Problems with the Big Bang theory

Of course science can be used anywhere to support a position, even on the faith side.The difference is that on the Faith side, you are free to say that you reject all the evidence simply because it conflicts with your beliefs. On the Faith side a pleading of "Willful Ignorance" is acceptable.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, YOU may not know what it was like back then, and YOU might have to resort to guessing, but that is only due to ignorance. If someone looks at the record that has been left they can learn quite a bit about what the past was like, whether that past was a week ago, 200 years ago, 2 million years ago or 2 billion years ago. There are records in rocks, in fossils, in air trapped in amber and ice, in creatures living in water that has been issolated for millions of years. There are records left in the heavens as seen in WMAP. Theories are not evidence and no one on the science side ever claims that a theory is evidence. So that is just silly.But there is no theory or even model for Biblical Creationism that explains the evidence that is seen and available. Not really. I think that you have a strange idea of what faith is. Well, I did not attack your intellegence, just your knowledge. Being ignorant has nothing to do with intellegence, only with what you know.What I said is that on the Faith side, a claim of willfull ignorance is acceptable. On the Faith side it is acceptable to say that regardless of the evidence you wish to believe in some fantasy such as Biblical Creationism or a Young earth.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I am sorry but that is simply far too simplistic to let go by. We have a thread looking at the Grand Canyon from the bottom up. The very bottom layer could not have been created in anything like a "matter of years". Sorry but that is simply nonsense. No body is claiming "EXACTLY" so it is just another strawman.The rest of your post is quite frankly PRATTs.It's time you stop misrepresenting what folk say.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar said: to which scottness replied: Good questions even if irrelevant to what I said.We have 100% of the available evidence, but what I believe you meant to ask was what percentage of the total evidence would that be. The answer of course is unknown.Will new evidence change current theories and understanding? Certainly, GOD willing and the crick don't rise. That is how science works and knowledge grows.What will not happen is that Biblical Creationism, Young Earth or ID be supported. They are just plain refuted, falsified, wrong. They are interesting from a historical perspective as examples of early attempts to understand the universe but little else.The economic and institutional consequences as always will vary from hardly observable to large. Knowledge is almost always profitable. The more we know the better the economy.Would some people resist change? Again, hopefully. Science works through challenge. New ideas should be resisted until the support for them becomes overwhelming. Only when the new ideas better explain what is seen than the old ideas should they be adopted.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar said: to which DivineBeginning replied: While the Grand Canyon is certainly off topic for this thread , it is IMHO an important enough point to justify a small digression.The lowest exposed layer (we must remember that the lowest exposed layer is only the top of many other layers that lie even deeper and so are not exposed) is the Vishnu Schist.Schist is interesting. It was once sandstone. To get sand stone you must first have some larger rock, some mountain, which is then weathered, broken up into smaller and smaller pieces until you get sand. The weathered material must then be transported down hill until it is deposited. Once deposited the sand must then be compressed until the individual grains fuse together to form one piece of rock, sandstone. That sandstone then must be compressed even more until it changes into the metamorphic rock known as schist.The fact is (and I've read and watched all the Biblical Creationist propaganda about the Grand Canyon) that the apologists and snake oil salesmen that try to sell the idea of rapid formation of the Grand Canyon count on the ignorance and gullibility of their audience just as they do when discussion the Big Bang. They paint lovely word pictures and make illogical and frankly dishonest comparisons in the sure knowledge that their audience will not call them on the errors.To just get the lowest exposed layer, just one layer of many in the Grand Canyon, the following steps are necessary:

• mountains must be built.
• those mountains must then be weathered.
• the material from weathering must be broken down into smaller and smaller pieces ending in pieces the size of a grain of sand.
• the sand must then be transported downhill until deposited in a plain, valley, river mouth or some other low place.
• the sand must be compacted to become sandstone.
• compaction is done by additional layers of sand piling on top.
• the sandstone must be further compressed to form schist.

There is yet another step or two involved in the lowest layer, the Vishnu schist. It has intrusions of granite, the Zoroaster granite.Granite is yet another separate process. It is made from magma intrusions that happened after the Vishnu Schist formed. The Zoroaster granite not only intrudes into the Vishnu schist, it extends through the schist BUT not into the layer that rest above the Vishnu schist.That is important.The fact that it not only intrudes but in places extends through the Vishnu schist BUT not into the overlying layer tells us that the Vishnu Schist was raised up and then it in turn was weathered away, eroded, BEFORE the next layer was laid down.As with the BB and what we are learning from WMAP and other research, the devil is in the details. And the details tell us that even looking at just the very bottom exposed layers of the Grand Canyon, what is seen could not happen in a "matter of years". Edited by jar, : change subtitleEdited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, well. Not just totally off topic and a non-response but irrelevant nonsense as well.The topic is "Problems with the Big Bang theory".The only problems that I can see with the BB theory are that I am limited (old and feeble minded) and can no longer follow all of the beautiful math involved. But those limitations are really mine and not related to the theory.As with DivineBeginnings, you seem to ignore what I posted and instead jump off into some unrelated and unimportant sideline.You have no idea what I seek, but I can tell you it is an honest understanding of the Universe we live in. That's all.GOD, IMHO, has given us the capability of critical thought and the urge to seek truth and knowledge. She has placed us on a quest, a quest to determine HOW She did it.She has provided all of the evidence, written out Her word, for all of us to see. And so far, She has not lied, the evidence seems to be conclusive. At some time in the far distant past the universe was quite different than what we see locally. The universe something over 14 billion years ago was quite different than today, there were no stars, no galaxies, nothing we would recognize as normal.For us, from our perspective, there was a beginning. To talk about before that moment has little or no meaning within the knowledge base we have today, but we can talk and learn about all that happened since then. Perhaps someday we will be able to say more.But there are things that we can say today with certainty. We can say today with certainty that:

