Skip to main content

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

Oh, crap Extra.  That makes you a liberal Christian - a Feel Good Christian - possible bordering on the practice of New Age Theology.  Bill will be along shortly to tell you how wrong you are, and that you are going to hell. 

 

Let me just punch your ticket on that train, and save us all some time.

 

 

No. The Bible says the world was there without form. Dunno what "without form" means, but it's there in Genesis. So don't try to mislead anyone.

Dottie,

 The hebrew word carries the meaning of chaos. Therefore it's commonly referred to as the chaotic earth. It is when the Spirit of God hovers over it that God begins to call it into order, order out of chaos.

 This is exactly whaty happens when the Spirit hovers over us and begins to convert us into God's new creation.

YOU hit the nail on the head Dottie, without “form” means it wasn’t square, round, point like or any shape that could be described with Newtonian physics or Euclidian arithmetic. Furthermore it was described as “void” then later declared God said let there be light; that was the most telling clue for the scientific world that has been avoided for centuries. Now scientists have reached the point that everything is ultimately shown to simply be electromagnet thingys of which light consists of. Yes the first few verses in the Bible beautifully described the quantum world that took scientists centuries to understand only one tiny bit of one corner.

GOD IS GREAT.

Originally Posted by DarkAngel:

I would say that it is his very educated opinion.

 

I have to go with the opinion of those that have tangible evidence (even if it is not complete) over those that have zero evidence. I know that many people can give credence to a 2000+ fable and call it evidence but that just does not work for me, and many others.

 

Of course no one can say with complete certainty that there are no gods. However, the same can be said for many other unproven ideals such as Big Foot, Leprechauns, Fairies, etc.... I have no reason to believe that any of those things exist...but I can't prove they don't either. Since there is no real evidence to support these beings I have to, as a rational person, discard them as myth until such time as they are presented in public or there is a body found. I pretty much treat gods in the same fashion.

 

An educated opinion, yes.  A statement of fact, no.  I have no problem with his ideas and his research, I do have a problem with circular reasoning and stating a hypothesis as fact.

Originally Posted by Winston Niles Rumfoord:
Originally Posted by Zazu:

According to a special from Stephen Hawking last night, God was not needed and does not exist. I have some problems with his conclusions though, as he used circular reasoning to deduce the origin of the universe. He still left a lot open as he stated that the infinitesimally small speck simply appeared, then exploded to create all the known and unknown realms of space and time. He stated that time did not exist before the 'big bang' therefore, God could not exist.  My problem with that he forgets the characteristics of a God: above, beyond, and outside the laws of the universe.

 

He is asking people to believe his unproven and illogical theories, yet he condemns the theories of religion.

 

A man of science can never state that a theory is true.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Which takes more faith, believing that God created the universe, or that it all sprang out of nothing in an instant? 

That is a good question.  However, the answer is the same for both. In both cases of the origin of the universe, matter simply exploded into existence. In one version, God lit the fuse, in the other, it happened spontaneously. Neither have a rational explanation, which means both have the same validity.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Well then, guess others can say the "big bang thingy" as you called it, "always was."

According to Hawking, there was a point of origin that had no time and no matter. His theory is a super dense, super gravitational 'speck' of energy just appeared at random, then exploded.  He had no explanation for where it came from or how it exploded or how the entire universe could be contained in something smaller than a proton. An educated guess, as Dark Angel said.

Originally Posted by Winston Niles Rumfoord:

Always was.

Well, isn't that convenient?

 

Gotta love magical thinking. "Because I say it, it's so."  Now before ya go saying the same thing about what I said-It's not just me saying it. Look it up. Google is your friend. Visit your public library-there's books in there besides religious texts. There are many theories as to how the big bang happened and why.

 Unfortunately we apparently don't exactly know yet.

 

But we have progressed past the point of blaming it on a magical, mythical skydaddy.

Most all of us already know that there's no such thing as 'magic."

Oh, wait...nevermind....I forgot where I was for a second...

 

LOL.  

 

Why don't you xtians just come out and say it. You don't understand it and don't care to learn it-so therefore 'god' did it."

 

Baaaaaaaaa.....

