The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

There exists no nuclear pathway to iron through non weak force scattering, only the weak force will allow these transitions. The weak force doesn't come into existence until high energy densities, which are found in Stars and very heavy atomic nuclei.

Only Stars maintain the energy density.

Right, I gather you are saying iron could only be formed with exactly the right nuclear conditions in place, conditions that did not exist at the beginning (and do not exist now?).

My confusion relates to how these conditions came about. I understand that the origin of the universe, in your system, is unknown and probably unknowable, so talk me through from the initial moment of existence, if you will.

What was the matter existing at the moment the Big Bang began? Individual atoms? Molecules?

When did this matter become more than individual atoms and form into molecules? And what caused that to happen?

When did hydrogen form, and why?

What caused the hydrogen and any other matter to form together into more complex forms?

Thanks.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Wolfsbane you are still thinking as if God exists only in the present, and therefore at this moment God can be something that he wasn't 5 minutes ago or 5 minutes from now.

But its the exact same God 5 minutes ago and the exact same God 5 minutes from now, since the same God exists at all points in time. It isn't a future version of God, like you could talk about your future self. It is the same God that exists now. If he is sad he is always sad. If he is happy he is always happy. If he is angry he is always angry. And that wouldn't make much sense since those emotions are rather mutually exclusive (can you be happy and sad over the exact same thing at the exact same time?)

It is your concept of the nature of the eternal God that is in error. You think He cannot alter without submitting Himself to events, but God is infinitely powerful and causes all things to end just as He determines. He is subject to nothing but His own holy nature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The initial nature of God as defined by the Judeo/Christian religion is in full conformity to the idea that God feels emotions.


If you believe that then I can only say, as I said to JC, that you need to read your Bible.

Please enlighten the list with your knowledge of the Bible that contradicts what I have said. You will find nothing to support your case.

For your convenience, a Bible search tool:
http://www.biblegateway.com/

Kevster

Jakkass wrote:

Was I the one who claimed it was overexaggerated? I think Kevster should explain why he thinks so before I explain my position on it.

Hey, sorry for not replying sooner; I was in my grandmother's for the day. I think that the Bible is grossly exaggerated because, well... ...Where do I even start here?! You have: The wine being his blood; the bread his flesh; the parting of the seas; Adam & Eve; the resurrection; the outburst at the temple; the curing of lepers; the betrayal by Judas; the 'virgin' Mary; and the deliverance of gifts by the three wise men.


I feel that each of these (and more) have been exaggerated in order to perpetuate the cult by creating a sense of mystical wonderment amongst Jesus' followers.


I have no problem with religion and I am sorry if my post created even a slight hint of anger in anyone. I made the post because a friend of mine recently became angry at me for being an Atheist and subsequently tried to convert me. I dislike religious people who do that. I would much prefer if we could all just get along together and respect each others' views.


Take care,
Kevin.

philologos

Kevster wrote:

Hey, sorry for not replying sooner; I was in my grandmother's for the day. I think that the Bible is grossly exaggerated because, well... ...Where do I even start here?! You have: The wine being his blood; the bread his flesh; the parting of the seas; Adam & Eve; the resurrection; the outburst at the temple; the curing of lepers; the betrayal by Judas; the 'virgin' Mary; and the deliverance of gifts by the three wise men.

You are entitled to your opinion. The wine in the Anglican tradition (although this differs for Roman Catholic), is symbolism for the blood of Jesus and the bread symbolism for his flesh. It is there to remind us of His sacrifice for us. Adam and Eve, well I don't see what is over exaggerated about God's creation, if that is supposed to be the way he did it. Ressurection, parting of seas, curing of lepers, the virgin Mary (excluding your inverted commas). Are all very feasable if one can take the belief that God created this world into account.

Kevster

"...Are all very feasable if one can take the belief that God created this world into account."

