Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Big Bang

sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 5:41:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I have watched several videos on the Big Bang and read countless books. This video is the only one I have seen explaining the overall theory in only 10 minutes. This is very good work. Take a look.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 6:20:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 2/10/2010 5:41:25 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
I have watched several videos on the Big Bang and read countless books. This video is the only one I have seen explaining the overall theory in only 10 minutes. This is very good work. Take a look.


I watched the entire clip, I am no cosmologist, but I know that just because something such as the universe is explanding does not mean it was close together to begin with. You have to look at this from a biblical perspective. Everything was perfect until Adam sinned. The universe went from being perfect to being imperfect. There is nothing which can change more than something being perfect to becoming imperfect.

So when Adam sinned, then did the galaxcies begin to split apart. From then did temperatures fall, and like Adam was made as an adult, yet only seconds old, star light acts in the same way, God created star light to hit earth straight away. Yet billions of light years away, the light was there from the beginning hitting earth.

He, the person on the clip speaking did not explain what makes a galaxcy less or more developed. Yet by the logical reasoning he used to assume they were because the light is old light which the teleoscope sees. Which all comes back to the understanding that he has that once the universe was all together. So he suggests that they are younger galaxices.

If you get around the fact that the universe was never together and that sin caused the galaxcies to split apart and go off, from an age no more than 10,000 years ago then you would then suggest the light has lost it's speed it onced had of which was perfect and utterly cosistent with the human eye. Once you believe that the universe begin with a Big Bang as described then the rest will make sense, but if you understand that the universe as the Bible describles then the rest will not make sense.

However you do not find out things by knowing the thing you are trying to find out. Such as the ratiation from the Big Bang, found it our water etc... However much like the evolution debate, evidence can point both ways, yes they is evidence for the Big Bang, but their is also evidence for The Great Flood. When God flooded the earth He allowed springs to break open from the ground as well as the clouds to empty their wellies. Why am I not convinced if what the person on the clip is really true? I am not human too.

They are gaps which scientists do fill with asumption, but on either side of the asumption is science. Can you have a fictional scientific story book, yes you just heard one.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 6:23:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 6:20:00 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 2/10/2010 5:41:25 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
I have watched several videos on the Big Bang and read countless books. This video is the only one I have seen explaining the overall theory in only 10 minutes. This is very good work. Take a look.


I watched the entire clip, I am no cosmologist, but I know that just because something such as the universe is explanding does not mean it was close together to begin with. You have to look at this from a biblical perspective. Everything was perfect until Adam sinned. The universe went from being perfect to being imperfect. There is nothing which can change more than something being perfect to becoming imperfect.

So when Adam sinned, then did the galaxcies begin to split apart. From then did temperatures fall, and like Adam was made as an adult, yet only seconds old, star light acts in the same way, God created star light to hit earth straight away. Yet billions of light years away, the light was there from the beginning hitting earth.

He, the person on the clip speaking did not explain what makes a galaxcy less or more developed. Yet by the logical reasoning he used to assume they were because the light is old light which the teleoscope sees. Which all comes back to the understanding that he has that once the universe was all together. So he suggests that they are younger galaxices.

If you get around the fact that the universe was never together and that sin caused the galaxcies to split apart and go off, from an age no more than 10,000 years ago then you would then suggest the light has lost it's speed it onced had of which was perfect and utterly cosistent with the human eye. Once you believe that the universe begin with a Big Bang as described then the rest will make sense, but if you understand that the universe as the Bible describles then the rest will not make sense.

However you do not find out things by knowing the thing you are trying to find out. Such as the ratiation from the Big Bang, found it our water etc... However much like the evolution debate, evidence can point both ways, yes they is evidence for the Big Bang, but their is also evidence for The Great Flood. When God flooded the earth He allowed springs to break open from the ground as well as the clouds to empty their wellies. Why am I not convinced if what the person on the clip is really true? I am not human too.

