Big Bang in Trouble

[epronovost]

Creation is a better explanation.

Creation isn't an explanation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Creation isn't an explanation.

I think it is.
But it's very lacking in predictive power / testability.
It does have the advantage of no fancy math though.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Is the Big Bang in crisis?
Stubborn problems with dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic expansion have some astronomers rethinking what we know about the early universe.

"...cosmologists have struggled — if not outright failed — to understand essential facets of the universe. We know almost nothing about dark matter and dark energy, which together make up more than 95 percent of the total energy in existence today. We don’t understand how the universe’s protons, electrons, and neutrons could have survived the aftereffects of the Big Bang. In fact, everything we know about the laws of physics tells us that these particles should have been destroyed by antimatter long ago. And in order to make sense of the universe as we observe it, cosmologists have been forced to conclude that space, during its earliest moments, must have undergone a brief and spectacular period of hyperfast expansion — an event known as cosmic inflation. Yet we know next to nothing about this key era of cosmic history."

.."scientists generally assume that space expanded steadily during the first fraction of a second, without any unexpected events or transitions. It is entirely plausible that this simply was not the case."

"they know relatively little about the first seconds that followed the Big Bang — and next to nothing about the first trillionth of a second. When it comes to how our universe may have evolved, or to the events that may have taken place during these earliest moments, we have essentially no direct observations on which to rely."

Is the Big Bang in crisis?

Creation is a better explanation.

In what way is Creation a better explanation? Doesn't it assume an infinity more pure magic than anything the physics is talking about? Or are you imagining this God with a workshop, knitting needles and who knows how many other tools, and an army of worker angels all hammering away at this or that, trying to make worms all the right length, and put fake little hip and leg bones in whale skeletons?

 

[epronovost]

I think it is.

I don't think so since it's a fiat statement with no explanatory mechanism and the pseudo-mechanism raise their own question in turn. Plus, it's a paradox in and on itself.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think so since it's a fiat statement with no explanatory mechanism and the pseudo-mechanism raise their own question in turn. Plus, it's a paradox in and on itself.

Well, I never claimed it's a useful explanation.

 

[dad]

So, if the BB is not the answer, I, as a follower of science, await a better explanation,

Happy 'awaiting' I guess.

you as a religious follower seem to think it 'proves' your beliefs.

No. Nothing to do with my beliefs. The admitted ignorance just shows they sure can't prove THEIR beliefs!

I'm sorry, Creation is not an explanation in the 21st Century

Yes it is.

 

[Link]

Irreducible complexity. From my understanding, some systems in biology are that. Not only that, but Gaia theory, if true, will prove that with respect to the earth.

And I believe it true of the cosmos. It's just people don't understand this concept at all. So they don't see design.

 

[dad]

If you want to ignore facts to massage your own mistake belief then that is not my problem

The fact being discussed here is how they admit they know almost nothing!

I told you how far they know, not only do you not understand the copy and past in your op, you don't even understand scientific notation.

I do, you do not.

Then the op is misrepresenting facts and i blame you because you are responsible for posting the OP. Or does your faith absolve you from responsibility for your own actions?

The OP is fine. Your posts I am not so sure about.

 

[dad]

Creation isn't an explanation.

Says who? Saying 'we know next to NOTHING' is not an explanation either. Creation is an explanation, and one that does not require us to explain anything.

 

[dad]

In what way is Creation a better explanation?

IN all ways.

Doesn't it assume an infinity more pure magic than anything the physics is talking about?

No. It assumes that a known and tried and proven God did what He said.

Or are you imagining this God with a workshop, knitting needles and who knows how many other tools, and an army of worker angels all hammering away at this or that, trying to make worms all the right length, and put fake little hip and leg bones in whale skeletons?

Having adaptations and/or different creature that once were alive has nothing to do with magic.

 

[dad]

Irreducible complexity. From my understanding, some systems in biology are that. Not only that, but Gaia theory, if true, will prove that with respect to the earth.

And I believe it true of the cosmos. It's just people don't understand this concept at all. So they don't see design.

Well, your theory may one day do wonders...or not.

 

[Revoltingest]

IN all ways.

The BB theory predicted the cosmic background radiation.
What observable phenomena can be predicted using creation?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The BB theory predicted the cosmic background radiation.
What observable phenomena can be predicted using creation?

It should be obvious to anyone who has ever tried building anything from scratch (you for example?) that mistakes will be made. Therefore, creation should predict mistakes -- and lo and behold, it was necessary to cause a flood, wash the whole thing away and start again. And I'm told another tear-down is imminent.

God Erat Demonstrandum.

 

[Revoltingest]

It should be obvious to anyone who has ever tried building anything from scratch (you for example?) that mistakes will be made. Therefore, creation should predict mistakes -- and lo and behold, it was necessary to cause a flood, wash the whole thing away and start again. And I'm told another tear-down is imminent.

