of this message board that support the theory.

Wrong. They all rest on base assumptions that are unproven. The "evidence" depends on assumptions made as to what certain things are and where they came from.

 

[onedomino]

Wrong. They all rest on base assumptions that are unproven. The "evidence" depends on assumptions made as to what certain things are and where they came from.

That makes no sense whatsoever. In science, theories are constructed to explain measurements (evidence). That is the nature of explaining empirical observation. It makes no sense to say that a measurement is unproven. One may dispute the accuracy of a measurement, but not that the measurement exists. Characterizing measurements as "assumptions made as to what things are" is bizarre. That the Universe is isotropic is a measurement, not an assumption. That the Universe is expanding is a measurement, not an assumption. In science, one builds a theory that best explains the evidence. In this case, the theory that best explains the evidence is the Big Bang. No one claims that it is a proven theory. Your claim that there is no evidence to support the Big Bang theory is false.

 

[Shogun]

The challenge is to post the evidence that proves the Big Bang. You cannot. There is none. It is a theory. In layman's terms, guesswork.

The belief in a Creator is no more or less substantianted by evidence than "the Big Bang." You're just willing to accept the latter because it contradicts the former, and suits YOUR beliefs.

Bullshit.. IVE POSTED EVIDENCE of an expanding Universe. Do you want to ignore the evidence of astrophysics? CLAIMING that there is none doesn't make it true that there is none. this EVIDENCE is not merely guesswork. It's retarded to think that the same consideration given to heliocentrism, plate tectonics and geologic time DOESn't apply to astrophysics and the big bang or Evolution and the fossil record. Absolutely fucking retarded.

I can repost the evidence if you want to see it AGAIN. My question is if you'll address THAT instead of ad homineming me to death with assumptions about my motivations.

Indeed, beyond MY full quiver let's see YOUR evidence for creation. One signle scrap of fucking physical evidence will do.. ONE TINY peice of physical anything that even remotely suggests the the jebus myth is more than our version of greek mythology.


hey, I've been waiting while RGS avoids posting such so I guess it wont shock me too much when the apologetic wannabes dodge the criteria of science too.


Good luck trying to get RGS to comprehend SCIENCE, onedomino. He really has no clue regarding how EVIDENCE supports a theory and that science will drop a theory as soon as better EVIDENCE comes along to suggest otherwise. There IS evidence for the big bang and EVIDENCE for evolution. If the flat earthers want to deny gravity then so be it. Were it up to people like RGS we'd be teaching that the sun revolves around the earth because no one has ever seen the earth revolve around the sun.

 

[Shogun]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tyav3nSN-H4&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tyav3nSN-H4&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

[onedomino]

Your post is evidence that we have not evolved very far from rocks. We have been able to write our names for barely 5000 years. If we were much younger, we would not exist. Modern humans have been here for less than 200,000 years. Our planet is more than 20,000 times older than we are. If we are still here, what will we know ten thousand years from now? One million years from now? Compared to what will be known, what we know now is very close to zero. There are more scientists alive today than all the scientists that have previously existed added together. Categorical statements about what we cannot do, or cannot understand, are premature to say the least. Even now we know the ingredients of life, we will figure out the recipe.

Synthetic Life 'Advance' Reported

By Helen Briggs
Science reporter, BBC News

Complete article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7203186.stm

An important step has been taken in the quest to create a synthetic lifeform.

A US team reports in Science magazine how it built in the lab the entire set of genetic instructions needed to drive a bacterial cell.

The group hopes eventually to use engineered genomes to make organisms that can produce clean fuels and take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

Publication of the research gives others the chance to scrutinise it. Some have ethical concerns.

These critics have been calling for several years now for a debate on the risks of creating "artificial life" in a test tube.

But Dr Hamilton Smith, who was part of the Science study, said the team regarded its lab-made genome - a laboratory copy of the DNA used by the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium - as a step towards synthetic, rather than artificial, life.

He told BBC News: "We like to distinguish synthetic life from artificial life.

"With synthetic life, we're re-designing the cell chromosomes; we're not creating a whole new artificial life system."

Gene Cassettes

The team of 17 scientists constructed the bacterial genome by chemically synthesising small blocks of DNA.

These were grown up in a bacterium, and knitted together into bigger pieces, so-called "cassettes" of genes.

The researchers ended up with several large chunks of DNA that were joined to make the circular genome of a synthetic version of Mycoplasma genitalium .

They have named it Mycoplasma JCVI-1.0 , after their research centre, the J Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, MD, US.

Dr Craig Venter, who was involved in the race to decode the human genome, believes tailor-made micro-organisms can become efficient producers of non-polluting fuels such as hydrogen. Other synthetic bacteria could be made to take up greenhouse gases, he believes.

"It sets the stage for what we hope is going to be a new approach to engineering organisms," said co-researcher Dr Smith.

Operating Systems

To achieve this goal, the researchers must overcome a crucial, and tricky, obstacle.

They must transplant the synthetic genome into another cell so that it can use the existing machinery to "boot up" and start growing and reproducing.

"It's installing the software - basically we have to boot up the genome, get it operating," said Dr Smith, who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1978.

"We're simply re-writing the operating software for cells - we're not designing a genome from the bottom up - you can't drop a genome into a test tube and expect it to come to life," he added.

This is the stage which raises the most concern among critics, and where a new lifeform could be said to be truly created. How precisely will it behave? What will its impact be on other organisms and the environment? Some say it is a step too far, but others argue that the new field of synthetic biology is an important science.

-

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Another example of research that could go horribly wrong.

 

[glockmail]

Explain to me what existed before the big bang. Then explain to me HOW what ever that was came to exist. THEN explain why THAT is more believable then my belief in a God.

I think there was a boatload of energy that God used to make all the matter.

The story of Genesis parallels the Big Bang theory fairly well. I think its simply more evidence that God does exist.

 

[Gunny]

You want him to post his evidence but apparently you are not willing to post yours. Because that suits YOUR belief system.

I happen to agree that the proof is wasnting in both cases.

I made no challenge. Just in case you're not quite up to snuff on the the way the game is played, the challenge was made to provide evidence/proof that the Big Bang actually happened.

Since I have made no claim demanding you accept what I believe, a challenge for me to provide evidence to support what has not been posted is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion.