Is the Big Bang theory true (1 Viewer)

[ajetrumpet]

that is sad. i wish it was different too actually...

 

[mcmichael13]

sorry, coming into this discussion late....

I believe in the Big Bang... God said it... and BANG it happened

 

[speakers_86]

sorry, coming into this discussion late....

I believe in the Big Bang... God said it... and BANG it happened

Is that a joke?

 

[MarkK]

I believe in the Big Bang to the extent that I trust cosmologists and physicists and mathematicians, which is to say quite a bit. What I expect though, is that future discoveries will cause that theory to play a smaller and smaller role in how we understand the universe and its origins.

Relativity doesn't disprove Newton, and Quantum Mechanics doesn't disprove Relativity, but rather each of these thoeries contributes to a more complete understanding of what we observe. Similarly, my belief about the Big Bang, which now seems so central to our understanding of the origins of the universe, will eventually be understood as one facet of a much more dynamic process.

Newton is no less valid today, but Newton is less comprehensive. I expect a similar future for the Big Bang.

 

[Mike375]

Lagbolt,

With Newton you might correct a misundertanding I have.

I have been under the impression that Newton was wrong but the error does not show up in normal distances etc.

In other words, similar to the trajectory of a rifle bullet. If we only had normal measuring instruments and were only testing over 20 feet then the conclusion would be that a bullet does not drop. However, extend the distance and that "theory" would now be show to be wrong.

 

[mcmichael13]

Is that a joke?

no i'm serious. i'm a creationist. i believe in God.

 

[Rabbie]

Lagbolt,

With Newton you might correct a misundertanding I have.

I have been under the impression that Newton was wrong but the error does not show up in normal distances etc.

In other words, similar to the trajectory of a rifle bullet. If we only had normal measuring instruments and were only testing over 20 feet then the conclusion would be that a bullet does not drop. However, extend the distance and that "theory" would now be show to be wrong.

Newton's laws of motion do predict that a bullet will drop when fired horizontally. Of course over 20 feet it wouldn't fall far.

 

[Mike375]

Newton's laws of motion do predict that a bullet will drop when fired horizontally. Of course over 20 feet it wouldn't fall far.

I did not make myself my clear enough. If there had been some theory that said bullets don't drop, then if all shooting was at very short distance the theory would not be shown to be wrong.

Were Newton's laws wrong but with the distances and time involved the error did not show up. I think I have read that the laws show up with errors for what people at NASA do with probes sent out to Mars, Jupiter and so on.

 

[Rabbie]

no i'm serious. i'm a creationist. i believe in God.

yes but are you an old earth creationist or young earth creationist?

 

[statsman]

As with all theories, either Creation or Big Bang, the only way to prove them one way or the other was to be there at the time.

All persons who were present when the Universe went Kaboom, please raise your hands.
All persons who were present when God said "Let there be light", please raise your hands.

 

[Rabbie]

As with all theories, either Creation or Big Bang, the only way to prove them one way or the other was to be there at the time.

All persons who were present when the Universe went Kaboom, please raise your hands.
All persons who were present when God said "Let there be light", please raise your hands.

I make that a 0-0 draw

 

[MarkK]

Lagbolt,
With Newton you might correct a misundertanding I have.
I have been under the impression that Newton was wrong but the error does not show up in normal distances etc.

I did not make myself my clear enough. If there had been some theory that said bullets don't drop, then if all shooting was at very short distance the theory would not be shown to be wrong.

Certainly if you hypothetically limit the perspective of the observer, you can predict that the he won't have instruments accurate enough to measure certain realities. This doesn't have an impact on the validity of Newton.
And they call it the LAW Of Universal Gravitation, so I expect the scientific community doesn't look at Newton's most famous work as speculative in any way.
But two objects travelling at light speed and travelling directly towards each other do not have a closing speed that exceeds the speed of light. Using Newton's theories you would never have arrived at this conclusion, but I still don't think that makes Newton wrong or inaccurate in any way.

I think I have read that the laws show up with errors for what people at NASA do with probes sent out to Mars, Jupiter and so on.

The dynamics of three or more bodies in motion, each exerting gravity on the other, known as the "n-body problem," is practically impossible to solve, but this difficulty is not because Newton's laws are slightly inaccurate, it's because the dynamics are so complex. As I understand it, even very slight inaccuracies in measuring mass, speed or distance are amplified over time, so accurate predictions can be made for short durations, but errors accrue exponentially over time. I believe that a trajectory correction for a deep space probe is only calculated using very current triangulations of the probe's position and velocity in respect to known objects.

And if you want to check out some crazy gravitational effects google Lagrange point, or libration point. A third object can achieve equilibrium between its own centripetal force and the gravity of each of the other two objects in a stable location that is not an orbit!

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

As with all theories, either Creation or Big Bang, the only way to prove them one way or the other was to be there at the time.

All persons who were present when the Universe went Kaboom, please raise your hands.
All persons who were present when God said "Let there be light", please raise your hands.

