Big Bang!

[kristina3313]

<p>I&nbsp;was arguing evolution and asked&nbsp;one question re: Big Bang and this was what followed:</p><p>"can you tell me what doesn't make sense to you in that theory, is it singularity?"(MY QUESTION)<br /><br />"That is one of many problems. Where did all that material come from? What caused it to be so compressed? Why did it go bang?<br />The idea came from assuming that the universe is expanding and then theoretically back-tracking to the ultimate, where it could have theoretically been all in a small dot. But was it ever so small? It might have come into existence at a quarter of its present size, we have no information about that in the evolutionary belief, except the assumption. <br />In an atomic explosion the atoms are torn to pieces and the bits fly outwards and disintegrate releasing energy and ceasing to exist. But evolutionists claim that an explosion, which had no atoms formed, blew bits of an unknown material outward that formed atoms!...<br />I can imagine that an undefined material blew up or decompressed like an explosion, with the material flying directly out from the centre, there being no force to direct it otherwise. For some strange reason a piece forms a nucleus, and now the tricky bit. In defiance of the laws of motion an electron takes a sharp turn, without any cause, and goes into a very tight orbit around the nucleus, making an atom. There is nothing known in science to make the electron go into orbit, it should go straight ahead, as there is no possible force to make it turn at the right place, and stay in orbit. Supposedly only helium was formed, I think. The heavy elements were formed in supernovas. But the same applies. Why would nuclei form and then why would electrons go into a tight high speed orbit around them? This is the opposite of what we see in an atomic explosion, and has no scientific explanation except it must be believed for the sake of the theory...&nbsp;<br />I started reading up again on the "big bang". In particle accelerators energy can be converted to matter, within limits. When particles of matter are created in the laboratory they are always in pairs, of matter and antimatter, so if you get an electron you get a positron, a proton and antiproton, etc. They always come in pairs, always complete, and annihilate each other, never form atoms." (AN&nbsp;ANSWER TO MY QUESTION ABOVE)</p><p>With my limited knowledge&nbsp;of physics I am kind of lost, so if anyone has time and have different opinions about this subject I would love to hear them before I respond to the post above, thank you!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I&nbsp;was arguing evolution and asked&nbsp;one question re: Big Bang and this was what followed:"can you tell me what doesn't make sense to you in that theory, is it singularity?"(MY QUESTION)"That is one of many problems. Where did all that material come from? What caused it to be so compressed? Why did it go bang?The idea came from assuming that the universe is expanding and then theoretically back-tracking to the ultimate, where it could have theoretically been all in a small dot. But was it ever so small? It might have come into existence at a quarter of its present size, we have no information about that in the evolutionary belief, except the assumption. In an atomic explosion the atoms are torn to pieces and the bits fly outwards and disintegrate releasing energy and ceasing to exist. But evolutionists claim that an explosion, which had no atoms formed, blew bits of an unknown material outward that formed atoms!...I can imagine that an undefined material blew up or decompressed like an explosion, with the material flying directly out from the centre, there being no force to direct it otherwise. For some strange reason a piece forms a nucleus, and now the tricky bit. In defiance of the laws of motion an electron takes a sharp turn, without any cause, and goes into a very tight orbit around the nucleus, making an atom. There is nothing known in science to make the electron go into orbit, it should go straight ahead, as there is no possible force to make it turn at the right place, and stay in orbit. Supposedly only helium was formed, I think. The heavy elements were formed in supernovas. But the same applies. Why would nuclei form and then why would electrons go into a tight high speed orbit around them? This is the opposite of what we see in an atomic explosion, and has no scientific explanation except it must be believed for the sake of the theory...