That sums it up precisely which is why I am so sceptical about the texts of the Bible [because I don't believe in Him]. You, on the otherhand, appear to believe in Him which is admirable and I hope that you are reaping the benefits that believing in Him brings.

Take care,
Kevin.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

It is your concept of the nature of the eternal God that is in error. You think He cannot alter without submitting Himself to events, but God is infinitely powerful and causes all things to end just as He determines. He is subject to nothing but His own holy nature.

Well no offence Wolfsbane but what you said doesn't actually mean anything.

Its like answering the question Can God create an object that God cannot move? by simply saying Yes God can do anything

What you fail to realise is what you are asserting is a logical impossibility. You might as well claim that God can make it so he cannot do something, because God can do anything.

Scofflaw

I'd dearly love to know why Jakkass so rarely answers my posts. I have feelings too, you know.

miffed,
Scofflaw

philologos

Scofflaw wrote:

Why not assume that it was born? All these living things being born, all the time, every day - do you think they're made? What could possibly be more natural than to assume that the loaf of bread was born from another loaf of bread, or hatched from an egg?

Why not assume it fell from the sky? After all, rain, snow, sleet, dust, meteorites, frogs (occasionally) fall from the sky - why not that loaf?

Why not assume it grew? Like a plant - I mean, you see them every day, surely it occurred to you that it just grew there? It's not green, so it's probably a type of mushroom - you know how they suddenly burst up after rain...

Why not assume it's always been there? From our point of view, the hills have always been there, and the animals, and the plants - it seems odd you should suddenly assume that your loaf of bread is something new?

Why not assume it came up out of the sea (if it's anywhere near it, that is)? After all, the sea washes up all kinds of strange things whose origin is a mystery to us - why not a loaf of bread?

rather more completely,
Scofflaw

Well the origins of a loaf of bread are very well known to us, as the origins of the earth are well known to Creationists through Genesis. I suppose that was the comparison I was making really. As for the argument about how many things are created, we can see that there are several things created in our society, a heck of a lot. But I really don't know of anything that banged itself into existence, and to be brutally honest with you, I can't even see how life could take place on earth if it was formed by a bang. And even if it was formed by a bang, surely there would have had to be something that caused the bang? Infact I'm a bit rusty on the Big Bang theory but if someone could give a short (non scientific formula) explanation for it?

Scofflaw wrote:

I'd dearly love to know why Jakkass so rarely answers my posts. I have feelings too, you know.

miffed,
Scofflaw

apologetic,
Jakkass

robindch

> Well the origins of a loaf of bread are very well known to us

Rather than using something like bread, why not ask how rivers work out where to flow? Using the logic of ID, an IDer would suggest that the river's path is so complicated (eg, how does dumb water know to go around that mountain?) that it couldn't have arisen by chance. A geologist would point out that it's because there's a simple physical law which governs how rivers work. The same with evolution -- there's a physical law which governs how this operates.

This video (mild rudeness at the start aside) explains a bit about how things can change over time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyjufVuQZ48

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

And even if it was formed by a bang, surely there would have had to be something that caused the bang?

There's no answer to that. There are ideas, but nothing definite. The Big Bang is a theory of the early universe, not a theory of creation.

Jakkass wrote:

Infact I'm a bit rusty on the Big Bang theory but if someone could give a short (non scientific formula) explanation for it?

Big Bang Theory - 13.7 billion years ago the universe was extremely hot and dense. There were still only three forces, but many more types of particles than there are today. Spacetime was expanding due to how gravity works.

What currently isn't known is:
What is the origin of this material*?
*Although material isn't really the right word as I'll show in my post to wolfsbane.
Was there an earlier point when there was only two forces?
What was the exact dynamics of the expansion?

Although the Hubble space telescope can tell us that the expansion looks like it happened, it doesn't give us enough information to determine the specifics of the expansion.