Let me point this out:

Leonard Susskind says this”

"The real tools for understanding the quantum universe are abstract mathematics: infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces, projection operators, unitary matrices and a lot of other advanced principles that take a few years to learn. But let's see how we do in just a few pages."       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...d#The_Black_Hole_War

This Hawkins business is very complicated and to try discussing it without proper background in science one is fighting windmills and making da foo.

  Rram requires all of his apostles to listen to these lectures at least before being taken seriously regarding any holes black big bangers or what ever”

 

Modern Physics: The Theoretical Minimum

[edit] Core Sequence

Classical Mechanics (Fall 2007) iTunesYouTube

Quantum Mechanics (Winter 2008) iTunesYouTube

Special Relativity and Classical Field Theory (Spring 2008) iTunesYouTube

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (Fall 2008) iTunesYouTube

Cosmology (Winter 2009) iTunesYouTube

Statistical Mechanics (Spring 2009) iTunesYouTube

[

edit] Core Sequence Repeated (In Progress)

Classical Mechanics (Fall 2011) iTunesYouTube

Quantum Mechanics (Winter 2012) iTunesYouTube

Special Relativity and Classical Field Theory (Spring 2012 - in Progress) iTunesYouTube

[

edit] Other Lectures

Particle Physics: 1 Basic Concepts (Fall 2009) iTunesYouTube

Particle Physics: 2 Standard Model (Winter 2010) iTunesYouTube

Particle Physics: 3 Supersymmetry, Grand Unification, String Theory (Spring 2010) iTunes

String Theory and M-Theory (Fall 2010) iTunesYouTube

Topics in String Theory (Winter 2011) iTunesYouTube

[

edit] A separate series of lectures on Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity

Quantum Entanglements Part 1 (Fall 2006) iTunesYouTube

Quantum Entanglements Part 2 (Not available online)

Quantum Entanglements Part 3 (Spring 2007) iTunesYouTube

(Note that some of the lecture names are a little mixed-up: "Quantum Entanglements Part 3" is in fact a lecture series on special relativity and electromagnetic theory, and the order in which the lectures were given is 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 2&3, 8 and 9 (in terms of the numbers given on the videos). There is no mention of string theory in the series "Supersymmetry, Grand Unification, String Theory", nor of M-theory in "String Theory and M-Theory")

 

After listening to all these at least two or three times, come back and make a qualified fool of yourself.

 

Originally Posted by Zazu:
Originally Posted by DarkAngel:

I would say that it is his very educated opinion.

 

I have to go with the opinion of those that have tangible evidence (even if it is not complete) over those that have zero evidence. I know that many people can give credence to a 2000+ fable and call it evidence but that just does not work for me, and many others.

 

Of course no one can say with complete certainty that there are no gods. However, the same can be said for many other unproven ideals such as Big Foot, Leprechauns, Fairies, etc.... I have no reason to believe that any of those things exist...but I can't prove they don't either. Since there is no real evidence to support these beings I have to, as a rational person, discard them as myth until such time as they are presented in public or there is a body found. I pretty much treat gods in the same fashion.

 

An educated opinion, yes.  A statement of fact, no.  I have no problem with his ideas and his research, I do have a problem with circular reasoning and stating a hypothesis as fact.

_______________________________

 

I didn't see the tv program you were talking about, so I don't really know what he said that was circular reasoning.

 

The big bang and creationism are not equal in evidence. As far as I know there is absolutely no evidence for creationism. If there is then someone please direct me to it. There is A LOT of evidence to support the Big Bang theory. I don't believe anyone would claim that it is a proven fact, but  there is plenty of observational data that when taken together points to the big bang being the best current model for the universe.

 

Just as with Big Foot, if someone came up with some bones, droppings paired with some fur I would sit up and pay attention. They don't have to have the whole creature. That would be enough evidence to at least give Big Foot some validity.

 

The problem with "god did it" is that those who believe say they don't need evidence. They have faith. That is fine for some I guess. However, if someone is going to go that route they can't then say it is the same as the big bang theory.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Well then, guess others can say the "big bang thingy" as you called it, "always was."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

According to the cosmological theories, it was not. 14 billion years ago it appeared, and though Infinitesimally small, it exploded, "creating" time, space, matter, and energy. Sort of like what you read in Genesis. 