If one were seeking absolute proof, then yes (or probably, no, because we must still suspect our memories and perceptions of possible failure)

But as you say, this applies to all theories and observations - we can't observe any event until after it happens, and we can't perceive anything directly - so in all - cases, whether it's the Big Bang, or the existence of the coffee cup on my desk, we must rely on inference based indirect perception of evidence arising from past events.

So as long as it's not actually absolute proof we want (which you can't have anyway), it's possible to try to increase our level of satisfaction/certainty regarding a theory, whether it's the Big Bang Theory, or the Cup On My Desk Theory - the only difference is the ease of gathering evidence and testing it - but that difference is one of scale, not paradigm.

 

[Rich]

Is the God created the Earth theory true?

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Not for me to say, but I think it's often proclaimed true on some other basis than evidence.

 

[Alc]

Not for me to say, but I think it's often proclaimed true on some other basis than evidence.

I would like to propose that, in order to save time, anyone using the 'E' word in this discussion should choose one or more of the following options as the answer to their post. This will save a lot of creationists a lot of time.

'Evidence' = 'faith', thereby turning any discussion into a debate on the meaning of language, rather than staying on-topic. For example,
'I know that if I heat a kettle enough it will boil because I have seen evidence of it happening before'.
'Yes, but it's only faith that makes you believe it will happen again'.

The following is some kind of logical argument:
'A car is built by people, so the universe must have been built by someone'
'But a car has a specific purpose. What's the purpose of the universe?'
'Only God knows that purpose. It's not for us to ask.'
'So how do you know that there is one?'
'Look, the universe is so complicated that it couldn't have come into existence without God having created it. Therefore, God must exist. Therefore, God must have created the universe'.

If there are any problems with any scientific theories as to the creation of the universe that you (the poster) can't personally explain away to the satisfaction of all creationists then that means that God created everything. End of.

Accept that all answers to everything in the universe that man is ever going to have we already have. Mankind will never make any more scientific discoveries of any kind. Therfore, anything that can't be explained away by this specific point in time must have been created by God.

Accept that any things that can be demonstrated to have a scientific origin, or at least to have some evidence for their being the way they are, will fall into one of two categories
(a) Yes, God made it happen that way
or
(b) That didn't happen.
Please note that any creationist comments such as 'There is no evidence for that' or 'I don't think so' will cancel out any actual evidence you might provide.

 

[Rabbie]

Alc LOL.

 

[statsman]

I would like to propose that, in order to save time, anyone using the 'E' word in this discussion should choose one or more of the following options as the answer to their post. This will save a lot of creationists a lot of time.

'Evidence' = 'faith', thereby turning any discussion into a debate on the meaning of language, rather than staying on-topic. For example,
'I know that if I heat a kettle enough it will boil because I have seen evidence of it happening before'.
'Yes, but it's only faith that makes you believe it will happen again'.

The following is some kind of logical argument:
'A car is built by people, so the universe must have been built by someone'
'But a car has a specific purpose. What's the purpose of the universe?'
'Only God knows that purpose. It's not for us to ask.'
'So how do you know that there is one?'
'Look, the universe is so complicated that it couldn't have come into existence without God having created it. Therefore, God must exist. Therefore, God must have created the universe'.

If there are any problems with any scientific theories as to the creation of the universe that you (the poster) can't personally explain away to the satisfaction of all creationists then that means that God created everything. End of.

Accept that all answers to everything in the universe that man is ever going to have we already have. Mankind will never make any more scientific discoveries of any kind. Therfore, anything that can't be explained away by this specific point in time must have been created by God.

Accept that any things that can be demonstrated to have a scientific origin, or at least to have some evidence for their being the way they are, will fall into one of two categories
(a) Yes, God made it happen that way
or
(b) That didn't happen.
Please note that any creationist comments such as 'There is no evidence for that' or 'I don't think so' will cancel out any actual evidence you might provide.

Going by those facts we have available, the BIG BANG seems to be a reasonable explanation for why the Universe happened.
Of course, these are the facts God has permitted us to uncover so far.

 

[Alc]

Going by those facts we have available, the BIG BANG seems to be a reasonable explanation for why the Universe happened.
Of course, these are the facts God has permitted us to uncover so far.

Thankyou, Statsman.

Addendum #1
Any evidence that appears to discredit in any way any aspect(s) of creationism will hereby be assumed to be God screwing about in an attempt to make scientists look foolish e.g. the age of the Earth, the existence of dinosaurs, etc. No reason shall be provided for why God does this, he just does.

 

[statsman]

Addendum #1
Any evidence that appears to discredit in any way any aspect(s) of creationism will hereby be assumed to be God screwing about in an attempt to make scientists look foolish e.g. the age of the Earth, the existence of dinosaurs, etc. No reason shall be provided for why God does this, he just does.

The gods can be vicious SOBs.
Look at what they did to Promethius and all he did was give a fellow a light.