&nbsp;I started reading up again on the "big bang". In particle accelerators energy can be converted to matter, within limits. When particles of matter are created in the laboratory they are always in pairs, of matter and antimatter, so if you get an electron you get a positron, a proton and antiproton, etc. They always come in pairs, always complete, and annihilate each other, never form atoms." (AN&nbsp;ANSWER TO MY QUESTION ABOVE)With my limited knowledge&nbsp;of physics I am kind of lost, so if anyone has time and have different opinions about this subject I would love to hear them before I respond to the post above, thank you! <br />Posted by kristina3313</DIV></p><p>NOBODY knows why the Big Bang occurred, or can describe the actual event with any clarity.&nbsp; Nobody knows where all the mass came from.&nbsp; </p><p>What is known is that the universe appears to be expanding, based on several pieces of data, the most prominent of which is the correlation between red shift and distance.&nbsp; What is also known is that there is a minimum amount of matter that we know exists in the universe.&nbsp; We have a theory that describes gravity, and it has been substantiated with a great deal of experimental data and is consistent with all of it.&nbsp; That theory is Einstein's general theory of relativity.</p><p>Stephen Hawking and Roge Penrose applied the general theory of relativity with boundary conditions provided by the observed expansion and amount of matter that has been observed and mathematically showed that the universe, at some time in the past, was in a very compact state -- no more than a few centimeters in diameter.&nbsp; The theory predicts a singularity -- a breakdown in the mathematical structure due to the curvature becoming infinite at that point.&nbsp; This prediction is what is called the Big Bang.</p><p>If you would like to read a very good discussion of the events immediately following the Big Bang I suggest the book <em>The First Three Minutes</em> by Steven Weinberg.&nbsp; Weinberg is an excellent particle physicist (he shared the Nobel prize for development of the electroweak theory) and also an expert in general relativity and cosmology.&nbsp; The book is written for a lay audience. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SHU]

<p><font size="2">I was reading something about the "big bounce" theory that mentioned that the amount of material could not have compacted as much as predicted by the big bang theory.&nbsp; Hard to say since the laws of physics didn't exist yet.&nbsp; "Bang" might have been an unfortunate word choice if the event was prolonged.</font></p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang</p><p><u></u></p>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was reading something about the "big bounce" theory that mentioned that the amount of material could not have compacted as much as predicted by the big bang theory.&nbsp; Hard to say since the laws of physics didn't exist yet.&nbsp; "Bang" might have been an unfortunate word choice if the event was prolonged.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang <br /> Posted by SHU</DIV></p><p><font size="2">If laws of physics were absent at the instant or prior to big bang, then when did the 'laws of physics' start? One moment there are no laws of physics, and then within a nano sec (or less), suddenly laws of physics sprang out from nowhere, as if all elementary particles knew how to behave and waiting for the big bang.&nbsp; Since then 'laws of physics' remained the same even after 15 billions years. I don't know about you, but to me even fairy tales are more believable.&nbsp; Did 'laws of physics' evolve? Most likely. In that case we can not use current theories to backtrack the instant of big bang, because there must somewhere be an unknowable discontinuity.&nbsp; </font></p><p><font size="2">One example is absolute zero. We can not reach absolute zero. This is one discontinuity. It is very reasonable to assume temperature prior to big bang </font><font size="2">was absolute zero</font><font size="2">, then all matters were&nbsp; Bose-Einstein condensate. Interestingly, no scientist is looking at this problem from this angle.<br /></font></p><p><font size="2">Please keep religion out.&nbsp; Many here are&nbsp; allergic to religion.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[Bflowing]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If laws of physics were absent at the instant or prior to big bang, then when did the 'laws of physics' start? One moment there are no laws of physics, and then within a nano sec (or less), suddenly laws of physics sprang out from nowhere, as if all elementary particles knew how to behave and waiting for the big bang.&nbsp; Since then 'laws of physics' remained the same even after 15 billions years. I don't know about you, but to me even fairy tales are more believable.&nbsp; Did 'laws of physics' evolve? Most likely. In that case we can not use current theories to backtrack the instant of big bang, because there must somewhere be an unknowable discontinuity.&nbsp; One example is absolute zero. We can not reach absolute zero. This is one discontinuity. It is very reasonable to assume temperature prior to big bang was absolute zero, then all matters were&nbsp; Bose-Einstein condensate. Interestingly, no scientist is looking at this problem from this angle.Please keep religion out.