Must back up your answer with scientific facts.
Please, no rhetoric or Bible quotation.
2006-10-20 05:41:26 · 11 answers · asked by Barrett G 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
To answer your question "bold"....it's not that I have a problem with the Bible. It's just that to my knowledge is not applicable to my question in any solid or fact based form. An by "fact", I simply mean something backed up with evidence. Facts do exist. ie.If I put water in an operational freezer, that water will freeze. Like I stated earlier, I am not looking for baseless rhetoric, just a solid fact based theory concerning the origins of the universe. Whether they line up with my own beliefs or not is immaterial. I am open to any new ideas....I would just like them to be well formed and within the bounds of the subject matter, and not just a condescending attack on what you think my religious beliefs are or are not. Which I don't believe I give any allusion to in my question.
2006-10-20 07:31:39 · update #1
Bumblebee - Just because you cannot understand some of the words I use doesn't mean I use them "to make other people feel unintellectual(sic)".
And just because you lack an intelligent answer, doesn't mean you need to attack what you assume my life must be like. Not everyone interested in answers is sitting in an ivory tower with his face in a book.
2006-10-23 04:10:20 · update #2
Hello.
modern astronomical observations show that WITHOUT A DOUBT our universe was once much hotter and denser that it is today. In our universe there is something called "cosmic microwave background radiation" which is, essentially, all of the light from back when the universe was hot and bright that has not been absorbed in the billions of years since then. a good deal of modern astronomy is concerned with analyzing this leftover radiation.
now, the details of what came before the hot-bright era are a bit of a mystery.
It is possible, for instance, that the universe started out at a big bang singularity. although, i guess you don't want to hear about that. regardless, it's only one of several different accepted possibilities.
For instance, our universe might have started out huge and cold and lonely, and it might have spent an eternity collapsing down until it was hot and bright, and then (instead of collapsing down further) it might have "BOUNCED" and begun re-expanding into the universe we see today. we call this a "cosmological bounce". I'm not sure why no one calls it a "big bounce"...
There are many other possible explanations for the origins of our universe which will agree with astronomical observations, using "quantum gravity" or "string theory", but the validity of any specific theory in these fields is still being hotly debated by the scientific community. we're still fighting over which is the best way to make quantum mechanics and general relativity play nice.
The moral of the story, i guess, is that there is direct evidence that our universe was once a lot "smaller" than it is today; but exactly what came before it is a question modern physicists are still fighting over.
2006-10-20 15:21:09 · answer #1 · answered by BenTippett 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bumblebee: "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
-- George Bernard Shaw
That said, I have just a humble point of advice to Barrett. Many people use the word "logical" in a manner that is rather poorly defined. Something is technically logical if the conclusions follow directly from the assumptions. I think creationist theories can be completely logical if they delineate their assumptions carefully and use those assumptions to derive their conclusions about the origin of the universe.
I really don't know what "scientific fact" is exactly, but I can say that some assumptions are Testable and some are not. This is the real basis of science: the philosophy that assumptions are true or not true based solely on the results of test (experiment, observation). The Big Bang is a "scientific" theory because it makes predictions and assumptions that are testable. It is currently the only scientific theory in use (within the majority of the scientific community) because its predictions seem to be verified by experiment. Other theories, while logical and even "scientific" make predictions and assumptions that do not match up with observation.
2006-10-20 17:11:34 · answer #2 · answered by lorentztrans 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe the Bible is truth and that God created the universe. But that is independent of my thoughts on the Big Bang theories. Bear with me.
If I know the bus was at 30th street 10 minutes ago and is at 50th street now, I can estimate that it was at 40th street 5 minutes ago. That's interpolation, and it's an excellent estimation method. If I estimate that it was at 10th street 20 minutes ago, that is extrapolation. That can be useful but it's much less reliable. Perhaps it turns on 20th street and has never been at 10th street during its entire existence. I can also predict that it was in Australia 2 weeks ago. That is extreme extrapolation.
We look at the universe and try to figure out how things are moving. If we assume that motion has been continuous, we can try to figure out where they were at some arbitrary time in the past. The farther back you go, the more you must depend on extrapolation and the less reliable your predictions.