All of what the Big Bang predicts has been observed by radio, x-ray and optical telescopes.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Well the origins of a loaf of bread are very well known to us

You are kinda falling over your original point -

Jakkass wrote:

Say if you saw a loaf of bread on the table, and you had no explanation for who or what made it. What would you ask, what formed this bread? or who baked this bread? Naturally I assume the latter. That is what we Creationists think of the universe and the earth itself.

If the origin of the bread is very well known then your example is pointless as an example of something that is self evident as being made by someone. You have to know that someone makes bread to assume that someone made this bread.

Which ultimately brings us back to the problem with Creationism. They start off with the unfounded (from a scientific point of view) assumption that someone (and that someone is nearly always God for some strange reason) must have made everything, and then look to fit the evidence around that.

Jakkass wrote:

But I really don't know of anything that banged itself into existence

In quantum mechanics there are plenty of things that can "bang" themselves into existence through the conversion of energy to matter. They don't last long though, because due to the conservation principle you end up creating a particle and an anti-particle that very quickly annihilate each other back to energy again. This is what they do at particle accelerators, they create new particles through the energy of smashing two other particles together at high speed. They then try and get a quick glimpse at these new particles before they recombine again back to energy.

There was something in the big bang that caused a lot more particles than anti-particles to be created from the energy of the big bang, and as such some of the particles survived and did not recombine with anti-particles back to energy.

Of course this is a bit brief, Son can probably explain this in more detail.

Jakkass wrote:

And even if it was formed by a bang, surely there would have had to be something that caused the bang?

Possibly. But as is so often stated on this forum, the idea of causality is reliant on linear time. Linear time started at the Big Bang. Asking what caused the Big Bang, or what happened before the Big Bang might be thinking about it in the wrong way, since time started at the Big Bang.

Jakkass wrote:

Infact I'm a bit rusty on the Big Bang theory but if someone could give a short (non scientific formula) explanation for it?

"A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawkins is a good introduction to modern theories on time gravity and the big bang.

Basically we know the universe is expanding, and calculations of this expansion mean that about 13.7 billion years ago everything was condensed into one very hot spot (heat is a measurement of energy, "hot" is just another way of say a lot of energy).

At this spot, which was possibly a singularity, the laws of nature don't work and pretty much everything is energy. But something caused a tremendous release of this energy (call that God if you though there is no actually reason do) and this spot expanded out and basic particles formed.

The reason people are pretty sure this happened (even if the exact details are still being worked on) is because the mathematical models where the big bang first were developed predicted that we would find certain things in the universe, which later on we did find, such as the microwave radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

Creationism on the other hand doesn't explain how any of these things got here, except of course with the grand old "God did it" explanation.

One of the most silly things about Creationism is that it is very ego-centric, to the point of ridiculousness.

JC (the poster, not you know, Jesus) often liked to claim that God created the universe for us to look at. When asked why did God bother making a universe that is 93 billion light years big that was seemingly supposed to just be God proclaim his glory (look I can make something this big, even though I don't have to)

That is fine until one realises that 99.9999999999999999999999% of the things in the 93 billion light years cannot be see by us unless we go looking for them with high powered radio telescopes. The idea that these were created for us to look at is stupid.

What is even more crazy is that when we do go looking we find that nothing supports Biblical Creationism. Funny, you would think, since God was supposed to have created all this for us to look at. We see the universe is expanding, but not from a point in time 10,000 years ago, instead from a point in time 13.7 billion years ago. Why if the universe was created 10,000 year ago? Why would God pick a point in time 13.7 billion years ago as the point when the universe would have started if the universe actually started 10,000 years ago?

We see the universe contains matter producing factories (stars) that in that 13.7 billion years time scale would create planets. Why though do we see this if the universe was created 10,000 year ago and there is not nearly enough time for these stars to have actually created anything? What is their purpose then? Simply to look pretty?

Its nonsense when you think about it

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Right, I gather you are saying iron could only be formed with exactly the right nuclear conditions in place, conditions that did not exist at the beginning (and do not exist now?).

