Let's talk about the "Big Bang" (theory)

[Polymath257]

Something (whatever that was--mass? density? whatever that was also) was there, right? At this point I think it's time for me to say, yeah, well, ok...(whatever...) Just wondering what you think...

Again, if time *began* at that point, there was nothing there 'before'. Literally nothing because there was no 'before'.

 

[PruePhillip]

Give the exact words of Genesis 1 and then explain.
No, life did not appear on land or in fresh water. Wrong.

Yeah it did. Fresh water, in a pond environment, provided a wet and dry cycle that could concentrate organics.
Salt water tended to disrupt critical processes, and being in the ocean DILUTED organic molecules.

The Earth "creates" life. Of itself. It is was believed that life appeared in the oceans first. But new lines of evidence converged in 2017 to suggest that it was the land and not the deep ocean trenches which set in motion the creation of life (David Deamer and Bruce Damer - University of California - Santa Cruz. 2017. August 2017 Scientific America)

Did life begin on land rather than in the sea? (ucsc.edu)

 

[PruePhillip]

I was just trying to pin down a certainly-true statement from the Good Book for you. And there it was, right at the front.

Sorry, you have lost me.

 

[blü 2]

Sorry, you have lost me.

Back at #70 you said:

"I meet people who say there's no truth in the bible whatsoever."
​

so my intent was to provide you with an example of truth written in the bible.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Earth "creates" life. Of itself. It is was believed that life appeared in the oceans first. But new lines of evidence converged in 2017 to suggest that it was the land and not the deep ocean trenches which set in motion the creation of life (David Deamer and Bruce Damer - University of California - Santa Cruz. 2017. August 2017 Scientific American

Yeah, that is the new theory coming up. 'Life did not require deep-sea sulfur vents'. I would not discount it. However, it still did not require intervention of a God.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yeah, that is the new theory coming up. 'Life did not require deep-sea sulfur vents'. I would not discount it. However, it still did not require intervention of a God.

No intervention required - it's built into the laws of physics. It says that 'God commanded' and what did He command? His own creation.
As an aside, there's TONS of things which ought not to have happened in this physics ruled world - such as the collision with the planet Thea which created our moon and gave us the 23.5 deg tilt for our seasons, or the meteorite which hit Yucatan at the precise angle and precise spot to change the climate and kill off the dinosaurs - giving opportunity for us mammals. Etc.

 

[gnostic]

No intervention required - it's built into the laws of physics. It says that 'God commanded' and what did He command? His own creation.

Creating light just by saying “Let there be light”, that separate light from darkness, and day from night, aren’t “laws of physics”.

And neither is creating adult human male from dust.

Both defy law of nature.

And the battle of Gibeon, where the sun and stopped for a full day (Joshua 10), until Joshua’s army defeated the Amorites, also defy nature.

Scientifically, the moon don’t stop and restart orbiting the Earth, nor do the Earth stop its rotation at midday and restart is day later.

This is nothing more than fiction and fantasy.

Beside that, it description about stopping the Sun, describe both a flat Earth and sun moving while the Earth is fixed, tells us that author believed in geocentric model, which Galileo prove this to be false.

None of natural events and natural phenomena showed God doing anything, let alone “create”.

While there are natural phenomena on Earth and outside of our Solar System, there are no evidence, one or the other that show god exist in the first place, meaning the concept of god is untestable, therefore ultimately unfalsifiable, making god nothing more than wishful fantasy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It says that 'God commanded' and what did He command? His own creation.
As an aside, there's TONS of things which ought not to have happened in this physics ruled world - such as the collision with the planet Thea which created our moon and gave us the 23.5 deg tilt for our seasons, or the meteorite which hit Yucatan at the precise angle and precise spot to change the climate and kill off the dinosaurs - giving opportunity for us mammals. Etc.

Well, theists put everything at God's door. We atheists don't agree with that. Again putting all events at God's door is not our way. These events are well covered by the theory of probability.
Probability - Wikipedia

 

[Alien826]

You guys have so much patience. It was obvious to me after a few posts that @YoursTrue wasn't really seeking knowledge about the Big Bang. He just want to get to a point where we said "I don't know" about it so he could bring God into the picture. Nevertheless, on you all went, patiently trying to explain things.

BTW, I find that admirable, no criticism intended.

 

[Colt]

Wikipedia: Eric J. Lerner is a popular science wrtier.
What he writes must be sensational, otherwise how will his articles sell?
Panic? What Panic?? Science goes by evidence. If Big Bang is proved false by evidence, we will abandon it. If it needs to be modified, then we will modify it.
So, If JWST's images do not contradict Big Bang hypothesis, then what exactly is the peeve of these papers and people (including Alison Kirkpatrick)? They should clearly come out with their objections.
@cOLTER , science will accept even the existence of God and soul if there was evidence, but unfortunately, there is none.

What we will find is that the universe is far older than hypothesized.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, now we have a dense mass the size of a peach. So my question which I guess the astronomers and scientists can ponder over if they want to is -- what's beyond the peach? anything?

This is one of the problems with popularizations of these concepts. The currently observable universe was once the size of that peach, not the whole universe (which includes the stuff beyond what we can currently see).