&nbsp; Many here are&nbsp; allergic to religion. <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV><br /><br />One possibility is that multi-universes where created, each with different sets of "laws".&nbsp; Ours being only one of them.</p><p>Now considered a closed universe where eventually the universe collapses back to a near-null state, and starts all over again.&nbsp; Would the "laws" be the same?</p><p>Extending this further, who says that this bounce hasn't already happened.&nbsp; (You know how much modern scientists hate uniqueness, so this scenerio is more probable.).&nbsp; In which case, there may be some matter/whatever still out there operating under different "laws".&nbsp; We just have to find it.&nbsp; Hmmm, will need an FTL drive and a million years.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kristina3313]

<p>Thank You DrRocket for your explanation and singularity is pretty clear to me now, but what about the rest of what he had said:</p><p>"I can imagine that an undefined material blew up or decompressed like an explosion, with the material flying directly out from the centre, there being no force to direct it otherwise.(is there a force?)&nbsp;For some strange reason a piece forms a nucleus, and now the tricky bit. In defiance of the laws of motion an electron takes a sharp turn, without any cause, and goes into a very tight orbit around the nucleus, making an atom.(is there a defiance of the laws of motion?)&nbsp;There is nothing known in science to make the electron go into orbit, it should go straight ahead, as there is no possible force to make it turn at the right place, and stay in orbit.(???)How would nuclei form and then why would electrons go into a tight high speed orbit around them? This is the opposite of what we see in an atomic explosion..."</p><p>PS And Thank You for the book recommendation, I've found one on Amazon and&nbsp;placed an order.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kristina3313]

<p>SHU, there was an arcticle in Scientific American (October 2008) about a Big Bounce, not sure if that's the one you are talking about,&nbsp;here is the link:</p><p>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jim48]

<strong><font size="2">Okay. As the resident scientist out here I can easily tell you what came after the Big Bang: The Big Cigarette. Listen, just feel free to ask me anything!</font></strong> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank You DrRocket for your explanation and singularity is pretty clear to me now, but what about the rest of what he had said:"I can imagine that an undefined material blew up or decompressed like an explosion, with the material flying directly out from the centre, there being no force to direct it otherwise.(is there a force?)&nbsp;For some strange reason a piece forms a nucleus, and now the tricky bit. In defiance of the laws of motion an electron takes a sharp turn, without any cause, and goes into a very tight orbit around the nucleus, making an atom.(is there a defiance of the laws of motion?)&nbsp;There is nothing known in science to make the electron go into orbit, it should go straight ahead, as there is no possible force to make it turn at the right place, and stay in orbit.(???)How would nuclei form and then why would electrons go into a tight high speed orbit around them? This is the opposite of what we see in an atomic explosion..."PS And Thank You for the book recommendation, I've found one on Amazon and&nbsp;placed an order. <br />Posted by kristina3313</DIV></p><p>The rest of what "he" said seems to be based on a&nbsp; complete misunderstanding of the Big Bang.</p><p>The Big Bang was not a nuclear explosion, or any other sort of explosion in the usual sense of the word.&nbsp; It was NOT a release of energy or matter from some point in space.&nbsp; It was the beginning of space and time.&nbsp; You cannot even talk sensibly about "before" the big bang.&nbsp; What expanded and continues to expand is the space-time manifold that constitutes the universe and everything in it.&nbsp;It was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space and tme itself. &nbsp;There were no straight lines, nor&nbsp;electrons, at the moment of the Big Bang or even shortly afterward.</p><p>"He" also seems&nbsp; a bit confused regarding atomic structure.&nbsp; Contrary to what is sometimes taught to elementary school children, the atom is not a little solar system.&nbsp; The electron and the nucleus are quantum mechanical in nature and are not little marbles in little well-defined orbits.&nbsp;</p><p>One other book that you ought to read, and you enjoy it immensely is <em>A Brief History of Time</em> by Stephen Hawking.</p><p>I cannot imagine what any of this has to do with evolution.&nbsp; Evolution is a perfectly valid qualitative explanation as to how the various species became differentiated from one another.&nbsp;It is consistent with what we know of biochemistry and with genetics. &nbsp;But it has nothing to do with the Big Bang.&nbsp; It also has nothing to do with abiogenesis, and the two are often confused.&nbsp; </p><p>BTW I think a good deal of the problem is the "he" understands zero science.&nbsp; Arguing with idiots is often not productive, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kristina3313]