They're rarer now, not entirely absent, but a good deal rarer.

wolfsbane wrote:

My confusion relates to how these conditions came about. I understand that the origin of the universe, in your system, is unknown and probably unknowable, so talk me through from the initial moment of existence, if you will.

Right earliest known moments are given above in my post to Jackass.
Following on from there, the universe begins to cool and grow larger. The particles produced at this time are very heavy and exotic. However unlike today they don't decay, because it is impossible for anything to decay yet.
There are still only three forces. Strong Force, Electroweak Force and the force that governs how clocks and rulers behave, Gravity.

Anyway expansion and cooling continues. Eventually the universe reaches a point were it is so cold (although still trillions of degrees) that something very important happens. The electoweak force separates itself into two (how it does this is extremely technical, although I could make a go at it), with three-quarters of it becoming heavy and one-quarter remaining massless.
The massless quarter becomes electromagnetism(light) and the other three-quarters becomes the force responsible for decay, the Weak force.
That sets up the physics we know today.
(Although eventually the universe cools itself so much that the weak force gets turned off everywhere except inside heavy atoms and large stars.)


Now all this is heavily tested and not just some story. In order for the Big Bang to work there had to be a point when electromagnetism and the weak force were once one force. When we built CERN in Geneva we were finally able to reach those extreme energy densities that existed in the Big Bang again. On January 1983, the energy scales were reached and the forces behaved as expected.

wolfsbane wrote:

What was the matter existing at the moment the Big Bang began?

That is unknown. The earliest known matter was made up of exotic particles, that today can only be made in particle accelerators.

wolfsbane wrote:

When did this matter become more than individual atoms and form into molecules? And what caused that to happen?

500,000 years after the events I described. Basically electromagnetism causes an effect called the Van der Waals effect, which allows atoms to form molecules.

When did hydrogen form, and why?

The Strong Force began manufacturing protons long ago, however around 300,000 years after the events I described, the temperature was low enough for electrons to settle into orbit around atoms.

What caused the hydrogen and any other matter to form together into more complex forms?

Gravity created natural nuclear furnaces (Stars), that created most of the heavy elements. The heavy elements were able to make compounds due to the natural chemistry of those elements. Carbon in particular has a very conducive chemistry for the formation of compounds*.


*This is because of the symmetry in the probability functions of its electrons.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

You are kinda falling over your original point -

Excuse me I meant we know how it is made but not who or what made it. That is what I meant to say.

Wicknight wrote:

Which ultimately brings us back to the problem with Creationism. They start off with the unfounded (from a scientific point of view) assumption that someone (and that someone is nearly always God for some strange reason) must have made everything, and then look to fit the evidence around that.

Our faith is however founded in the Bible. Hence why Creationists can put their trust in it.

Wicknight wrote:

In quantum mechanics there are plenty of things that can "bang" themselves into existence through the conversion of energy to matter. They don't last long though, because due to the conservation principle you end up creating a particle and an anti-particle that very quickly annihilate each other back to energy again. This is what they do at particle accelerators, they create new particles through the energy of smashing two other particles together at high speed. They then try and get a quick glimpse at these new particles before they recombine again back to energy.

Surely if they don't last very long, then how can the earth last for 13 billion years. It doesn't make sense. And secondly if something was to bang itself into existence wouldn't the item have to exist in the first place to bang itself into existence. It doesn't make sense either.

Wicknight wrote:

There was something in the big bang that caused a lot more particles than anti-particles to be created from the energy of the big bang, and as such some of the particles survived and did not recombine with anti-particles back to energy.

Fair enough, but surely there has to be something in existence to create these particles in the first place?

Wicknight wrote:

Possibly. But as is so often stated on this forum, the idea of causality is reliant on linear time. Linear time started at the Big Bang. Asking what caused the Big Bang, or what happened before the Big Bang might be thinking about it in the wrong way, since time started at the Big Bang.