They are gaps which scientists do fill with asumption, but on either side of the asumption is science. Can you have a fictional scientific story book, yes you just heard one.

That being the video clip, haha.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 6:26:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The Big Bang. Just one of a multitude of others.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 6:34:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here are a few questions...

1. What energy caused the energy which was present just before the Big Bang went BANG? Throughout the entire universe today in science everything is caused by an effect.

2. If gravity can hold together 'small earth' things such as atoms together, yet the partical which went Bang was smaller than an atom, why did the partical go Bang instead of being helt together by gravity?

3. If the Big Bang was not caused by nothing but something else, doesn't that demilish our universe as being the actually universe, therefore the universe has existed forever. And if the universe did come from nothing, doesn't that go against the law of science being cause and effect?
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 6:36:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 6:20:00 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 2/10/2010 5:41:25 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
I have watched several videos on the Big Bang and read countless books. This video is the only one I have seen explaining the overall theory in only 10 minutes. This is very good work. Take a look.


I watched the entire clip, I am no cosmologist, but I know that just because something such as the universe is explanding does not mean it was close together to begin with. You have to look at this from a biblical perspective. Everything was perfect until Adam sinned. The universe went from being perfect to being imperfect. There is nothing which can change more than something being perfect to becoming imperfect.

If objects move away from each other then at some point in their past they were closer. The universe cannot remain static; it can expand or contract. The laws of physics do not work if the universe is steady.
So when Adam sinned, then did the galaxcies begin to split apart. From then did temperatures fall, and like Adam was made as an adult, yet only seconds old, star light acts in the same way, God created star light to hit earth straight away. Yet billions of light years away, the light was there from the beginning hitting earth.

Have you read Ophalus? It was a work claiming the "on the way" argument. If you attribute the galaxies moving away when Adam sinned, then do you read the expansion is a result of original sin? Stasis was perfection? Please elaborate.
He, the person on the clip speaking did not explain what makes a galaxcy less or more developed. Yet by the logical reasoning he used to assume they were because the light is old light which the teleoscope sees. Which all comes back to the understanding that he has that once the universe was all together. So he suggests that they are younger galaxices.

Younger galaxies are not determined by distance. Hubble had no such assumption.
If you get around the fact that the universe was never together and that sin caused the galaxcies to split apart and go off, from an age no more than 10,000 years ago then you would then suggest the light has lost it's speed it onced had of which was perfect and utterly cosistent with the human eye. Once you believe that the universe begin with a Big Bang as described then the rest will make sense, but if you understand that the universe as the Bible describles then the rest will not make sense.

Show me! Give me the math. Show me. How does the universe start expanding 1,000 years AFTER we domesticated the wolf? I am interested.
However you do not find out things by knowing the thing you are trying to find out. Such as the ratiation from the Big Bang, found it our water etc... However much like the evolution debate, evidence can point both ways, yes they is evidence for the Big Bang, but their is also evidence for The Great Flood. When God flooded the earth He allowed springs to break open from the ground as well as the clouds to empty their wellies. Why am I not convinced if what the person on the clip is really true? I am not human too.

We did not find the cosmic background noise in our water. Unbelievable.
They are gaps which scientists do fill with asumption, but on either side of the asumption is science. Can you have a fictional scientific story book, yes you just heard one.

You just misunderstood or you did not wish to hear at all.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 6:46:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 6:34:51 PM, GodSands wrote:
Here are a few questions...

1. What energy caused the energy which was present just before the Big Bang went BANG? Throughout the entire universe today in science everything is caused by an effect.

2. If gravity can hold together 'small earth' things such as atoms together, yet the partical which went Bang was smaller than an atom, why did the partical go Bang instead of being helt together by gravity?

3. If the Big Bang was not caused by nothing but something else, doesn't that demilish our universe as being the actually universe, therefore the universe has existed forever. And if the universe did come from nothing, doesn't that go against the law of science being cause and effect?

God, grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
The courage to change the things that I can;
And the wisdom to know the difference.
Amen

I need a drink, brb.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 7:01:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 6:34:51 PM, GodSands wrote:
Here are a few questions...

1. What energy caused the energy which was present just before the Big Bang went BANG?

Our own little singularity point (from the Big Bang) could be just one small corner of the Universe. So we probably emerged from another all-encompassing Universe.

Throughout the entire universe today in science everything is caused by an effect.

Nope. Not in quantum theory. Particles emerge from "nothing" and disappear into "nothing." They pop in and out of existence without a cause. If this applies to universes, then our universe likely just sprouted into existence. Or, we could have been born from a much larger universe.

2. If gravity can hold together 'small earth' things such as atoms together, yet the partical which went Bang was smaller than an atom, why did the partical go Bang instead of being helt together by gravity?

You mean why did the particle expand? What does an expanding particle have to do with gravity? What is there to be "held together" if it's a single point of energy? Plus, scientists are still trying to figure out how gravity works on the quantum level and at the moment of the Big Bang.

3. If the Big Bang was not caused by nothing but something else, doesn't that demilish our universe as being the actually universe,

Yes. As I said earlier, that means what we call "universe" isn't actually the entire Universe. It's not likely that our little singularity point the size of a pea is the ENTIRE Universe. We probably emerged from a much larger Universe.

therefore the universe has existed forever.

Yes. And I see no problem with that.

And if the universe did come from nothing, doesn't that go against the law of science being cause and effect?

Again, quantum particles spring into existence from nothing. It' not impossible.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 3:42:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If quantum particles can appear from absolutely nothing, what is it that determines when and where they appear? Why don't they just all appear at once?
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 3:48:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 6:20:00 PM, GodSands wrote:
So when Adam sinned, then did the galaxcies begin to split apart. From then did temperatures fall, and like Adam was made as an adult, yet only seconds old, star light acts in the same way, God created star light to hit earth straight away. Yet billions of light years away, the light was there from the beginning hitting earth.

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Oh man, I'm sorry GodSands. I couldn't help it. That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said, and you've said some unbelievably ridiculous things.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 3:49:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/11/2010 3:42:23 PM, mongeese wrote:
If quantum particles can appear from absolutely nothing, what is it that determines when and where they appear? Why don't they just all appear at once?

They are self-determined.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 3:52:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/11/2010 3:49:16 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/11/2010 3:42:23 PM, mongeese wrote:
If quantum particles can appear from absolutely nothing, what is it that determines when and where they appear? Why don't they just all appear at once?

They are self-determined.

By what? Free will?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 3:59:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/11/2010 3:52:26 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 2/11/2010 3:49:16 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
They are self-determined.

By what? Free will?

Your talking to a guy who believes in an intelligent Universe, so yeah.

Though, if you read my debate with Lwerd, I elaborated on this. It is inevitable that the smallest elementary particle ought to be self-determined (Bohm agrees). If not, then you reach infinite regress of smaller determining particles.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 4:02:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/11/2010 3:59:31 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/11/2010 3:52:26 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 2/11/2010 3:49:16 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
They are self-determined.

By what? Free will?

Your talking to a guy who believes in an intelligent Universe, so yeah.

Though, if you read my debate with Lwerd, I elaborated on this. It is inevitable that the smallest elementary particle ought to be self-determined (Bohm agrees). If not, then you reach infinite regress of smaller determining particles.

Well, once you're saying that individual, mindless particles have free will, free will for humanity or an omnipotent being hardly seem out of the question.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 4:16:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/11/2010 3:42:23 PM, mongeese wrote:
If quantum particles can appear from absolutely nothing, what is it that determines when and where they appear? Why don't they just all appear at once?

Not to mention the fact that quantum particles do not come from "nothing" - they come from quantum vaccum fields.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 4:21:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/11/2010 4:16:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/11/2010 3:42:23 PM, mongeese wrote:
If quantum particles can appear from absolutely nothing, what is it that determines when and where they appear? Why don't they just all appear at once?