<p>Replying to:</p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p><font size="1">I cannot imagine what any of this has to do with evolution.&nbsp; Evolution is a perfectly valid qualitative explanation as to how the various species became differentiated from one another.&nbsp;It is consistent with what we know of biochemistry and with genetics. &nbsp;But it has nothing to do with the Big Bang.&nbsp; It also has nothing to do with abiogenesis, and the two are often confused.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</font><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>Oh no DrRocket, that is not the case, it should be, but it's not, especially when some (creationist/ID/whatever) are trying to fit Evolution into biblical timeline and now even physics I guess (you know Earth being only 6000 years old), so no&nbsp;theory is safe, unless it&nbsp;is a fact or a law. You are right though, there was no reason to side track,&nbsp;but when it did, I&nbsp;didn't want to leave any questions unanswered, so I asked here. </p><p>PS thanks for the recommendation, I actually remember seeing that one in Barnes and Noble, so maybe I'll start with that one.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Replying to:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I cannot imagine what any of this has to do with evolution.&nbsp; Evolution is a perfectly valid qualitative explanation as to how the various species became differentiated from one another.&nbsp;It is consistent with what we know of biochemistry and with genetics. &nbsp;But it has nothing to do with the Big Bang.&nbsp; It also has nothing to do with abiogenesis, and the two are often confused.&nbsp; Posted by DrRocket------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Oh no DrRocket, that is not the case, it should be, but it's not, especially when some (creationist/ID/whatever) are trying to fit Evolution into biblical timeline and now even physics I guess (you know Earth being only 6000 years old), so no&nbsp;theory is safe, unless it&nbsp;is a fact or a law. You are right though, there was no reason to side track,&nbsp;but when it did, I&nbsp;didn't want to leave any questions unanswered, so I asked here. PS thanks for the recommendation, I actually remember seeing that one in Barnes and Noble, so maybe I'll start with that one. <br />Posted by kristina3313</DIV></p><span style="font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="3">"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer</font></span> <p><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/12/0cf7efc3-9f3b-413c-ac04-0b9f0d974ec8.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kristina3313]

<p>That's freaking hilarious, thanks I needed it!!! </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"That is one of many problems. Where did all that material come from? What caused it to be so compressed? Why did it go bang?<br /> Posted by kristina3313</DIV></p><p>I'm assuming the above quote originated from your friend.&nbsp; My first response would have been to mention that these questions are out of the scope of the Big Bang Theory.&nbsp; It has never been a model on cosmological origins and considering your discussion spawned from evolution, no doubt your friend is questioning "first causes". &nbsp; Most scientists in this field of study simply describe the very early universe and being "very hot and very dense".&nbsp; The BBT does a pretty descent job of describing the universe after about 10^-36.&nbsp; &nbsp; Beyond that, we just don't know... yet.&nbsp; It, along with the LambdaCDM model, have been fairly successful in modeling the expansion of the observable universe.&nbsp; Simply because we can not answer questions on the origins, does not mean the theories following the origins are wrong, invalid, or useless. </p><p>As for the rest of your friend's response, I only parrot what Dr. Rocket said.&nbsp; I'd add Leon Lederman's "The God Particle" to your friends list of books to read.&nbsp; One of my favorite books... full of humor.&nbsp; And you learn something about particle physics on the way, too.&nbsp; Very accessible for the layperson.