The best we can do is propose a theory for consideration. If the universe was at one time an extremely dense concentration of matter and energy, it could have developed this way. When we apply everything we know and everything we think we know about condensed matter, we do the math, and today's universe is a possible outcome. The most optimistic outcome is a set of such theories that we can neither prove nor disprove.
This doesn't address the questions of where the matter and energy came from or what things were like 'before' the big bang. Nor does it answer whether God created it or whether it came about some other way. This could be how God created it. There are simply no purely scientific facts available to answer these questions.
The other alternative is that God created it in a form that's closer to what we see now. That doesn't take any more or less faith.
2006-10-20 07:47:33 · answer #3 · answered by Frank N 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, to reply to your additional info - I honestly did not mean in any way a "condesending attack", rather just logically stating that I do feel it's at times senseless to "argue" when strong beliefs are involved. You said that you do "not...have a problem with the Bible...." well then accept it as a possible logical alternative. You mentioned that "to [your] knowledge [it = the Bible] is not applicable". I personally could easy feel that as a "condesending attack" at my personal religious beliefs as well - although I chose not to let it bother me as I don't think you meant it that way (either). I believe (among other things) that the Bible does = The Word of God. I believe that God does not lie therefore the Bible = Truth and also = Factual. I think that: in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and God spoke and [BANG] it was created. On the first day God created the Heavens and the Earth....and then through out that first week, God created everything else (ie animals of all kinds and then Adam and then Eve) and on the 7th day God rested. That's not a "quote" of the Bible at all but I do admit it's very much based off of Biblical beliefs. I believe that it is very factual and I do simply also mean that it is backed up with evidence.
I didn't ever say that facts did not exist, I asked specifically what facts does anyone feel are "associated with the big bang theory" - ie just because ice freezes does not tell me that God didn't create it to be that way. vs the theory that water evolved to be that way - just because it was did accidentally.
I don't feel that the Bible is baseless or meaningless rhetoric. I do feel that the Bible is a solid factual desciption of the origins of the universe.
It is true that whether the big bang theory or the Bible version of creation lines up with your beliefs or mine, one of the ways that the universe happened to become what it is now DID HAPPEN and the other was not how it happened.
If you are "open to new ideas" as you say and also not have a problem with the Bible, then you may now consider adding to your knowledge that the Bible is, in my belief, an applicable "solid fact based theory concerning the origins of the universe"
I do think that what I believe is backed up by much more factual evidence than any evidence that there was a big bang such as described in the big bang theory.
I did not say what your religious beliefs are or not, I do know that if you did truly believe that the Bible was 100% true, you would not have a question of wondering if "does anyone have a logical explanation of creationism".
The logic as I see it is: God said what He did then - and it happened - because God is a supernatural, all powerful, creator, (etc etc) that can create the universe in less than a week and then rest for a day.
Since you question the factual validity of creation, you do actually "allude" to your beliefs (or lack there of...). I do concede that you didn't say what your religious beliefs are and I do apologize for any assumptions that I may or may not have made about your religious beliefs...
Yes and I really don't feel like arguing about what I feel is logical and what you don't feel is logical.
Do you or anyone else have a single viable logical "FACT" - scientific or otherwise - associated with the big bang theory? If it were a factual thing - would it not be considered a LAW?
I guess my biggest problem is - if we are all just some "evolved" mush & a big accident, what is to keep anyone from doing what is considered by almost all of society that is "against the law" - If that theory is right - who's to say that Hitler wasn't progressing evolution by eliminating "weaker or older" people...I do not support Hitlers theories or the big bang theory either for that matter. I DO understand that there is a huge difference and that many that believe in the big bang theory are(/were) against Hitlers ideas; but there CAN be a "logical" (if you believe that the logic is true) progression supporting that or almost anything else for that matter.
For anyone to give you an alternative that you might chose to believe or "have faith in" or not - it could be reasoned by you that it sounds just as theoricially flawed as my disbeliefs in the big bang theory.