 

There once was a "steady state" model for the universe, but it is now passe, and also contradictory with the Bible.

Originally Posted by Winston Niles Rumfoord:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Well then, guess others can say the "big bang thingy" as you called it, "always was."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

According to the cosmological theories, it was not. 14 billion years ago it appeared, and though Infinitesimally small, it exploded, "creating" time, space, matter, and energy. Sort of like what you read in Genesis. 

 

There once was a "steady state" model for the universe, but it is now passe, and also contradictory with the Bible.

-------------------------

Hold up. You say it "appeared". Same thing could be said of your god. All of a sudden "he" appeared, (but he was always around). So once more, others can claim it was "always there". 

Originally Posted by DarkAngel:
_____________________________

 

I didn't see the tv program you were talking about, so I don't really know what he said that was circular reasoning.

 

The big bang and creationism are not equal in evidence. As far as I know there is absolutely no evidence for creationism. If there is then someone please direct me to it. There is A LOT of evidence to support the Big Bang theory. I don't believe anyone would claim that it is a proven fact, but  there is plenty of observational data that when taken together points to the big bang being the best current model for the universe.

 

Just as with Big Foot, if someone came up with some bones, droppings paired with some fur I would sit up and pay attention. They don't have to have the whole creature. That would be enough evidence to at least give Big Foot some validity.

 

The problem with "god did it" is that those who believe say they don't need evidence. They have faith. That is fine for some I guess. However, if someone is going to go that route they can't then say it is the same as the big bang theory.

There is a lot of evidence for the Big Bang but it applies to both the scientific side and the religious side.

Science can't tell me where the subatomic particle that expanded into the universe came from and religion can't tell me where the material for the universe came from except, "God did it". Don't forget that the theory of the Big Bang came from a monk. If we say that Creation was a supernatural event, then obviously that means it happened outside the realm of the natural universe and also outside the ability of science to detect. 

Since both ideas are unproven and cannot be proven until we invent a time machine (which still wouldn't work because it could only go back as far as it's invention date...) both ideas have to at least be considered plausible.


Originally Posted by Winston Niles Rumfoord:

Exactly. Delusional proponents of science believe that, given enough time, it can explain everything. 

 

In truth, with every concept science learns, it finds out it doesn't understand ten other things. How does that play out? 

-------------------------

Given enough time I'm sure it will explain everything. How much time, no one can guess. Without religion I think we'd be much further ahead. I'd rather have it constantly moving forward than saying "god did it" end of story. So they change their minds. That's just exactly how it should be. Stuck in one frame of mind, again, god did it, is what slows us down.

Originally Posted by Winston Niles Rumfoord:

Hey, how does science progress when one answer generates ten questions? Science is a tool used to grapple with the natural world, it is not a religion.

 

Some sensible cosmologists get to the big bang, and admit that only God knows how that happened. 

---------------------

Maybe too they'll find out that "god" was what some think, ancient aliens that are long gone and couldn't care less what happened on this "rock" after they left.

[ Zaz Sez] "There is a lot of evidence for the Big Bang but it applies to both the scientific side and the religious side.”

  I’m not calling your statement false but would you show us a lot of evidence for the big bang

 

I can't ignore statements like this so I investigate them on my own and it has proven to be painstaking and time consuming. At the link there is a growing list of scientists and researchers that have issues with the claim that all scientist agree with the big bang model of the universe.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

<big><big>An Open Letter to the Scientific Community</big></big> cosmologystatement.org

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

<big>The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.</big>

<big>But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.</big>

<big>Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.</big>

<big>What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.</big>

<big>Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.</big>

<big>Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.</big>

<big>Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.</big>

<big>Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.</big>

<big>Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.</big>

<big>Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.</big>

Originally Posted by Winston Niles Rumfoord:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:
Maybe too they'll find out that "god" was what some think, ancient aliens that are long gone and couldn't care less what happened on this "rock" after they left.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You've been watching too much of those so-called science and history networks. 

----------------------

Maybe you've been wasting to much time in church and on that ancient book of fairy tales. So called history and science networks? Such as? 

Originally Posted by vega:

At the link there is a growing list of scientists and researchers that have issues with the claim that all scientist agree with the big bang model of the universe.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I haven't looked into the cosmological universe lately, but it seems that field is afflicted by the same dogmatic mandates as the global warming conflict.