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If laws of physics were absent at the instant or prior to big bang, then when did the 'laws of physics' start? One moment there are no laws of physics, and then within a nano sec (or less), suddenly laws of physics sprang out from nowhere, as if all elementary particles knew how to behave and waiting for the big bang.&nbsp; Since then 'laws of physics' remained the same even after 15 billions years.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>The laws of physics have always been in place.&nbsp; Might you be referring to the fundamental forces being combined prior to 10^-36 seconds?&nbsp; When those forces separated is when our understanding becomes a bit more clear.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is very reasonable to assume temperature prior to big bang was absolute zero, then all matters were&nbsp; Bose-Einstein condensate. Interestingly, no scientist is looking at this problem from this angle.</p><p> Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>Why would such an assumption be reasonable?&nbsp; For starters a Bose-Einstein condensate is not absolute zero. Absolute zero mean no energy... no quantum states to overlap and be shared as seen in BECs.&nbsp; What you are proposing sounds similar to the "cold big bang cosmology" which doesn't succeed in explaining the temperature of the CMBR (nor do most other theories). </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[kristina3313]

<p>Replying to:</p><p><font size="1">I'm assuming the above quote originated from your friend.&nbsp; My first response would have been to mention that these questions are out of the scope of the Big Bang Theory.&nbsp; </font></p><p>Thank you for your reply derekmcd, yes you are correct, most of my original post was a copy of what he said, mine was just a question about singularity. I guess it was partially my fault,&nbsp;I consider all scientific theories important when it comes to teaching them in schools, and when someone stated that Theory of Evolution is a belief system&nbsp;(to be exact "ToE&nbsp;= Church")&nbsp;and as such should not be taught in school... where is the logic there, I was in shock,&nbsp;how do you respond to that...&nbsp;but anyway that is how&nbsp;I originally side tracked&nbsp;and mentioned physics field.&nbsp;</p><p><font size="1">Beyond that, we just don't know... yet.&nbsp; It, along with the LambdaCDM model, have been fairly successful in modeling the expansion of the observable universe.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</font></p><p>The "yet" is always a good sign! And LambdaCDM, well I learn something new here everyday&nbsp;(about dark matter, red shifts, even stuff about magnets), I see that there is an article on wiki, so I'll start there.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/3/39cce320-164d-4c43-83d2-9ed4d93ea8b1.Medium.gif" alt="" /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/5/8662e8fa-4e3a-4fea-951d-f0e8a9784859.Medium.gif" alt="" /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/6/61bff3bc-589e-4bf4-b66b-c2b51f14f87f.Medium.gif" alt="" /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></p><p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[joshuaz]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I&nbsp;was arguing evolution and asked&nbsp;one question re: Big Bang and this was what followed:"can you tell me what doesn't make sense to you in that theory, is it singularity?"(MY QUESTION)"That is one of many problems. Where did all that material come from? What caused it to be so compressed? Why did it go bang?The idea came from assuming that the universe is expanding and then theoretically back-tracking to the ultimate, where it could have theoretically been all in a small dot. But was it ever so small? It might have come into existence at a quarter of its present size, we have no information about that in the evolutionary belief, except the assumption. In an atomic explosion the atoms are torn to pieces and the bits fly outwards and disintegrate releasing energy and ceasing to exist. But evolutionists claim that an explosion, which had no atoms formed, blew bits of an unknown material outward that formed atoms!...I can imagine that an undefined material blew up or decompressed like an explosion, with the material flying directly out from the centre, there being no force to direct it otherwise. For some strange reason a piece forms a nucleus, and now the tricky bit. In defiance of the laws of motion an electron takes a sharp turn, without any cause, and goes into a very tight orbit around the nucleus, making an atom. There is nothing known in science to make the electron go into orbit, it should go straight ahead, as there is no possible force to make it turn at the right place, and stay in orbit. Supposedly only helium was formed, I think. The heavy elements were formed in supernovas. But the same applies. Why would nuclei form and then why would electrons go into a tight high speed orbit around them? This is the opposite of what we see in an atomic explosion, and has no scientific explanation except it must be believed for the sake of the theory...