And here is where you cover your tracks for the things you can't answer. How is it thinking about it the wrong way? Surely it is logical to ask what blew itself into existence or what caused the Big Bang?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Excuse me I meant we know how it is made but not who or what made it. That is what I meant to say.

But you know a loaf of bread has to be made by something, instead of being say being born or naturally formed.

You don't know life has to be made by something, or that the universe has to be made by something. You just assume they do.

Jakkass wrote:

Our faith is however founded in the Bible. Hence why Creationists can put their trust in it.

True, but that doesn't stop you being wrong of course.

Jakkass wrote:

Surely if they don't last very long, then how can the earth last for 13 billion years. It doesn't make sense.

Because, as I said, the Big Bang created more particles than anti-particles. Otherwise we wouldn't exist. If you want to think that God planned it that way I can't tell you are wrong.

Jakkass wrote:

And secondly if something was to bang itself into existence wouldn't the item have to exist in the first place to bang itself into existence. It doesn't make sense either.

Welcome to modern physics. Einsteins famous E=Mc2 equation basically showed that there isn't really a difference between energy and matter.

Now this goes against "common sense", because when dealing with a fire, or a cooker, or a bike, or a wheel borrow, "energy" doesn't really exist, it is a property of the matter than is around us.

But when you get down to a fundamental level, down to atoms, electrons, proton quarks etc, the line between matter and energy blur.

I always though "energy" was the wrong word to us, since in every day life we don't think of "energy" as a thing in of itself, it is a property of matter.

Jakkass wrote:

Fair enough, but surely there has to be something in existence to create these particles in the first place?

Possibly, but then science doesn't do "surely" .. the universe is not confined by the laws of what we can imagine at this moment. Just because we assume something must have done something it doesn't mean that something must have actually done it, or that the thing we assumed must have done it is actually what did it. Science waits for the evidence. A "guess" holds little value in science.

Jakkass wrote:

And here is where you cover your tracks for the things you can't answer.

As I said science doesn't do "surely" .... nothing in modern science that we know happens would make any sense to something in the 15th century who was working on things based on the "common sense" of the day.

You assume causality most hold at all points. A happened before B and caused B to happen. You do that because that is the common sense that you observe around you. It is a natural law.

But it is also a law the is dependent on time being as it is. If time was running backwards then B happened before A. If time was static then A and B either never happen or happen at the same time.

It is very hard to visualise the moment before the big bang because time doesn't exist yet. "before" doesn't exist as a concept.

How is it thinking about it the wrong way?

Jakkass wrote:

Surely it is logical to ask what blew itself into existence or what caused the Big Bang?

Not really, not in the sense that you are asking it, because time was created at the Big Bang.

You are basically asking what happened before time? That, as I said, is probably the wrong way to think about it because with out time there is no "before"

Son Goku

Fair enough, but surely there has to be something in existence to create these particles in the first place?

That's a very tricky question. Particles are more like undulations of an underlying entity.

How is it thinking about it the wrong way? Surely it is logical to ask what blew itself into existence or what caused the Big Bang?

Well remember time already acts very weirdly. For instance stars that orbit the core of our galaxy have cause and effect occasionally reversed from our point of view.

Also the Big Bang would be more equivalent to ice melting than an explosion. In the sense that it is a transition from one set of physical behaviour to another. Like how H20 begins to act like a liquid instead of a solid.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

True, but that doesn't stop you being wrong of course.

I'm certain that it does, but you are free to think as you wish.

Wicknight wrote:

Now this goes against "common sense", because when dealing with a fire, or a cooker, or a bike, or a wheel borrow, "energy" doesn't really exist, it is a property of the matter than is around us.

It does go against common sense. If energy is the property of the matter, then the matter has to exist.

Son Goku wrote:

There's no answer to that. There are ideas, but nothing definite. The Big Bang is a theory of the early universe, not a theory of creation.

