Big Bang Problem

the true beginning of wisdom is the fear of The Lord.
King Solomon had wisdom,but what happened?
We cannot allow ourselves to be wise in our own eyes.
If we do,we will be allowed to be decieved.
I know you honestly believe what you are saying,but I cannot
see it the same way that you do.
being able to admit that I know nothing at all compared to God
helps me to stay focused.

---

Desdamona

But being able to recognize that we can know about the universe helps scientists to create technologies.Your way leads to nothing at all because you give up before you even start: "I'm not God so I can't ever know anything at all."

Its accumulated about 75 messages in the last 15 hours, a big chunk of that since midnight.Sometimes I give topics short term closures in this situation, but I won't this time.Adminnemooseusps: I bet this message had little to no effect.

---

WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

I believe you are very educated and very inteligent.
you even say you are a fan of the holy bible,so I know you really
and truly believe in what you are saying.
I haven't learned all of that,and it seems rather difficult to learn it as you stated.I could probably gain from it,but I cannot get rid of what I already know about God no matter what else I learn.I know to much now in the sense that I know I have experienced God's presence in my life.I know you want to help me.Maybe I can try to learn it?,but it no doubt will take alot of time.

---

Desdamona

special equipment can be very useful.
I have seen the ferning pattern that women develope around the time of ovulation with a microscope.
I agree that special equipment is useful.If you feel I have lied to then I apologize.

---

Desdamona

Thats not what I mean.I do want to look into this and study about it.Yes,it will take a long time,but I am just trying to let you know that for me personally,I cannot denie God.Too much has happened that has shown me how real that he truly is.That doesn't mean that I cannot learn from what you are saying,or that I can't study the things you say are useful.

---

Desdamona

So don't. Remember when I told you that evolution didn't contradict belief in God? That's still true. And it's true for the Big Bang and other scientific theories.Nobody's asking you to think that God is false. We just want you to know that science is true.

Yes,I believe I should look into it.No,I don't think thats what I'm afraid of.It may surprise people to know this but there are atheists,and others who believe differently than christians at the christian message boards.Who invented the idea of the big bang?

---

Desdamona

OK. Some evidence for the big bang. Recent measurements by the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer (Dasi) at the Amundsen-Scott base at the South Pole have observed that the Cosmic Microwave Background (mentioned above as Big Bang evidence) is polarised in exactly the way predicted by the theory:

quote:

---

"The prediction is bang on," says Dr Carlstrom. "We think we know the Universe, but if the polarisation was not there at the predicted level we were back to the drawing board."

​

However, the new observations are pointing to an ever-more puzzling Universe: a Universe whose birth was dominated by mysterious dark matter and dark energy.

​

"We're stuck with a preposterous Universe," he says.

​

The observations confirm the inflation theory of the early evolution of the Universe, which describes an explosive spurt of expansion when the Universe was young.

​

"We can go from checking inflation to actually testing it," Dr Carlstrom adds.

---

Note: "inflation theory" is, in effect the Big Bang theory.Now, the implications. By "running back" theories about the origins of the univers, in particular Relativity, you hit a singularity - the Big Bang, at which point the universe had zero size and infinite density. At this point the laws of nature all break down. In effect at or "before" this point space and time did not exist (that's why before is in quotes: it is not sensible to talk about something before time existed).The Big Bang is not an explosion in space and time, but and explosion of space and time.

As Crashfrog said, evidence.God wrote the rocks, Man wrote the Bible. I trust what God wrote.

I believe an ordained priest (and WWI veteran) named Georges Lematre is attributed with proposing the idea in 1927, under the name "hypothesis of the primeval atom". His proposal came after observing the red shift in distant nebulas by astronomers to a model of the universe based on relativity.Some info on him can be found at: Bad title - WikipediaHere's irony for you:"This proposal caused a sharp reaction from the scientific community of the time. Eddington found Lemaitre's notion unpleasant. As for Einstein, he found it suspect, because, according to him, it was too strongly reminiscent of the Christian dogma of creation and was unjustifiable from a physical point of view. The debate between cosmology and religion took the form of a polemic that would last several decades. In this debate, Lematre would be a fundamental actor who unceasingly tried to separate science from faith."Seems like now-a-days it's the other way around.It continues:"However, in January 1933, Lemaitre and Einstein, who had met on several occasions - in 1927 in Brussels, at the time of a Solvay congress, in 1932 in Belgium, at the time of a cycle of conferences in Brussels and lastly in 1935 at Princeton - traveled together to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened"."[This message has been edited by Garf, 04-21-2004]

Erm, I'd rather hear that from the horses mouth. Which message did Sylas say that in??And also, even if he wasn't a fan of the bible, he still believes in what he is saying.One thing is for sure though, you don't know anything about the universe, so to suggest the Big Bang Theory is a religion is a bit silly. The bible itself has no say on the issue. As Minnemooseus pointed out, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth".Therefore there is no need to arrive at the assumption that this theory is against the scripture. It is only the whim of a desperate creationist to suggest this theory is against God. Hugh Ross's "The creation event" television series, shows us how the Big Bang could have been the creation event. Using totally scientific logic, he deduces that ofcourse it can be how God created the universe. Also, Sylas did point out the evidence to you and he even shown you how you can put your tv on and "see" the evidence for yourself.BTW - welcome to the forum anyway, I know that's a late welcome......It does good to know that claiming science is a religion will not go down well here at the forum. I myself have discovered that science is the antithesis of religion. With religion, we start with an assumption - (I had to suffer the wrath of Schraff because of this). But, in this case and in the case of all sciences, we have independent evidence to verify the theories. Sylas tried to show you this with his five examples of evidence. When independent evidence is found that corroborates a theory, the theory indeed will hold water. If I have a theory that says the universe had a big bang start, and in the future evidence was found for that - Well then you can obviously see the point to the argument.It is good that you ask questions and I am also a christian , but when asking your many questions, maybe you should hold off on the "conclusions". It will only serve to frustrate people, as can be seen with Lam.

Thank you, Mike!What I've been trying to tell her is that there has been no creationist at all that rallied to her defense. That should tell her something about her thought process. It's good to finally have a believer telling her that there is something seriously wrong with her mental perception of math and science.I've been adviced by a friend on another forum to stop wasting my effort on desdamona. She can believe what she wants to believe. I will no longer answer her posts unless either she stops saying "la la la I can't hear you" or she posts something that have more than a conclusion with no premise.Peace.

---

The Laminator

​

I know the discussion has moved on a little but I think a relatively simple explanation would help you a lot here.When you look at an object you don't 'see' the object itself, rather you see the light reflected off of that object (or, in the case of light sources, the light emitted by the object). When that light reaches you eye your brain will create an 'image' of what that object looked like when the light left that object. So if the light left the object 10 minutes ago, the image your mind creates will represent what that object looked like 10 minutes ago. The greater the distance between you and the object, the longer the light will take to reach you and the 'older' the image will be. If the light has to travel far enough (as with many stars), the object might not even exist anymore by the time you see the light from that object. What this boils down too is that the light reaching us now from distance stars and galaxies has been traveling for millions sometimes billions of years and show us a picture of what those stars and galazies looked like millions or billions of years ago.I hope that makes things a little clearer.

---

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

I like science.
There are many scientists in the world.Science is not a problem to me.

---

Desdamona