&nbsp;I started reading up again on the "big bang". In particle accelerators energy can be converted to matter, within limits. When particles of matter are created in the laboratory they are always in pairs, of matter and antimatter, so if you get an electron you get a positron, a proton and antiproton, etc. They always come in pairs, always complete, and annihilate each other, never form atoms." (AN&nbsp;ANSWER TO MY QUESTION ABOVE)With my limited knowledge&nbsp;of physics I am kind of lost, so if anyone has time and have different opinions about this subject I would love to hear them before I respond to the post above, thank you! <br /> Posted by kristina3313</DIV></p><p>I have some questions.&nbsp;</p><p>First of all, didn't Pasteur disprove spontaneous generation?&nbsp; "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment".</p><p>If the Big Bang could occur, why aren't we seeing little Big Bangs occurring all over the place?&nbsp; Where did the atoms needed come from if there was nothing? &nbsp;</p><p>And if a singularity involves all the laws of science breaking down, how then can it be said to be scientific?&nbsp; Isn't it resorting to the same reasoning that 'God must have done it' in saying it's outside the boundaries of what's scientifically reasonable and explainable?</p><p>Furthermore, if we can't definitely explain how everything came into being, and guesswork (like the new diamond hypothesis) is still constantly ongoing, why then is this theory taught as undeniable fact in science classrooms?</p><p>And still furthermore, if Richard Dawkins admits that life could've been "seeded" by extra-terrestrials, doesn't that mean he subscribes to the idea of Intelligent Design?&nbsp; (He just doesn't like E.T. being called 'God').&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And still furthermore, if Richard Dawkins admits that life could've been "seeded" by extra-terrestrials, doesn't that mean he subscribes to the idea of Intelligent Design?&nbsp; (He just doesn't like E.T. being called 'God').&nbsp; <br /> Posted by joshuaz</DIV></p><p>But where did the extra-terrestrials come from?</p><p>As to your other questions, well, Big-Bang theory only goes back as far as the bang, and tries to describe what has happened since that bang. Pasteurs disproof of spontaneous generation may only apply after the Big-Bang but not to the Big-Bang itself. It is like saying you cannot have something happen without a cause <strong>within</strong> this universe, but that does not necessarily mean that cause and effect applies in the same way to the creation of the universe. Whatever the cause was, there might be no evidence within the physics of this universe. We are talking about using the known laws of physics to work out what caused the known laws of physics! Imagine trying to work out where an omelette came from if you have no knowledge of what a chicken is. </p><p>Yes, the singularity is where the physics break down, but this is very different from ascribing creation to God, as the Big-Bang scenario does not even try to describe what caused the bang. It simply says "we don't know". This is very different from thinking you <em>do</em> know that some metaphysical entity is responsible.</p><p>The Big-Bang should be taught in science class as exactly what it is, our best scientific theory to describe what has happened since the universe began.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[kristina3313]

<p>josuaz, atoms didn't come out of nothing, after the Big Bang temperature was extermely high, the particles that were present in large numbers were electrons, positrons, neutrinos, and photons, with some protons and neutrons. As Universe cooled, protons and neutrons were able to form neucleus of hydrogen then helium and only a few hundred thousand of years later as&nbsp;temperature cooled enough electron joined the nuclei to form atom.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have some questions.&nbsp;First of all, didn't Pasteur disprove spontaneous generation?&nbsp; "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment".</DIV></p><p>Pasteur disproved the very old notion that maggots arose from rotting meat, mice from moldy grain and similar ideas.&nbsp; That has nothing whatever to do with abiogenesis as the origin of life.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the Big Bang could occur, why aren't we seeing little Big Bangs occurring all over the place?&nbsp; Where did the atoms needed come from if there was nothing? &nbsp;And if a singularity involves all the laws of science breaking down, how then can it be said to be scientific?</DIV></p><p>Nobody knows why the Big Bang occurrec, and in fact the notion of causality with respect to the Big Bang has no meaning, since there is no measure of time with which to describe the dynamics -- there is no "before" the Big Bang.