Wicknight wrote:

Not really, not in the sense that you are asking it, because time was created at the Big Bang.

You do realise that you are contradicting eachother? Son Goku tells me that it wasn't a theory of creation at all it was just a narrative of the early universe. If it wasn't a creation theory time would have existed if the early universe existed. Where as you Wicknight, say that time was created at the Big Bang? Could you at least piece a coherent explanation together? The Big Bang is a very feasible theory for the creation of the Earth, if one takes into account that God was behind it. Otherwise it is just a load of crap, I'm sorry it is.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

It does go against common sense. If energy is the property of the matter, then the matter has to exist.

No, but thats what I'm saying, it doesn't have to be a property of matter. At the quantum level matter is energy and energy is matter. E=Mc2 means energy equals matter

Jakkass wrote:

Son Goku tells me that it wasn't a theory of creation at all it was just a narrative of the early universe. If it wasn't a creation theory time would have existed if the early universe existed.

Time did exist in the early universe. We don't know if "time" existed before the universe. And it looks likely it didn't. Therefore talking about "before" the point zero of the universe doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since time itself was created at point zero.

Jakkass wrote:

Where as you Wicknight, say that time was created at the Big Bang?

That is the same as what Son is saying.

The Big Bang attempts to explain what happened from point zero forward. What happened before point zero is unknown since none of the natural laws of the current universe hold at point zero and "before" probably doesn't even apply since time was created at point zero too.

Jakkass wrote:

The Big Bang is a very feasible theory for the creation of the Earth

The Big Bang theory has very little to do with the creation of the Earth. After a certain amount of time the model of general relativity takes over.

Jakkass wrote:

Otherwise it is just a load of crap, I'm sorry it is.

Quick, you better phone Stephen Hawkins ... :rolleyes:

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

The Big Bang is a very feasible theory for the creation of the Earth, if one takes into account that God was behind it. Otherwise it is just a load of crap, I'm sorry it is.

The Big Bang doesn't explain how the Earth was created. That's solar system formation theories.

Also "It's just crap" is a useless criticisim. It's easy to say and you don't offer anything to support it. If it is crap, why does it match the evidence?

You do realise that you are contradicting eachother? Son Goku tells me that it wasn't a theory of creation at all it was just a narrative of the early universe. If it wasn't a creation theory time would have existed if the early universe existed.

Incorrect, universal time with which to order things is already dubious in the present day universe. Take my examples of stars at the centre of the Milky Way.

The Big Bang is a narrative of the early universe. However due to how time operates under extreme conditions, when you attempt to probe futher "before?" is the wrong question to ask. We have to revise our knowledge of how time operates.


These theories have been painstakingly constructed by thousands of people over eighty years. It isn't "crap" just because you don't get it immediatly. For instance I'd imagine you wouldn't get how GPS works immediatly and GPS also doesn't make any sense, but it still works.

Even if you think the Big Bang is "crap", it still matches evidence. Can you explain why it matches the evidence, instead of unthinkingly labelling it "crap".

philologos

Regardless of the time argument, something had to do something to cause a bang? That is one thing that you are still unable to answer. Then how is it a decent theory? It attempts to tell us how the universe came into being and then falls short. That is why I think it is useless, unless there was a divine being behind it.

Son Goku

It attempts to tell us how the universe came into being and then falls short.

Have you been reading anything. Let me spell it out:
It doesn't attempt to explain the creation of the universe.

This is just like JC, no matter how many times, It doesn't attempt to explain the creation of the universe, is said he just kept coming back and saying "It falls short explaining how the universe came into being".

Jakkass wrote:

Regardless of the time argument, something had to do something to cause a bang?

Maybe, although even causality is likely to be replaced by another structure.

Jakkass wrote:

That is one thing that you are still unable to answer. Then how is it a decent theory?