If the universe is currently infinite in size, it would have also been infinite during the 'peach' stage with hot dense material beyond that peach.

If the universe is currently finite in size (positively curved), then the universe at the peach stage would have been finite as well and correspondingly smaller. But it still would have consisted entirely of how dense material.

Frankly my dear, since it's beyond my comprehension, I will turn it over to God because there are some things beyond *our* comprehension, as exemplified by the new posits made by those looking through the new type of telescope. When I was in high school I pondered over atoms and what holds them together to make things like wood and desks, etc., despite the "space" between them. The intellectual ability is interesting but nothing gained in terms of pondering beyond having a good time trying to figure things out.

All I can suggest is spending some time pondering these things. Eventually they will make more sense.

 

[Polymath257]

It was smaller than a peach. The microwave background radiation is evidence that the universe was sub-atomic in size at one point. If new theories arise in physics and are shown to be true they might offer insight into the big bang. There is a lot we don't know.
Atoms are held together by forces, the strong force and EM.

The background radiation was formed when the universe was about 11,000 times smaller than currently, which would still have made it just over a million light years in diameter at that point.

Even during nucleosynthesis, the scale factor was a couple of billion, which would have made the observable universe tens of light years across.

To get a scale factor making the observable universe subatomic in scale would take us back to Planck time or so. So, no, the CMBR does NOT give evidence of this.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is one of the problems with popularizations of these concepts. The currently observable universe was once the size of that peach, not the whole universe (which includes the stuff beyond what we can currently see).

If the universe is currently infinite in size, it would have also been infinite during the 'peach' stage with hot dense material beyond that peach.

If the universe is currently finite in size (positively curved), then the universe at the peach stage would have been finite as well and correspondingly smaller. But it still would have consisted entirely of how dense material.



All I can suggest is spending some time pondering these things. Eventually they will make more sense.

OK, you say the currently observable universe was once the size of a peach, however big or small that peach was. A normal size peach maybe? This is why I simply find that more incredible than the idea that there is a God. Period. But thanks anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

You guys have so much patience. It was obvious to me after a few posts that @YoursTrue wasn't really seeking knowledge about the Big Bang. He just want to get to a point where we said "I don't know" about it so he could bring God into the picture. Nevertheless, on you all went, patiently trying to explain things.

BTW, I find that admirable, no criticism intended.

Actually, as I said just before, the idea that before the "Big Bang" some people think (?) the mass that banged, or exploded, was the size of a peach is truly incredible. I'm not faulting the person, but I do think it's -- um -- ridiculous.
So since I have determined based on the various posts and depictions of what the "Big Bang" is supposed to be -- that it is a ridiculous, yes ridiculous concept, I'm saying that after reading all these intellectual guesses, the idea of God as over the universe and imponderable is not such a foreign idea. But thanks anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, theists put everything at God's door. We atheists don't agree with that. Again putting all events at God's door is not our way. These events are well covered by the theory of probability.
Probability - Wikipedia

Upon examination, I find the probability of God existing far superior to the scientific concepts of how things began as if it all started by something -- nature? density? mass? c'mon guys...

 

[YoursTrue]

No intervention required - it's built into the laws of physics. It says that 'God commanded' and what did He command? His own creation.
As an aside, there's TONS of things which ought not to have happened in this physics ruled world - such as the collision with the planet Thea which created our moon and gave us the 23.5 deg tilt for our seasons, or the meteorite which hit Yucatan at the precise angle and precise spot to change the climate and kill off the dinosaurs - giving opportunity for us mammals. Etc.

Going back to probabilities again -- today I was thinking about the probability of humans burgeoning (evolving by chance, I mean, natural selection) is so far beyond the scope of anyone's thinking in REALITY -- that yes, there is only one credible answer IMO of course. Of course, that's after the mass exploding a long time ago and planets, suns, moons and other things being formed by, um, chance, not natural selection.

 

[YoursTrue]

1. There was no mass at the time of Big Bang, only energy. Mass developed later (probably due to Higg's Bosons).
2. I have already answered that question - Science does not know. Research is progressing.
3. I understand that it is beyond your comprehension and that you were never very good at science in school. That is OK.
4. It is OK, if you find your answers in a God, but do not expect all people to accept what you believe.
5. Many things have not been explained fully, that is why science is necessary, rather than pushing those things under the God carpet. New posits have not yet made Big Bang theory untenable.

Research is progressing? You mean the scientists are at a point of reversing their theory?
Yes, I want to thank those who have had patience with me, including you, answering my questions insofar as what YOU think and also sometimes how I react to it. So thanks y'all and take care.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I want to thank those who have had patience with me, answering my questions insofar as what YOU think and also sometimes how I react to it. So thanks y'all and take care.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What we will find is that the universe is far older than hypothesized.

That is a prophecy, and I do not believe in prophecies.

Upon examination, I find the probability of God existing far superior to the scientific concepts of how things began as if it all started by something -- nature? density? mass? c'mon guys...

Your (unscientific) views, not mine.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You mean the scientists are at a point of reversing their theory?

No, they are not. But they would not hesitate if such evidence comes up.