&nbsp; The understanding of the Big Bang comes from general relativity and the predicted singularity is not essential to the conclusion that the universe was in the distant past in a very compressed state -- only a few centimeters in diameter.&nbsp; And, yes, the process involved in the Big Bang prediction is completely scientific, including the observation that the predicted singularity indicates a limit to our current understanding.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Isn't it resorting to the same reasoning that 'God must have done it' in saying it's outside the boundaries of what's scientifically reasonable and explainable?Furthermore, if we can't definitely explain how everything came into being, and guesswork (like the new diamond hypothesis) is still constantly ongoing, why then is this theory taught as undeniable fact in science classrooms?</DIV></p><p>The Big Bang is not an undeniable fact, but it is a solid&nbsp;prediction of modern science.&nbsp; It is a logical consequence of what is observed in the universe and our best available theory of gravity , general relativity.&nbsp; General relativity has been verified in a huge number of very precise experiments, and is valid over a wide range of circumstances.&nbsp; It does appear to break down, as evidenced by the singularity that is predicted in association with the Big Bang.&nbsp; Therefore we really do not know what was going on for the first 10^-26 seconds or so.&nbsp; But that ignorance of the dynamics of the first fracton of a second is hardly grounds to dismiss the entire prediction.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And still furthermore, if Richard Dawkins admits that life could've been "seeded" by extra-terrestrials, doesn't that mean he subscribes to the idea of Intelligent Design?&nbsp; (He just doesn't like E.T. being called 'God').&nbsp; <br />Posted by joshuaz</DIV></p><p>Who cares what Richard Dawkins admits or thinks ?</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kg]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;.... Nobody knows why the Big Bang occurrec, and in fact the notion of causality with respect to the Big Bang has no meaning, since there is no measure of time with which to describe the dynamics -- there is no "before" the Big Bang.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />If I remember correctly in the book <em>A Brief History of Time </em>Steven Hawkings tells a story about a conference held by the Pope on the subject of the Big Bang.&nbsp; After the talks the Pope stood up and said something like "It's ok to do research into what's happened after the big bang but don't look into what happened before it because that's the realm of God and shouldn't be messed with".&nbsp; Steven Hawkings then says&nbsp;"I'm glad the Pope didn't understand a word of my presentation"!</p><p>Anyway, it seems that I've&nbsp;read something about "before" the big bang.&nbsp; Is the science&nbsp;of this sill&nbsp;just guess work?</p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I remember correctly in the book A Brief History of Time Steven Hawkings tells a story about a conference held by the Pope on the subject of the Big Bang.&nbsp; After the talks the Pope stood up and said something like "It's ok to do research into what's happened after the big bang but don't look into what happened before it because that's the realm of God and shouldn't be messed with".&nbsp; Steven Hawkings then says&nbsp;"I'm glad the Pope didn't understand a word of my presentation"!Anyway, it seems that I've&nbsp;read something about "before" the big bang.&nbsp; Is the science&nbsp;of this sill&nbsp;just guess work? <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>The best model that we have is general relativity.&nbsp;In that model the question of "before" the big bang is completely meaningless.</p><p>There are other theories, but really nothing beyond speculation.&nbsp; Guess work is a kind description.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And still furthermore, if Richard Dawkins admits that life could've been "seeded" by extra-terrestrials, doesn't that mean he subscribes to the idea of Intelligent Design?&nbsp; (He just doesn't like E.T. being called 'God').&nbsp; <br /> Posted by joshuaz</DIV></p><p>Dawkins certainly does not agree with ID.&nbsp; I imagine you are referring to his interview in the movie "Expelled" in which he, essentially, entertains the idea that there is a non-zero probability that an advance alien seeded life on earth in some way.&nbsp; There's also a non-zero probability that I will find a 10 million dollar, cashable, no strings attached, check in my mailbox today.</p><p>It was taken completely out of context. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[joshuaz]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But where did the extra-terrestrials come from?As to your other questions, well, Big-Bang theory only goes back as far as the bang, and tries to describe what has happened since that bang. Pasteurs disproof of spontaneous generation may only apply after the Big-Bang but not to the Big-Bang itself. It is like saying you cannot have something happen without a cause within this universe, but that does not necessarily mean that cause and effect applies in the same way to the creation of the universe. Whatever the cause was, there might be no evidence within the physics of this universe. We are talking about using the known laws of physics to work out what caused the known laws of physics! Imagine trying to work out where an omelette came from if you have no knowledge of what a chicken is. Yes, the singularity is where the physics break down, but this is very different from ascribing creation to God, as the Big-Bang scenario does not even try to describe what caused the bang. It simply says "we don't know". This is very different from thinking you do know that some metaphysical entity is responsible.The Big-Bang should be taught in science class as exactly what it is, our best scientific theory to describe what has happened since the universe began.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>All the laws I see suggest that nothing material can come from nothing.&nbsp; The law of conservation says matter can not be created or destroyed, but somehow it came to be. Unless the creator or creating essence is non-physical, spirit, or whatever you want to call it, the existence of all that now is doesn't make a whole lot of sense.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>The problem with Big Bang theory is that in schools it's taught often as fact, not simply a likely possibility.&nbsp; I know one LiveScience article mentioned that what best fits the facts with the fewest assumptions is what should be assumed to be the case.&nbsp; Well, Big Bang theory assumes, contrary to known facts, that stuff can materialize from absolute nothingness.&nbsp; The evolutionary theories tied to it assume that carbon levels remained constant despite the unparalleled global catastrophes occurring (meteor showers, ice ages, floods, etc.), that animals can change into entirely different species even though this has never been witnessed, that evolutionary speed once moved at a much faster rate (even though again this has never been witnessed), and that an ice age is the more likely explanation for dino extinction than a global flood (even though cultures worldwide bear reference to the latter).&nbsp; Even when judging universal age, one is assuming that light travels at the same speed through space and its 'dark matter' as it does here through earth's atmosphere.</p><p>My point is simply that there are an awful lot of assumptions being made by the other side as well.&nbsp; Yes, the Creationist crowd is assuming, based on the words of a millenia old book, that a God exists, that animals and humans were created all at one time, and that the universe is not all that old (hard to tell how old, but it doesn't match well to billions of years).&nbsp; At the same time though, the evolution/Big Bang crowd often seems to be committed to refusing to even consider such possibilities.&nbsp; </p><p>Yeah, there are multiple ways to look at the Creationist crowd. Some of them could be brainwashed religionists brought up to blindly accept the stuff by their parents, or who lack the mental fortitude to think for themselves.&nbsp; But to expand that to all the others, to assume they're moronic, incompetent nincompoops sticking flags up in their yards and driving pickup trucks, whose conclusions disqualify the possibility that they could be rational human beings, is the beginning of prejudicial discrimination.&nbsp; After all, who knows?&nbsp; They might've actually found God and accepted Biblical truths a la Paul or Thomas - through skeptical weighing of alternatives. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[joshuaz]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dawkins certainly does not agree with ID.&nbsp; I imagine you are referring to his interview in the movie "Expelled" in which he, essentially, entertains the idea that there is a non-zero probability that an advance alien seeded life on earth in some way.&nbsp; There's also a non-zero probability that I will find a 10 million dollar, cashable, no strings attached, check in my mailbox today.It was taken completely out of context. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>"non-zero probability"...&nbsp; are those his words on the subject, or yours?&nbsp; And if he thought so little of the possibility, why would he bring it up for a movie when he didn't need to?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>