Reply
Wed 3 Jan, 2007 08:34 am
Two of our most powerful scientific methods of understanding the world around us include evolution and the big bang. The scientific evidence for both are compelling and popular.
The big bang theory describes in detail how the universe has changed from its fiery start billions of years ago - evolving to its present state. It does not describe what started the explosion, and it does not convincingly describe how the very first life-form came to be.
Evolutionists like to use the term "magic" when it comes to God and what his follower believe. Isn't it also "magical" when considering why the explosion and the origin of life?
Rather than just the one 'big bang' I prefer to think of a cyclical process.
(Purely my own thoughts but capable of explaining things a bit better in my opinion)!
Bang - spread out - contract - Bang - spread out - contract ; and so on.
What causes the contract?
Perhaps there are more than one 'sources' and they interfere with each other.
OR perhaps it's more like a tree in Nature.
Every now and again, but definitlely cyclically, matter bursts out and does its thing until it decays away (like leaves, flowers, seeds, decay of new product).
The real magic is the BRAIN which allows us to imagine possible explanations which can then be tested by the clever ones amongst us who better understand the maths and physics and Natural Laws better than I will ever be able to!
rhymer
The idea of a cyclic process; bang-spread out-contract-bang, is a very widespread speculation. Just yesterday, on a different thread, one of A2K's members, I think it was NickFun, mentioned the very same idea.
Anyway, 'magic' is not a word a scientist will use without some measure of contempt.
Science indicates that there may have been something like the big bang. What science cannot say is if this really was the beginning. Scientists uphold the belief that something cannot come of nothing, and so there had to be something prior to the big bang.
Personally, I do not concern myself too much with the big bang theory. I believe that there are new and more adequate explanations being formed today, and quantum mechanics may enlighten us, since it describes a world that is completely different from the world we percieve. In this world dualistic notions such as 'here and there' and 'beginning and end' are void of meaning.
rhymer
The idea of a cyclic process; bang-spread out-contract-bang, is a very widespread speculation. Just yesterday, on a different thread, one of A2K's members, I think it was NickFun, mentioned the very same idea.
Anyway, 'magic' is not a word a scientist will use without some measure of contempt.
Science indicates that there may have been something like the big bang. What science cannot say is if this really was the beginning. Scientists uphold the belief that something cannot come of nothing, and so there had to be something prior to the big bang.
Personally, I do not concern myself too much with the big bang theory. I believe that there are new and more adequate explanations being formed today, and quantum mechanics may enlighten us, since it describes a world that is completely different from the world we percieve. In this world dualistic notions such as 'here and there' and 'beginning and end' are void of meaning.
"Magic" is used for events that seem to defy the physical laws of the universe. We do not know what initiated the big bang, but none of the current scientific theories require supernatural events or magic. Biogenesis and evolution do not abrogate any natural laws. But "poofing" the universe into existence with a word or instantly turning a lump of clay into a complex living being is not possible under universal law. That's why we refer to divine creation myths as "magic" and scientifically-explainable processes as "natural."
I am continuously amazed at how we take for granted that human perception is absolute perception.
The Big Bang, as currently postulated, involves all the matter in existence being together at one point, prior to an explosive event of some kind.
If all the matter of the universe were together at one point, isn't that what is known as a 'black hole' from which neither matter nor even light (energy) can escape?
Carl Sagan said every living thing is made of "star stuff". Perhaps the universe is simply overflowing with life. It's a natural part of the universe. It was created the same way the stars and planets were created. Stars and planets are themselves living things!
Real life: space-time, matter and gravity as we know them did not exist prior to the big bang, which was an expansion OF space, not an explosion IN space. It was not a singularity in pre-existing 3-dimensional space. There was nowhere for light and matter to escape to, had either existed at that point. There are theories about what existed prior to the big bang that are congruent with what we know of the early conditions of the universe. It may have been the result of a collision of branes in a higher-dimensional space, a fluctuation in the quantum foam, or something else entirely. In any case, none of the theories require a magical being of unknown origins poofing anything into existence.
Terry wrote:Real life: space-time, matter and gravity as we know them did not exist prior to the big bang, which was an expansion OF space, not an explosion IN space. It was not a singularity in pre-existing 3-dimensional space. There was nowhere for light and matter to escape to, had either existed at that point. There are theories about what existed prior to the big bang that are congruent with what we know of the early conditions of the universe. It may have been the result of a collision of branes in a higher-dimensional space, a fluctuation in the quantum foam, or something else entirely. In any case, none of the theories require a magical being of unknown origins poofing anything into existence.