God Erat Demonstrandum.

But I thought God was perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, & very well groomed.

 

[ChristineM]

The fact being discussed here is how they admit they know almost nothing!

No the fact being discussed is how you you misrepresent facts.

I do, you do not.

Psalm 101:7

The OP is fine. Your posts I am not so sure about

If the op needs to make false witness to make its point then the op is in no way 'fine'

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But I thought God was perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, & very well groomed.

I can't see grooming as very important for a being who necessitates the death of anyone who looks on him.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You do not even know why light appears red shifted in deep space.

Um, sorry, but yep -- we do. See "Doppler effect" applied to light rather than sound (doesn't matter, theyre both waves). Then add "expansion of the universe" as a result of the Big Bang, and you have all you need to know.

 

[Altfish]

Happy 'awaiting' I guess.

I did say "IF" but even so, 'waiting' is not a problem. "I don't know" is a far superior answer to "God did it"

No. Nothing to do with my beliefs. The admitted ignorance just shows they sure can't prove THEIR beliefs!

Then why at the end of your opening post did you state, "Creation is a better explanation."

Yes it is.

I beg to differ, as do all scientists

 

[QuestioningMind]

Is the Big Bang in crisis?
Stubborn problems with dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic expansion have some astronomers rethinking what we know about the early universe.

"...cosmologists have struggled — if not outright failed — to understand essential facets of the universe. We know almost nothing about dark matter and dark energy, which together make up more than 95 percent of the total energy in existence today. We don’t understand how the universe’s protons, electrons, and neutrons could have survived the aftereffects of the Big Bang. In fact, everything we know about the laws of physics tells us that these particles should have been destroyed by antimatter long ago. And in order to make sense of the universe as we observe it, cosmologists have been forced to conclude that space, during its earliest moments, must have undergone a brief and spectacular period of hyperfast expansion — an event known as cosmic inflation. Yet we know next to nothing about this key era of cosmic history."

.."scientists generally assume that space expanded steadily during the first fraction of a second, without any unexpected events or transitions. It is entirely plausible that this simply was not the case."

"they know relatively little about the first seconds that followed the Big Bang — and next to nothing about the first trillionth of a second. When it comes to how our universe may have evolved, or to the events that may have taken place during these earliest moments, we have essentially no direct observations on which to rely."

Is the Big Bang in crisis?

Creation is a better explanation.

Oh no! Yet ANOTHER of those silly threads that claims that since science has yet to find the answer to EVERYTHING that it somehow means that 'science is in TROUBLE'. All of this coming from someone who can't tell you ANYTHING about how the universe started in it current form and can only claim to know WHO did it... but without a shred of verifiable evidence to back up the claim.

No wonder you have so much trouble comprehending how the scientific method works.

 

[exchemist]

Is the Big Bang in crisis?
Stubborn problems with dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic expansion have some astronomers rethinking what we know about the early universe.

"...cosmologists have struggled — if not outright failed — to understand essential facets of the universe. We know almost nothing about dark matter and dark energy, which together make up more than 95 percent of the total energy in existence today. We don’t understand how the universe’s protons, electrons, and neutrons could have survived the aftereffects of the Big Bang. In fact, everything we know about the laws of physics tells us that these particles should have been destroyed by antimatter long ago. And in order to make sense of the universe as we observe it, cosmologists have been forced to conclude that space, during its earliest moments, must have undergone a brief and spectacular period of hyperfast expansion — an event known as cosmic inflation. Yet we know next to nothing about this key era of cosmic history."

.."scientists generally assume that space expanded steadily during the first fraction of a second, without any unexpected events or transitions. It is entirely plausible that this simply was not the case."

"they know relatively little about the first seconds that followed the Big Bang — and next to nothing about the first trillionth of a second. When it comes to how our universe may have evolved, or to the events that may have taken place during these earliest moments, we have essentially no direct observations on which to rely."

Is the Big Bang in crisis?

Creation is a better explanation.

The Big Bang theory itself is not in crisis. The observations still point to the universe being small, hot and dense at a point 14bn years or so ago. Nobody is suggesting alternative explanations to the Big Bang for those observations.

The article instead points out the various features of cosmology that are not yet explained and draws a parallel with c.19th physics, in the era of (among other things) the Michelson Morley experiment and the Ultraviolet Catastrophe. In other words, the unexplained features of cosmology (dark energy, dark matter, asymmetry between matter and antimatter, etc) seem to be building up towards one of those revolutionary epochs in science such as happened in the early c.20th, when relativity and quantum theory came along and made sense of all the c.19th difficulties that had accumulated.

The author is hardly offering a new insight. It has been obvious for a while that these phenomena need some kind of breakthrough to resolve.

One thing I can guarantee, though: the breakthrough, if and when it comes, will not consist of giving up and saying "Goddidit".