Not to mention the fact that quantum particles do not come from "nothing" - they come from quantum vaccum fields.

If that's true for particles, then why do Christians constantly assert the Big Bang came from nothing? How do they know?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 4:23:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/11/2010 4:21:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If that's true for particles, then why do Christians constantly assert the Big Bang came from nothing? How do they know?

I don't know of any Christians who assert that the Big Bang came from nothing.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 4:30:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/11/2010 4:23:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/11/2010 4:21:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If that's true for particles, then why do Christians constantly assert the Big Bang came from nothing? How do they know?

I don't know of any Christians who assert that the Big Bang came from nothing.

I mean not in the sense you're talking about. There is creation ex nihilio though.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 5:22:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/11/2010 4:16:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/11/2010 3:42:23 PM, mongeese wrote:
If quantum particles can appear from absolutely nothing, what is it that determines when and where they appear? Why don't they just all appear at once?

Not to mention the fact that quantum particles do not come from "nothing" - they come from quantum vaccum fields.

And the quantum vaccum fields from...?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 5:26:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/11/2010 5:22:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 2/11/2010 4:16:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/11/2010 3:42:23 PM, mongeese wrote:
If quantum particles can appear from absolutely nothing, what is it that determines when and where they appear? Why don't they just all appear at once?

Not to mention the fact that quantum particles do not come from "nothing" - they come from quantum vaccum fields.

And the quantum vaccum fields from...?

Supposedly, it's always been there. Wherever "there" is.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 6:32:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 6:34:51 PM, GodSands wrote:
Here are a few questions...
2. If gravity can hold together 'small earth' things such as atoms together, yet the partical which went Bang was smaller than an atom, why did the partical go Bang instead of being helt together by gravity?

Frist thing, gravity doesn't hold atoms together, the weak and strong nuclear forces do (thus why there is trouble in combining quantum and relativity).

At 2/11/2010 4:16:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/11/2010 3:42:23 PM, mongeese wrote:
If quantum particles can appear from absolutely nothing, what is it that determines when and where they appear? Why don't they just all appear at once?

Not to mention the fact that quantum particles do not come from "nothing" - they come from quantum vaccum fields.

http://en.wikipedia.org... - Basic reading if anyone wants to get a base knowledge.

http://www.iop.org... - A more indepth understanding of it.

While particles are not necessarly created in the vacuum space, they can be (they can also be created in non vacuum space and actually, really cool things happen when they are created on the edge of an event horizon)
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sky_ace25
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 3:22:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The two major questions that are unknown to most scientists are:

How did all the matter in the universe come to be in this clumped tiny little ball no larger than a period?

What was the triggering force that broke the ball apart?

Everything else we've pretty much figured out by nuclear chemical reactions where atoms were bonding in hydrogen stars, because of the immense heat and then progressing to make new elements and such.
Seriously, Pluto is no longer a planet?
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 4:06:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
And the quantum vaccum fields from...?

What we do know is that in a vacuum, subatomic particules appear and then disappear brief periods of time later (in quantum mechanics these are called virtual particles). This has been observed in numerous experiments using differnent means of observation.

This phenomenon (among others) is accurately described by quantum field theory. Where the fields come from? We don't know. That is the limit of current human knowledge.
jc496
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 7:42:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Of course, if the galaxies are speeding away from each other, it is obvious that they were once closer together. However, how do you know that you are looking 12 billion years in the past? I know about the speed of light and everything, but how exactly, do we know how far apart some of these objects are?
jc496
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 8:10:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I see. So, the only way to say that the matter/stars are not that old, would be to refer to some supernatural influence, or to claim that the speed of light is not constant.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2010 8:12:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You can claim god 'planted' the evidence and the the universe is young, or deny the basis of cosmological observations themselves.