The fact is that if you don't know what existed prior to the Big Bang, then you don't know if space, time, matter, and gravity existed in their present form or not.
You're basically guessing that they did not, without any real basis other than your preference.
You confidently assert 'it was not a ........' when you don't know what it was.
The basic argument upon which "real life" attempts to rely is the first cause argument of theological scholasticism. It suffers from a lack of precision. If god created the universe, who or what created god? If one answers that god is eternal, than it is only necessary to reply with entia non sunt multiplicanda--the universe itself can be eternal, and "god" is an unnecessary middleman in the equation. This is a more acutely important consideration in that time would not have existed before the singularity, which means there was no before for which one is obliged to account.
God was bought out by a group of investors over 2,000 years ago. It's stocks have continued to plummet. I don't suggest investing for now.
real life wrote: The fact is that if you don't know what existed prior to the Big Bang, then you don't know if space, time, matter, and gravity existed in their present form or not.
You're basically guessing that they did not, without any real basis other than your preference.
You confidently assert 'it was not a ........' when you don't know what it was.
Big bang theories are not a matter of "preference" like which creation myth to believe. Scientists (and those who take the time to educate themselves on the subject) know what the universe must have been like shortly after the big bang, and the laws of physics tell us when and how space-time, gravity, and matter came into existence. This knowledge comes from decades of astronomical observations, high-energy physics experiments, mathematics, chemistry, and other research. Look up "big bang cosmology" or see
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2004/reviews/bigbangrpp.pdf
We do not know what existed prior to 10 to the minus 43 seconds because physical laws as we know them cannot be applied to those conditions.
So the BB is really a tale of the origin of our science, not the univesre...
Terry wrote:...Big bang theories are not a matter of "preference" like which creation myth to believe. Scientists (and those who take the time to educate themselves on the subject) know what the universe must have been like shortly after the big bang, and the laws of physics tell us when and how space-time, gravity, and matter came into existence. This knowledge comes from decades of astronomical observations, high-energy physics experiments, mathematics, chemistry, and other research. Look up "big bang cosmology" or see
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2004/reviews/bigbangrpp.pdf
We do not know what existed prior to 10 to the minus 43 seconds because physical laws as we know them cannot be applied to those conditions.
BB theories ARE a matter of
preference! The details of the BB vary based on various scientists'
preference. Take a few minutes and research the differing thoughts of many scientists on this subject.
What about the origin of life? :wink:
OK, how about "multiple theories which all explain a given phenomenon and are are not contraindicated by available data are a matter of preference until such time as additional research eliminates incorrect ones."
Yes, some details of big bang theory are still in question, but the general theory and the points at which space-time, gravity, and matter appeared are fairly well-established by scientific evidence as opposed to being a "guess or preference," which is what my response to real life was intended to convey.
Re: MAGIC - and the Origin of Life
baddog1 wrote:Two of our most powerful scientific methods of understanding the world around us include evolution and the big bang. The scientific evidence for both are compelling and popular.
The big bang theory describes in detail how the universe has changed from its fiery start billions of years ago - evolving to its present state. It does not describe what started the explosion, and it does not convincingly describe how the very first life-form came to be.
Evolutionists like to use the term "magic" when it comes to God and what his follower believe. Isn't it also "magical" when considering why the explosion and the origin of life?
You are confusing "not yet knowing an answer" with "concluding a magical answer".
A religious person lives in a world where the origin of everything is "known". They often have difficulty understanding that a scientific person lives in a world where much is unknown and they are OK with that.
Re: MAGIC - and the Origin of Life
Eorl wrote:
You are confusing "not yet knowing an answer" with "concluding a magical answer".
A religious person lives in a world where the origin of everything is "known". They often have difficulty understanding that a scientific person lives in a world where much is unknown and they are OK with that.
I consider myself to be religious, but I assure you that everything is not known in my world - and I am OK with that!
And your statement leads one to believe that a scientist would/could not be religious - which of course is a fallacy. There are many scientists who "believe"!
Yeah, fair call. I did oversimplify.
I'm still saying that you are implying that ......
...those of who don't believe in magical causes need to do so when we don't have answers. This is false.
Eorl wrote:Yeah, fair call. I did oversimplify.
I'm still saying that you are implying that ......
...those of who don't believe in magical causes need to do so when we don't have answers. This is false.
I have no problem with anyone who does not believe in magical causes! (I don't either.)
I do however abhor those who suggest that the religious believe in a "magical being" when the foundation (the beginning) for their position is clearly as "magical".
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace