The creation of everything... How?

Even if it were the truth absolutely and literally it would still be a creation story. And even though the facts behind our story may be solid, that doesn't mean our knowledge and culture can never change so much that big bang theory becomes outdated.

I say "becomes", but I am of the opinion that this has already happened.

The single biggest thing involved in the demise of the big bang is Halton Arp's work showing very clear cases of very high and very low redshift cosmic object which are clearly part and parcel of the same things. Other than that, there are other and better explanations for cosmic background radiation.

Nonsense as you are using the term story in a not-standard manner in order to placed known scientific facts in the same category as religion fairy tales.

Whats the difference between "an explanation of the origin of the universe" and "a creation story"?

And if the explanation turns out to be wrong, what's the difference then?

A story written base only on the fantasy in the mind of a man with not one little bit of evidence backing it is not the same thing as a science theory that over the decades had proven to have the backing of very hard evidences indeed.

Not one and the same even if you are trying to turn it into the same by playing word games.

Ok so you now say that we ARE hardwired to want to exist. And if you define "the good" with "what we want" you can see the relationship between being and the good.

That is beside the point. Regardless of the facts that support the story, it is still a story, and since it is about how everything came to be, it is a story about creation.

Besides, it is entirely possible to interpret the creation story from the bible in such a way that it doesn't contradict the "hard facts".

But new findings do actually indicate that the big bang theory may not be so accurate after all. It may be just another fairytale that we have constructed. A creation story in the language of the time it was made, same as the christian genesis is a creation story in the language of the time it was made.

It is possible, likely even, that in 100 years "big bang" sounds as ridiculous to people as biblical creation does to the "rational minds" of today.

If you cannot see what I mean it may be because you are relating to your (scientific) beliefs in the same way a christian relates to his (religious) beliefs.

I suspect that our evolutionary careers have provided us not so much with the conscious/conceptualized desire-to-survive but with the ABILITY to develop that desire through cultural conditioning. When zebras flee lions do you think they have thoughts about dying and how that may lead to a bad state of non-existence, etc.? Or is their reaction some kind of mechanistically reflexive reaction? Nietzsche's Will to Power is a drive that is built-in (i.e, "hard-wired") and operating at less than conscious levels (reflexively?).
Why do you use such old-fashioned philosophical terms like The Good? Do you mean The Valued?

When zebras flee lions do you think they have thoughts about dying?

Yes, of course, why do you think they run? Its because they want to survive. Surely you don't think a mammal so close to us in biology could be so different from us in mind. Not just their survival instinct. Their care of their young. They are mammals after all. The result of the same evolutionary process as we are. Ever see a pig slaughtered? You think they don't know? Why do you think they are screaming?

If I could kill you in a completely painless way would you opt for it? Why not? You must prefer living somehow. Do you really think that that preference is not instinctive and the result of evolution? How would someone without this desire fare given evolutionary theory?

Why do you fear such old-fashioned philisophical terms? Call it whatever you like - make up a new term if you prefer. You do see the connection though. Survival=good. Being=good. Call it what you want. It dovetails perfectly with evolutionary theory rather than contradicting it. We don't just behave in a way that makes us survive. We want to live. And we act to fulfill our desire.

And its not just survival instinct. The whole sexual / reproductive instinct is engaged. I am not sure that is true for non-mammals like ants or fish. But for those of us that are mammals it is not just the survival of ourselves but of our children - or is that too an "old fashioned philosophical term" - would you prefer I used the term "offspring". Clinical sounding enough?

"Is all that we see, and seem, but a dream, within a dream?" Edgal Allan Poe





David

Sorry the evidences found for the big bang will not disappear for the rest the existence of the human race an beyond so it have nothing to do with an illogical fantasy story concerning gods and the beginning of the universe.

The theory may or may not change greatly and expands as more facts and knowledge come to us but it will never never be on the same level as the silliness found in the bible for example.

Newton's theories no longer hold however the data that back his theories is as valid today as they was in the 1700 hundreds and his theories had just proven to be a special case the fit into the current theories and our current understandings.