Again, because it matches evidence. If your trying to explain why people moved to California, you don't have to explain how the entire earth came into existence.
If your trying to explain how the early universe operated you don't have to explain where it came from. You don't need to know all of history to explain a part of history.

Is this that hard to grasp?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Regardless of the time argument, something had to do something to cause a bang?

What do you mean "regardless of the time argument"? The time argument is the entire basis for the claim that something had to "cause" the expansion.

Without time there is no cause and effect.

As Son points out what we view as linear time doesn't even hold at all points in the universe as it is, there is little reason to believe it held before the big bang.

Jakkass wrote:

That is one thing that you are still unable to answer.

That is because we cannot model or observe point zero or "before" point zero. By definition no natural laws that we know of were in operation at point zero because all natural laws were created from the expansion out of point zero.

Jakkass wrote:

Then how is it a decent theory?

The theory of the big bang doesn't deal with what caused the big bang. It never has. It is a "decent" theory because it quite accurately predicts the universe we observe around us today.

Jakkass wrote:

It attempts to tell us how the universe came into being

No it isn't. It is an attempt to model the early life of the universe from an instant after point zero onwards.

Jakkass wrote:

That is why I think it is useless, unless there was a divine being behind it.

"Useless"? Useless for what purpose?

philologos

It doesn't explain the creation of the universe or the world if it can't tell us what caused it, hence why it is useless.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

It doesn't explain the creation of the universe or the world if it can't tell us what caused it, hence why it is useless.

The purpose of the Big Bang theories are to model the Big Bang

:rolleyes:

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

It doesn't explain the creation of the universe or the world if it can't tell us what caused it, hence why it is useless.

You have to be doing this on purpose to wind us up.
It doesn't attempt to explain the creation of the universe.

No theory explains how the world was created, does that mean they are all useless?

Again, just to remind you it doesn't attempt to explain the creation of the universe.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

Big Bang Theory - 13.7 billion years ago the universe was extremely hot and dense. There were still only three forces, but many more types of particles than there are today. Spacetime was expanding due to how gravity works.

I'm not sure whether that really clarifies the distinction between the Big Bang and life on earth.

After the Universe came into being through the Big Bang, the universe consisted briefly of pure energy. That energy broke down very rapidly as the universe expanded, but was only able to form the simplest elements of matter - hydrogen and helium. The initial irregularities in the hydrogen-filled early universe were amplified by gravitational effects as the expansion continued. Some pockets of gas became dense enough to form stars - the hydrogen gas of the primordial universe collapsing in on itself to give a ball of hydrogen dense enough to start fusion about 300,000 years after the Big Bang.

(think of the Big Bang as a point of hot light blossoming rapidly into a vast dark fog of hydrogen gas. Inside this fog are whorls of denser gas, some of which get denser and denser until they bloom into tiny points of light - the first stars)

Now, there would have been no solid planets in this early universe, because you can't make solid planets out of hydrogen. The stars, however, operate by fusion, and fusion is the process of making elements out of other elements by sticking them together. The main stellar fusion process produces helium out of hydrogen, but more exotic pathways produce other elements, as Son Goku has explained. The stellar processes that produce the heavier elements are also those involved in dispersing the elements around the place - supernovae.

(we would expect, therefore, that hydrogen and helium should be the most abundant elements in the universe by rather a long way - which they are. We would then expect the abundance of the remaining elements to be determined by the likelihood of the stellar processes that give rise to them, which is also what we find)

Once the universe contains heavier elements, we have the possibility of it producing rocky planets like our own. However, consider how long it is from the Big Bang to the formation of the solar system - 8 to 10 billion years. As far as we know, it took 8-10 billion years of stars manufacturing heavier elements before there were enough to allow the formation of solar systems like our own with rocky planets.

Again, at root, the formation of the solar system is simple. A locally dense irregularity in a massive hydrogen gas cloud (tainted with 2% heavier elements) collapses under gravity to form a spinning disc with a central nucleus. The nucleus became the Sun, the disc formed the planets.

