Big Bang Found

NEWSER) — A dizzying scientific achievement: Astronomers have gotten a look back at what one scientist calls "the beginning of time ... the universe at the very beginning." That is, they've detected gravitational waves that could be the first direct evidence that within a fraction of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, the cosmos began to, in the New York Times' description, "swell faster than the speed of light for a prodigiously violent instant." Such an event (dubbed "inflation") was theorized in 1979 by physicist Alan Guth, but finding evidence of it "has been a key goal in the study of the universe," the AP reports. The findings must still be confirmed by other experiments, though the lead astronomer says there's only a one in 3.5 million chance the team's results are a fluke

I am not really a big news junkie so I am sure that there is lots of stuff that I miss but there is something wrong when the greatest discovery in the history of science comes and goes with barely a whimper in the world's press. I had to go looking for the story in my google news aggregator. Do we really live in a world where the shape of Kim Kardashian's ass is more interesting than the shape of the universe?

Shadow71 writes:Not sure why you conclude "creationists" etc.I believe in creation and this finding supports the fact that the universe had a beginning, and thus there was some sort of creation.

So what did cause the CMB? That's an open question. But since the CMB data are generally inconsistent with inflation (a fact quickly glossed over in Monday's announcement), it is definitely not "leftover" radiation from an alleged Big Bang. Secular scientists have made many such splashy announcements over the years, announcements which have supposedly proven various aspects of their evolutionary worldview but which have eventually been rejected (often quietly) by evolutionists themselves. This is not the first such announcement, nor will it be the last. Readers should resist the temptation to embrace these ever-changing secular origin stories. The inerrant, inspired, true creation account never changes, however: "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" (Isaiah 40:8).

For believing Jews, the story of the Big Bang resonates perfectly with the story of creation told in Genesis, Aviezer said. Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly. If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it, said Aviezer.

Shaddow71 writes: It does not seem logical that there would be a spontaneous formation out of nothing w/o some moving force

Shaddow71 writes:Here there is no real basis for a spontaneous cause of the universe, but a universe created out of nothing by a supernatural being is plausible.

Shadow71 writes:The next step would be for you to tell us how something was created out of nothing.

kbertshe writes:But this is not a physics question; it is a philosophy question. And Hawking, like Dawkins, has rejected philsophy as a valid field of knowledge. So he is not equipped to answer the question.