• the universe is at least 14 billion years old.
• the earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old.
• simple life forms appeared on earth shortly afterwards.
• since appearing, life has evolved.

As we learn more we can say more, but even now we can say with ABSOLUTE certainty that the models shown in the Bible were wrong.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Which is fine since no one claims that the Big Bang was either a bang or uncaused. Yet another irrelevant strawman. ROTFLMAOWell, if that is your desire, then you have certainly come to the right place. And it will not even cost you your left arm.My biography is simple. I am a Christian, born and raised. Taught Sunday school for both children and adults. Helped start a church and personally helped build two. Served on the Vestry, as an acolyte, in the choir until suddenly one day my voice changed and continue to speak out for Christianity, particularly against the depreciated versions so often presented. I am what is generally called a Cradle Creedal Christian.If you would like to know more you can begin at Message 1.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Again, you have come to the right place. We are fortunate enough to actually have some cosmologists here. Look for posts by Son Goku and cavediver. They will be more than happy to explain current thinking on origins and the BB. Really? So if I was ordained the relevance of what I said would change? If so, you might just want to check even further. Or even read what I write and actually think about it. How silly. Please show where I said or claimed any such thing.Again, perhaps you should not misrepresent what I say.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I do not doubt that you might for some reason believe that, but it is simply beyond reason unless you can provide some compelling evidence. When you find links to such material please be sure to post them here.I lived along Turkey Run for awhile. One of my favorite places was a small pond where the stream ran over several granite boulders and spilled down a small waterfall into a pool. The stream had been running over those same boulders and spilling into the same pond for many hundreds of years. In fact the house we lived in had been built before the Revolutionary War.There was negligible wear.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

LOL yet again. I did not say I was 'born again' and what the hell does that have to do with anything? In fact I said I was a "Cradle Creedal Christian".Try reading what I say and stop misrepresenting. And the topic is "Problems with the Big Bang theory", whether someone is Christian, atheist or anything else has NOTHING to do with the BB Theory.Please, stop with the irrelevancies.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

First, Orangutans like Humans are not monkeys but primates, apes.But the reason it is irrelevant is important. The BB is a conclusion based on observation and evidence. Whether someone is Theist, Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, Islamic, Satanist, Taoist, Buddhist, Confucian, Wiccan or any other belief system is irrelevant to BB.Beliefs are not science. They are beliefs. If you wish to believe that GOD is the cause, that is fine. It has no bearing on the BB.The BB is simply "What happened", it does not address, nothing in science addresses, questions of "Why" or the supernatural or the imaginary.I personally believe that GOD is the cause, but that is just personal belief. It is NOT science and will never be science. If someday we later learn that the BB was the result of branes colliding or string vibration, I would simply say "Oh, that's how GOD did it."But again, that is only belief, it is irrelevant to the science.Edited by jar, : +,

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well again, that just isn't correct. The Big Bang is the conclusion based on the evidence. There are several Theories to explain the Big Bang, but it is a conclusion based on the evidence. Because I don't post irrelevant stuff like:

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thank you for agreeing finally that the Big Bang is not a theory but a conclusion based on evidence.As to what you call "Biblical explaination[sic]" there simply is no valid Biblical explanation. We have many threads on Genesis and if you want to discuss Genesis and the Genesis myths, please take it over to the Faith side. Biblical accounts are simply irrelevant here.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Please look at this picture and in this one and this one. In them you will see things moving in every possible direction, up, down, right, left, spinning clockwise, counterclockwise.You can observe the same thing in your own kitchen with no more than your stove, a pot and a can of Alphabet soup. Open the can pour it in the pot. Add a can of water. Bring the mixture to a rolling boil and watch the letters as they rise, fall, spin and twirl.The problem with what you posted as a flaw is not just that it was wrong. The big problem is that it is one of the classic tactics used by folk, all too often Christian Clergy, to fool the gullible. They count on your simple acceptance of their testimony and hope that you will not question.The world is filled with two types of people.Those who look for Answers to questions.Those who look for answers to Question.Edited by jar, : Fix subtitleEdited by jar, : fix formatting

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

NPBut remember that on the science side you MUST support your position with evidence. Asserting GOD carries NO weight.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion