The Big Bang!

Originally posted by David C
Like, say....religion?

Sure. That includes the big bang and evolution. It is not science. It is pure religion disguised as science.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Sure. That includes the big bang and evolution. It is not science. It is pure religion disguised as science.

Did you even bother to read what Marauder had written, or are you wilfully ignoring that which effectively deposes your views?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Science is the pursuit of knowledge about the material world around us. It was realised more that 400 years ago that human reason alone is inadiquate to ensure accurate conclusions in this field.

By its nature the scientific method is limited in the range of phenomena which are open to examination. Any field not open to the direct experimental testing ...[text shortened]... range of actual experiment, especially into the distant past or distant future is unscientific.

You are comfortable making statments about events 400 years ago as if they are fact and yet even yesterday is not open to the direct experimental testing
The theory of the Big Bang and the Theory of evolution both stand up to all the points given in your definition of Scientific Method. However as they conflict with your personal beliefs you would like to proove that they are not science at all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are comfortable making statments about events 400 years ago as if they are fact and yet even yesterday is not [b]open to the direct experimental testing
The theory of the Big Bang and the Theory of evolution both stand up to all the points given in your definition of Scientific Method. However as they conflict with your personal beliefs you would like to proove that they are not science at all.[/b]

It doesn't matter how simply & succinctly you state the obvious, dj2becker the Fundy Troll will never open his ears.

Originally posted by Starrman
Did you even bother to read what Marauder had written, or are you wilfully ignoring that which effectively deposes your views?

Oh, his points were so ridiculous... But if you want to I'll spend time on dismantling them one at a time.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Oh, his points were so ridiculous... But if you want to I'll spend time on dismantling them one at a time.

You are too funny.

By the way, your short thesis on ID is due in two and a half weeks...

Originally posted by twhitehead

You are comfortable making statments about events 400 years ago as if they are fact and yet even yesterday is not open to the direct experimental testing

There is a huge difference between yesterday and 15 000 000 000 years ago...

The theory of the Big Bang and the Theory of evolution both stand up to all the points given in your definition of Scientific Method.

Is that so? Show me one explosion that has not turned order into chaos...

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is a better discussion of the specific point from talkorigins:

Claim CE260.1:
If the spin of planets, galaxies, etc., came from the fact that the big bang matter was spinning when it blew up, then the conservation of angular momentum demands that all planets be spinning in the same direction. Since some planets and moons spin in a retrogr ...[text shortened]... ould expect different spins. When something explodes, pieces fly out spinning in all directions.

The big bang was not an explosion. Space itself expanded (and is still expanding).

So where did matter and energy come from? What created matter? How do you define 'space'?

The big bang is quite a different subject from the formation of solar systems. Rotations within the universe are not expected to be related to any rotation of the cosmos.

Can you prove this? Or is this mere speculation?

Galaxies probably arose from slightly denser regions of the early universe, which coalesced and combined due to gravitational and viscous interactions.

Can you prove this or are you speculating again? The word probably tells me you are speculating.

Since these early density fluctuations were apparently random, we expect galaxies to have random orientations.

More speculation? How do you know these early fluctuations were random? Were you there to test it?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b/]The big bang was not an explosion. Space itself expanded (and is still expanding).

So where did matter and energy come from? What created matter? How do you define 'space'?

The big bang is quite a different subject from the formation of solar systems. Rotations within the universe are not expected to be related to any rotation of the co ...[text shortened]... re speculation? How do you know these early fluctuations were random? Were you there to test it?

It is outside the purview of science to say where matter and energy "came" from and if it was "created" at all. I have no personal opinions at all on this subject as there is no particulary good evidence. You "speculate" that there was a Creator without any firm evidence. I'm not going to bother discussing your idea that everything in science as regards events that occurred before written human history is mere "speculation"; it is so patently ridiculous that it would be a complete waste of time talking to someone who is obviously hostile to science in its entirety. Please read an actual book on Astronomy (post 1970's not Ptolemy) and actually try to understand the Big Bang theory and the mountain of observed facts that support it (red shift of galaxies, background cosmic radiation, etc. etc. etc.) rather than continue to make a fool of yourself.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]You are comfortable making statments about events 400 years ago as if they are fact and yet even yesterday is not open to the direct experimental testing

There is a huge difference between yesterday and 15 000 000 000 years ago...

The theory of the Big Bang and the Theory of evolution both stand up to all the points given in your definiti ...[text shortened]... entific Method.

Is that so? Show me one explosion that has not turned order into chaos...[/b]

Errmm... the Big Bang? (loose definition of the term "explosion"😉

Originally posted by dj2becker
Hi Maarten

I also hope you realise that the Big Bang theory cannot explain the origin of natural laws and the many particular constants such as the strength of gravity or the mass of the electron, all of which seem so precisely tuned to permit stars and planets and life to exist.

There are also many other problems with the theory.

Just for starters, here are a few, see: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.html

Hope this helps.

Interesting read. The very same article concludes:

"...it is a reasonable assumption that many other life-forms in the Universe owe a similar debt to exploding galaxies and stars."

Yea, I suppose the idea that all the continents in the world are floating around on the sea like some blocks of ice in a bath tub...

What you've described is definitely NOT continental drift!!!

...is more believable than the idea that all the matter in the universe was squished into a dot the size of a period on a page. edit: but I suppose the idea that this dot exploded and created everything we have today simply takes the cake.

The modern "Big Bang" Theory does not propose that all of matter existed in a space smaller than a pinhead!

dj2, I'm puzzled why you think that the Big Bang Theory directly opposes God's word (and thus, presumably, denies the existence of God?)

Far be it from me to second guess how the Creator would go about fashioning a universe, but as God exists outside of time, and indeed created time, the Biblical account of creation, if interpreted literally, seems non-sensical.

The body of evidence we have before us today, leads me to conclude that the Big Bang theory, while not perfect (no theory is!), is a reasonable basis for a model of the creation of the universe. Furthermore, it leaves plenty of room for a Divine Creator. Does it not make sense for a Creator to fashion the Universe, and the natural laws that define it, right at the beginning of his creation?

Science and religion don't have to be at odds on this issue. They are intertwined... neither has all the answers.