Physical Cosmology.
Big bang ( disambiguity)
2007-07-27 15:57:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by Tim 47 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
Sorry, I am not completely up on the "Big Bang Theory", Theory is a somewhat supported guess. Not knowing all of the who what where whens of this idea.
My Theory is that a "Bang" is a type of "Harmonic" or "Sound wave". In that Creationists for the most part believe that the world and all that is, was Spoken into existence by G-d i.e. "Bang", it sort-of fits the best scientific theory preceding "Intelligent Design", which is gaining more support every day from believers and non-believers alike.
The Evolution of "Spell Check" helps me look smarter too.
2007-07-28 14:55:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by M_Palidin_2001 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Theoretical physics.
I can honestly say I have never once seen the argument you are concerned about. Perhaps you could cite a few specific instances.
One of the key figures in the so-called Big Bang theory was Georges Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic Priest. Interesting that Darwin was a preacher. A lot of religious people have always been tied in with science. Science, it should be noted, is not the exclusive property of atheists.
For more than 50 years university degrees in biophysics have been offered. My professor for biological theories was keen on the work of Hoyle, Lemaitre and George Gamow of the University of Colorado.
My prof is dead, but I'm sure he would have appreciated knowing biology has nothing to do with physics; and his degree from Purdue was worthless. Worthless not only at his teaching post, but as a biophysicist working at a national laboratory. It would in turn degrade my university transcripts, wouldn't you say?
If evolution and biology don't relate to the Big Bang; maybe this leaves a little time for God to start the process of life as we know it. (Just a freebe based on your reasoning).
Many forget that before the investigation of CMB and its popularity as the Big Bang; non-creationists did not even admit to a beginning. They said no creation, no God and no beginning!
Now here was a theory that destroyed a third of the atheist trinity; and left a little door open for the next horrible word --Not only In the Beginning, but In the Beginning GOD!
2007-07-28 00:39:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by Tommy 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
I'm not trying to claim that I'm not completely stupid, but I'll take a shot at astrophysics. I actually may have just made that up. But isn't the big bang a theory about all of the matter everywhere getting pulled into a single point and then suddenly banging really big? That sounds like space physics to me.
Did I win?
2007-07-27 23:00:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by Casey C 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
COSMOLOGY -------------------- One up ........... Explained, however, I am a creationist, I don't buy it.
Big bang cosmology is based on four sets of equations. The most fundamental are the field equations of the general theory of relativity (GTR), which relate the metric tensor gab and its derivatives to the energy-momentum tensor Tab.
Rab is the Ricci tensor of the metric gab, R is the Ricci scalar, lambda is the cosmological constant (probably zero), c is the velocity of light and G is Newton’s constant of gravitation. The field equations are solved for the universe if the relevant observational values are introduced. Since our universe is (approximately) homogeneous and isotropic, it is described by the Robertson-Walker metric, which is determined by the radius of the universe at a given time and the curvature of space-time.
where ds is the space-time interval between two events, a the scale factor representing the radius of the universe at a given time, and do is the line element of a space with constant curvature. The application of this metric to the field equations provides us with the Friedmann’s solutions, which are the heart of big bang cosmology.
2007-07-27 23:03:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by Gardener for God(dmd) 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Cosmology
The theory of evolution does include the big bang.
Evolution:
1.Chemical Evolution- hydrogen -> all other elements
2.Cosmic Evolution- BIG BANG
3.Organic Evolution- origin of life
4.Stellar and Planetary Evolution- formation and evolution of planets and stars
5.Macroevolution- from rose to dog
6.Microevolution- from dog to dog
Originally, the size of the tsk (big bang) dot was 12 trillion miles in diameter; it was then reduced in diameter:
1965- 275 million miles
1972- 71 million miles
1974- 54 thousand miles
1983- "A trillionth the diameter of a proton"
Now- Nothing
"..the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It's then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing"- Alan Guth
"They call that science and they put it in the science books. I would call it stupid and put it in the garbage."- Kent Hovind
Kalam Aruguement
1.Everything that has a beginning, has a cause
2.The universe had a beginning
3.The universe had a cause
2007-07-27 23:22:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by cubby 2
·
0⤊
3⤋
I'm a Christian, and I'm saying you're right - evolution is a change over a period of time, not a big bang.
COMPLETELY stupid? Speak for yourself. You have no higher quality argument to offer so you result to common insult.
2007-07-27 23:03:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by Evanescence16 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Just because you dont agree with something doesnt mean you have to resort to calling anyone stupid. Keep in mind its a theory and I assume because you are not stupid, you understand the definition of theory. I could make the same theory argument for God. An unproven theory.
2007-07-27 23:10:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by jason h 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
Astrophysics...
... While a student in university, I acted as host guide for John A. Wheeler, one of the most respected astrophysicists in history, when he was speaking at a symposium on campus.
2007-07-27 23:02:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
They think the Big Bang was an explosion of nothing. They have a long way to go before they are able to prove that they are not completely stupid.
2007-07-27 22:58:58
·
answer #10
·
answered by atheist 6
·
3⤊
3⤋