 

This is not science. True science is never settled, and never rejects dissenting opinion without review and rebuttal. 

Originally Posted by vega:

[ Zaz Sez] "There is a lot of evidence for the Big Bang but it applies to both the scientific side and the religious side.”

  I’m not calling your statement false but would you show us a lot of evidence for the big bang

 

 

 

Sure, since you are a super genius, I know that you will have no problem understanding these studies from UCLA. I have trouble with it but then again you said you have credentials  in quantum mechanics and quantum physics.

 

 

.http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:

    The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
    The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
    Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
    Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
    Time dilation in supernova light curves.

The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:

    Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
    Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
    Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
    Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.

Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.


http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm

Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models

The Steady State model of the Universe was proposed in 1948 by Bondi and Gold and by Hoyle. Bondi and Gold adopted the "Perfect Cosmological Principle", and added the assumption that the Universe was the same at all times to homogeneity (the same in all places) and isotropy (the same in all directions). The Universe is observed to be expanding, so if the density remains the same, matter must be continuously created. This radical assumption is not the reason that the Steady State model is now rejected. Like any good scientific model, the Steady State made many quantitative testable predictions, and these predictions inspired many observational campaigns. As a result of these observations it became clear that the Steady State model predictions were not correct.

 

For even more 'light' reading, you can go through Big Bang Nucleosysnthesis.'The First Three Minutes' by Steven Weinberg.
http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~kdh1/cos/cos17.pdf

Zaz, I‘m familiar with all these components that you claim proves A big Bang

None of them are verifiable without “fudge factors” the universe is not isotropic nor homogenous, far from it if that were the case things would appear exactly the same in every direction. The CMB is not homogenous it’s clumpy and it’s not demonstrable that the spectrum observed for certain elements is a source of early physics, information emitted from black holes as they boil off and are close to us, or fluctuations from elementary particles from quasars . I’m waiting on results from the neutrino experiments.

Olbers paradox has not been sufficiently explained and I’m not sure what it has to do with the big bang. I think you are making uneducated statements without exploring each thing you suggested. It doesn’t come from an hours surfing of Wikipedia but years of study that I think you have not done. I have.

If you prefer the big bang that’s ok

The 6k package w/ instructions usually is better fitted for a casual tinkered into the universe. That’s why God provided it.

  You are at least looking. That is a +

Singularities have properties none of which would have been heat as claimed by the bigbangers to have been the original condition before the bang.

Paradox #1 heat is a natural condition of Newtonian physics certainly not one of pre-physics. It is easily argued then that there was no temperature or zero. To try and apply Newtonian physics before hand is absurd. God did it.

Originally Posted by vega:

Zaz, I‘m familiar with all these components that you claim proves A big Bang

None of them are verifiable without “fudge factors” the universe is not isotropic nor homogenous, far from it if that were the case things would appear exactly the same in every direction. The CMB is not homogenous it’s clumpy and it’s not demonstrable that the spectrum observed for certain elements is a source of early physics, information emitted from black holes as they boil off and are close to us, or fluctuations from elementary particles from quasars . I’m waiting on results from the neutrino experiments.

Olbers paradox has not been sufficiently explained and I’m not sure what it has to do with the big bang. I think you are making uneducated statements without exploring each thing you suggested. It doesn’t come from an hours surfing of Wikipedia but years of study that I think you have not done. I have.

If you prefer the big bang that’s ok

The 6k package w/ instructions usually is better fitted for a casual tinkered into the universe. That’s why God provided it.

  You are at least looking. That is a +

I don't claim that it proves the Big Bang, the UCLA Division of Astronomy & Astrophysics does.  It's their findings.  If you can prove their theories wrong, I'm sure they would love to have you submit your ideas.  BTW, no WIKI was involved in this post or the previous one.  I am going to go with  you did not bother to click on the links.

As I stated above, the Big Bang works in science and religion. Pick which one you like best.

Originally Posted by Winston Niles Rumfoord:

Zazu, Are you suggesting that  the UCLA Division of Astronomy & Astrophysics claims to have proved the big bang? 

The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven.

 

 

 

The evidence does support the theory.  As I said before, a theory is not fact. Does it prove it? No, but it does make a strong case for it.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×