The rocky ball of the earth, orbiting the sun, simmered in the heat. With a stable surface to happen on, more complex chemical reactions occur. Eventually, these reactions pass from the merely chemical to the biochemical. Eventually, they pass from biochemistry to life. This all takes another vast quantity of time - maybe another billion years.

Life, once formed, is tenacious. It is also, almost certainly, ridiculously primitive - something that would neither survive today, nor necessarily be recognised as life if it did.

Finally, we have reached the point where evolution kicks in - nearly 4 billion years ago, maybe 11 billion years after the Big Bang.

For maybe 2 and a half billion years, evolution produces very little we find interesting - algae, microbes, stromatolites. By about 650 million years ago, life has worked up to some pretty complex forms - forms that we know from very occasional glimpses in the early fossil record like the Ediacara fauna.

600 million years ago was the first known mass extinction. 70% of the then living forms died out, including nearly all the dominant life-forms. The result was an explosion of diversity, as the remaining life adapted to fill the vacant niches. They in turn were (probably) largely destroyed at the end of the Vendian period, paving the way for the Cambrian explosion of diversity.

We live at the tail-end of this enormously complex and detailed process, looking back on it from the perspective of living only 70 years. It's hardly surprising that we find it hard to believe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

It doesn't explain the creation of the universe or the world if it can't tell us what caused it, hence why it is useless.

It tells us that it is causeless, at least from our point of view. You may not find that satisfying, but that is irrelevant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

Scofflaw wrote:

After the Universe came into being through the Big Bang....

Son Goku wrote:

This is just like JC, no matter how many times, It doesn't attempt to explain the creation of the universe, is said he just kept coming back and saying "It falls short explaining how the universe came into being".

Answer me this, is the Big Bang meant to be the means of which the universe came into being? You are continually contradicting yourselves.

Son Goku wrote:

Is this that hard to grasp?

How dare you. Just to tell you, I'm perfectly capable of understanding what you are all saying but you are all continually contradicting yourselves.

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

Answer me this, is the Big Bang meant to be the means of which the universe came into being?

====>No<=====

You're quote even involves me parodying JC:

he just kept coming back and saying "It falls short explaining how the universe came into being".

He, as in JC, kept coming back and saying it falls short explaining how the universe came into being, when we kept on explaining that it only explains the early universe.

The Big Bang, as a noun, is occasionally used to refer to the unknown "event" that caused the universe. However the Big Bang theory, is an attempt to explain the dynamics of the early universe.

You still haven't explained why it is "crap", keeping in mind that it doesn't try explain how the universe came into being.

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

How dare you.

What? How dare you? Geez grandad, relax. This kind of "watch your place" language is so dramatic.

Jakkass wrote:

Just to tell you, I'm perfectly capable of understanding what you are all saying but you are all continually contradicting yourselves.

Sure, we aren't a single person, occasionally we'll contradict eachother. The point is it doesn't try to describe how the universe was created even if we're occasionally loose in our language.

bonkey

Jakkass wrote:

It attempts to tell us how the universe came into being and then falls short. That is why I think it is useless, unless there was a divine being behind it.

In the interests of balance, it is only right and proper that we apply the same reasoning to your "more useful" model.

The universe must have a creator, you say. Everything has a creator. The bible tells us that God is the creator of the universe. OK...so...it appears to be "advantage creationism" at this point.

But...everything must have a creator, and the bible doesn't tell us who created God. So...the bible falls short and by your own line of reasoning, is therefore useless.

The bible begins with God in existence and takes it from there. But...as you've argued...everything must have a creator...so the bible doesn't begin at the beginning. It starts some unknown way into the story...and you're repeatedly arguing that this very flaw makes scientific theory useless.

How can that be? How can the bible pick things up some unknown way into the story, but be a-ok as a form of explanation, but the Big Bang theory, is useless because it does likewise?