We still in fact used his theories for a large amount of our day-to-day calculations in engineering and science, because of it being a special case of our new understanding of the universe.

To sum up the likelihood of the current big bang theory not being valid part of our scientific understandings of the universe is near zero, just as Newton’s laws are still a valid part of out understanding of the universe.

A scientific theory is not a story so your attempt to made them the same is nonsense on it face.

A love people with no background in science who take details of new findings out of content that they do not also understand and used that as a means to attacked a proven theory such as evolution or the big bang.

As far as Halton work is concern and his theory it had not held up as more and more details have been gather with better and better instruments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp



CriticsArp originally proposed his theories in the 1960s; however, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly since then: the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, multiple 8-10 meter telescopes (such as those at Keck Observatory) have become operational, and detectors such as CCDs are now more widely employed. These new telescopes and new instrumentation have been utilized to examine QSOs further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many imaging surveys, most notably the Hubble Deep Field, have found many high-redshift objects that are not QSOs but that appear to be normal galaxies like those found nearby.[5] Moreover, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.[6][7][8] As more recent experiments have expanded the amount of collected data by orders of magnitude, it has become increasingly simple to test Arp's postulates directly. A recent study stated that:

"... the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [..] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency. "[9]
Nonetheless, Arp has not wavered from his stand against the Big Bang and still publishes articles stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature, frequently collaborating with Geoffrey Burbidge and Margaret Burbidge.[10]

Bill

Regarding the big bang theory, are you able to identify which aspects of it are facts and which are abstractions derived from facts?

I don't dispute that the facts may never change. What I am saying is that our abstractions derived from facts change continuously. Another thing you seem to not get is that big bang theory is a response to biblical creation, and simply because that is a very common comparison for people to make, it is entirely possible that some of the things that must neccesarily be included may appear so because of our inclination to think in a certain way.



Your attempt to glorify science as a medium of absolute truth reminds me of religious fanatiscism. Scientific fanatiscism, I guess it could be called.

Are you using science and technology to post your messages or are you using the messenger god Mercury to carry them to us instead?

Do you support the building of dams and floodwalls or will prayers to the rain gods be a better path to take?

Mankind had been trying to control and understand our environment since we first walk upright and so far science and technology had a very solid record of being useful in reaching that goal.

Trying to do so by means of interactions with the gods or god or whatever seem to have one damn poor record of being useful to mankind.

So yes,religion fairly tales seem not to be a pathway to truth/understanding with or without a capital T and science seem to be the only useful path to truth that mankind to date had found.

Still, a, to an extent, somewhat objective scientific description does not amount to a full or complete description upon the phenomena around us...there ARE conceptual restraining frames in place which evolve our "objective" position...and that IMPORTANT bit is the point placed on the table that you are trying to shake out...

I do not see your logic that because one method of understanding the universe is not perfect we should waste time on methods that had proven over tens of thousands of years to be worthless.

Once more, the study of the gods or gods had not proven to be a useful tool for mankind and science and technology had indeed done so.

We are both using high technology to chat not by passing messages by way of the god mercury.

I agree on that...not the point...still I just pointed to be cautious...

Read this. It's an article Einstein published about science and religion. I think you are in for a few surprises.

A good observation to make at this point is perhaps that only a person who is religious to the point of fanaticism has problems reconciling with science, and similarly, only a person that is scientific to the point of fanaticism fails to reconcile with the fact that science cannot explain everything.

BWAAAAAAAhaaaahaaaahaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaahaaahaaaahaaahahahaha haaahwwwwaaaaaaaaahaaaa haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaaa haaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaahaaahaaaahaaahahahaha haaahwwwwaaaaaaaaahaaaa haaaahaaaahahaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaahaaahaaaahaaahahahaha haaahwwwwaaaaaaaaahaaaa haaaahaaaaha.......

Wikipedia is a wonderful resource for any topic for which no controversy could plausibly exist; it is totally worthless for everything else.