What's your problem with the Bible? It is a book - Is it that you chose not to believe in God? Or do you believe that it is possible for God to exist but He doesn't seem to be involved in our (your) life? I and many others believe that God creating the Universe is a viable alternative - even before the Bible was writen. Is it a fact? I wasn't there, and neither were you or anyone else alive today.
I have chosen what I believe, and whether I or anyone else quotes the Bible or anything else - or not, you have a choice to believe what you want. You sound like you don't want others opinions that differ than yours, so what is your point in asking? To further prove to yourself what you already believed?
Be challenged to question everything. - What if I'm wrong? well then maybe we are all just accidents. What if you're wrong? I'll leave that up to another question for another time
2006-10-20 06:24:12 · answer #4 · answered by bold_artistic_forgiven 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes . Rene Descarte had the right concept.
And you know where our ideas come from.I wont quote it.
First you must allude to Einstein general relativity concept that the Universe is finite.
If its finite it must have restrains.
The fact that it has restrains proves the reason why things move inside this containment which we call Universe. This is my containment theory of the Universe.
Therefore without restrains there would be no power storage in the substance of space and no motion would ever occur.
This is where the Big Bang theory of Creation Crumbles because it failed miserably to explain why things move.
Scientific facts are as good as the observer.
An alternate theory would be the Quantron theory of the Universe which does not conflict with The actual phenomena of matter structure Creation of the Universe.And that would Include the Creation of Space structure. The Big Bang Theory also left that out.
As far as obtaining knowledge How the formation and construction of the Universe took place most Human do not really show any great concern. What is most important to know is to be concerned about WHO Created it. And that Implies The Creator.
2006-10-20 06:04:14 · answer #5 · answered by goring 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To be entirely honest, it sounds to me that you like saying bigs words to make other people feel unintellectual and you just want a reason to argue the logic of EVERYTHING because you have no one special in your life and that makes you feel hollow inside. You honestly need to find what your life is missing and fill that void with something important, not burying your face in some book and deciding what you disagree about. You must be a good guy, but you have to generally accept the fact that not everything is black and white. There isn't a physical explanation for everything. There is a God. Although it may sound mystical and magical and unlogical to you, it's the truth and he didn't put you on this Earth to disbelieve his existance, he put you here to make it a better place and let others know about him so they make create a better place to live as well. And no, I won't quote the Bible, but maybe one of these days you could pick one up and REALLY read it.
2006-10-20 11:55:55 · answer #6 · answered by bumblebeemeggie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can not provide an explanation for it, and I do not particularly recognise if there may be some thing flawed with it. I do recognise that after it used to be first proposed, many atheist scientists did not find it irresistible given that it sounded too just like creationism. Before the Big Bang thought, they inspiration the universe used to be everlasting. Now, it is an accredited thought, from what I listen. Why are scientists so frightened of some thing that can seem like production? Isn't technological know-how a seek for fact, even supposing you do not like the fact that you discover?
2016-08-31 23:59:53 · answer #7 · answered by pharisien 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is currently a TON of evidence that would lead one to believe the Big Bang occured. Based on CURRENT evidence (and a reasonable grasp of scientific and specifically physics concepts/theories), it would be ignorant to say there is no way the big bang happened. Here's something to chew on for everyone trying to reconcile this w/God: God is all powerful and knowing, so why would he go around first creating a void, then light, then people, then this, then that, etc. It sounds laborious and unplanned. It would make more sense that God would create one event, under conditions that he can control, that would in turn create everything as he expected. In other words, maybe God started the Big Bang knowing that it would result in humans, on earth, w/animals, etc. That sounds more like the actions of an all powerful and all knowing entity. Don't you think?
2006-10-20 10:14:32 · answer #8 · answered by siegrisj 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have a theory that conforms to both Genesis and the Big Bang theory.
In the beginning, God created the singularity, and it was without form and void, and darkness filled the Universe. Then God said, "LET THERE BE A BIG BANG", and there was a Big Bang.
2006-10-20 05:52:28 · answer #9 · answered by Da Judge 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, there is a theory that is not heard of as much, as such is held forward as "The Big QUIET Theory" as space is noiseless...
2006-10-20 05:57:18 · answer #10 · answered by diSota 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