I suggest the BB doubters read the book The Five Ages of the Universe by physicists Fred Adams and Greg Laughlin. This book details both the past and most likely future histories of the universe. If the universe is open, it’s gonna be here for a VERY long time, like 10[sup]160[/sup] years. Or more. (We’re in the Second Age, BTW, the Stelliferous Era.)
As for what was here before the Big Bang, Adams and Laughlin say it was most likely a singularity that contained nothing but energy. Since energy can be converted into matter, THAT is where all the matter in the universe came from. That energy was always there.
This is pretty funny coming from a guy who calls himself “moronmountain”. (And that link identifies the person who did the research and posted that information by name–Simon Yates.)
The page linked to above cites a biography of Darwin, which in turn quotes Darwin’s own daughter. Your source is “a book you don’t feel like opening right now”. Pardon us if we don’t find that terribly authoritative.
It’s perfectly possible that you were honestly mistaken rather than deliberately lying about Darwin’s “deathbed conversion”, but that still doesn’t make it true.
No, what makes evolution a fact (which it is, about as strongly as anything is a fact) is that it actually happened (and is still happening).
There is, however, no direct linkage between the fanciful tale of Darwin’s “recantation” and the original quesion. If you’d posted something about, say, George Gamow having a “deathbed conversion” it would have been just as untrue, and just as irrelevant to the actual validity of the theory in question, but it would at least have had something to do with the original question of this thread.
Psssst! Stephen J. Gould wants a word with you. He says it’s a fact AND a theory. If you want to be more precise, evolution is a process, a series of discrete genetic events that cause populations to change over time.
Sure thing, “moron”. Just hang on a secend while I go get rid of all references posted by people with silly nicks. And will somebody delete me, please? I call myself “Ugly” for crissakes!
I didn’t say you were a liar. I assumed you were lied to, not lying.
And a reference directly to a book which quotes Darwin’s daughter, who would be expected to know such a thing, certainly gives weight against your statement that you read a “a book I don’t feel like opening right now”.
But knowing many, many, many things about science (as the people who study evolution do) does give enormous weight to the theory. Your apparent ignorance of the field doesn’t mean that others aren’t better informed.
I don’t know what this has to so with anything we’ve talking about, but what the hell. I will say that there is precisely the same amount of actual evidence for their flavors of creationism as there is for the Christian variety. That is to say, none.
You’ll pardon us if we interpret this as “I have no convincing arguments, so I’m bailing now”.
Exactly. It’s a fact that evolution happens*. The “Theory of Evolution” is an explanation of how it happens.
*This is directly observable in some modern species. It is also supported by a ton of fossil evidence.
As has been said, it’s not known what caused the Big Bang (if anything). Big Bang Theory explains how the universe has unfolded since its beginning. It does not attempt to explain what was “before” (if such a time even exists). So, it’s not a gap in the theory. But it’s certainly one of the remaining Big Questions for humans to ponder.
I don’t think the Pope would be too happy about that Creationism isn’t Catholic teaching.
moronmountain: The OP didn’t ask about evolution anyway; the question was about the Big Bang. Phobos (and others) are correct. We don’t yet know how the initial conditions came to be, and it’s possible we may never know for sure (the information may have been destroyed in the early stages of expansion).
I’ll repeat the point that it does not make sense to talk about “before the big bang” because time also began at that point…there was no “before”.
Lastly, none of these things says anything about the presence or lack of a Creator.
Of course, we should teach creation science in school! It’s a God-given truth that Izanami and Izanagi no Mikoto, standing on the divine bridge of Heaven, stirred the water beneath them with a spear and created the islands of Japan, and that they then produced Amaterasu, the sun goddess, to rule over the Divine Land.
What, isn’t that creation science? Oh, then you mean the very scientific story of how the lord Brahma was born from a golden egg and then proceeded to create Heaven, the Earth, the other gods, and all living creatures. Hey, it’s in the Vedas, holy scriptures dictated by the gods. Isn’t that what Moronmountain means by science?
Or maybe he means the scientific theory that Odin creates Midgard from the dead body of the giant Ymir. Again, it’s in the Norse Sagas, very holy science texts.
Quantum theory allows for virtual particles to come into existence out of nothing for an ephemeral period of time - shorter than the Planck’s constant. But they’d have to annihilate each other. I’ve wondered about that. If we can posit the position that the Big Bang came from the existence of virtual particles, how do we get around that obstacle?
Saying that it came out of energy doesn’t resolve anything. Where did the energy come from?
Then, another theory that comes to mind is the continuum of closed universes. After a while (a long while) the result of a Big Bang is a Big Unbang, and the universe is once again imploded into a min-Black Hole, which then explodes again. But then, again, there had to be a Beginning of the first closed universe.
This is a good debate, but it is being ruined by extraneous detours into the theory of evolution, which has nothing to do with the OP, along with personal attacks. One reason why it is a good debate is that no one knows the answer, except those who know God created the universe.
To argue then, well, what or who created God, betrays a sense that the arguer does not know the essence of God. If there be such a creature, no one can really know Its essence, as we are all finite creatures with finite minds. The finite can never understand the infinite. Temporal creatures can never know the Eternal.
I’m an agnostic. I can’t believe in anything unless it is proved to me. It boggles the mind that there can be an Existence with the attributes of God. The only thing that is more mind-boggling is that there is no such Existence.
Which is, in itself, a perfectly logical statement to make (or, at least, it is just as logical as saying that “god” always existed). One cannot simply define the problem away by saying, “I define matter and energy as having had to be created, therefore they must have been created. I define God as having always been present, therefore God does not require a creator.” For that matter, the laws of thermodynamics (specifically that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted into different forms) would at least jibe with the notion that, as jab1 mentions, the energy has always existed. Hardly a proof against a creator, but it does speak to the logical plausibility of a lack thereof.
Granted the argument for the name wasn’t the best given alot of people’s names here on the boards.
There is also a direct correlation between evolution and the Big Bang which EVERYBODY is missing. If evolution is false and there is a Creator, then the Creator created the universe…which means no Big Bang. If evolution happened, then there would be a Big Bang to start it all.
I notice how quickly it was pointed out my logic regarding evolutionists’ lack of proof is false logic. But isn’t the board saying the same about my Creator logic? I have no “proof” so therefore evolution is more correct?
So the name of that book, but the way, was written by CHARLES DARWIN, titled “The Origin Of Species”, and in the conclusion of the book writes of the grandeur of the “view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” So, Charles Darwin acknowledged a Creator of life. Now, the Universe came about by a random explosion of energy, but life was created by a higher life-form?
Just consider the vastness and complexity of everything in the universe…Superclusters of galactic clusters of galaxies of solar systems of planets orbiting a solitary star in a galaxy…
Astronaut John Glenn (not the most reliable source, but there’s more after him) said of the UNIVERSE itself, “Could this have just happened? Was it an accident that a bunch of flotsam and jetsam suddenly started making these orbits of its own accord? I can’t believe that. Some Power put all this into orbit and keeps it there.” Notice the capital “P” in power, denoting a figurative body.
Anyway, as more concrete evidence, let’s look to Mr. Stephen Hawking. “The more we examin the universe, we find it is not arbitrary at all but obeys certain well defined laws that operate in different areas. It seems very reasonable to suppose that there may be some unifying principles, so that all laws are part of some bigger law.” Might that bigger law be a Creator? Or the initial energy?
“Science News”, respected science journal, published, “Contemplation of these things [special conditions of order and law that are so apparent in the universe] disturbs cosmologists because it seems as if such particular and precise conditions could hardly have arisen at random. One way to deal with the question is to say the whole thing was contrived and lay it on Divine Providence.” Again those capital letters signifying a figurative being.
Astrophysicist John Gribbin admitted in “New Scientist”, though scientists “claim, by and large, to be able to describe in great detail” what happened after this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a mystery.” And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all.”
So, would a giant explosion create such order? COULD a giant explosion create such order? A bomb dropped on a city will not construct roads, solid and durable buildings, signs, and traffic laws. Explosions are chaotic…just ask the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki…oh wait…can’t because it destroyed everything.
Things today have designers from computers to highrises. A book has a creator, a child is created from its parents, but the universe created istelf?
The world was once supported by four elephants on the back of a giant tortoise. Of course, the world was flat, too. People KNEW that was true. Well, it’s not. The bible was around since before those beliefs and correctly stated the earth was supported by nothing in the shape of a sphere. So, science could not tell what shape the earth was…and now it’s going to tell me how the earth and universe came about? I’m more inclined to believe the bible which was inspired by a higher being who subsequently was the same being who created the universe.
I don’t want to bring the bible into this, but I have to in order to show evidence for a creator so then I had to prove the bible was correct using its content versus what is true today (imagine that, they match) which science only verified in the 1950’s when mankind finally went into space.
Oh, and I want to see that fossil evidence because you’ll notice ALOT of evidence appears at the same time (Creator) and giant holes in the record have let evolution, and thus Big Bang through the earlier linkage, fall through. And the cave in France I hear so much about must have bad press or something because there aren’t any pictures ascertainable, just alot of guessin’.
Others are about to make short work of your, um, terribly misinformed post, but I’ll hit the easy ones.
Actually, that doesn’t follow at all. The fallacy of composition and all that. Just because I created a couple of songs (I did) doesn’t mean I created music, guitars, or sound recording.
The reverse proposition is no more true. Evolution can still happen in the presence of a creator.
As an amateur astronomer, I do so all the time. I have a photo of the Hubble Deep Field hanging on the bulletin board over my desk at work. Your point?
[quote]
Astronaut John Glenn (not the most reliable source, but there’s more after him) said of the UNIVERSE itself . . .
Appeal to authority. Mr. Glenn is, to say the least, not the deciding factor in matters like this, regardless of the amount of respect I have for him.
Nor, for that matter, is the esteemed Mr. Hawking. He is of course free to speculate at length about First Causes, as are we all, but in the absence of some evidence, it remains speculation. Also, based on the quote you provide, you are putting an awful lot of words into Mr. Hawking’s mouth by asking, “Might it be a Creator?” Sure, it might. It might also be a giant Electrolux vacuum cleaner. So what?
Of course, don’t quote the other “way[s] to deal with it” this article also probably discusses. I bet there were lots, huh? Also, “It seems as if . . . could hardly have arisen at random” is the argument from personal incredulity, a logical fallacy. Why do I have the distinct feeling this passage is quoted entirely and egregiously out of context?
I would hardly call new stars and planets constantly being created and destroyed, galaxies flying away from each other at ever-increasing speeds, and supernovae and quasars “orderly.” Would you? Also, small local pockets of order can develop in the midst of increasing entropy. Based on the size of the universe, I’d certainly call our little planet both “small” and “local”; and based on the future heat death, I’d also call that “increasing entropy.”
So who created the Creator? (I know, I know, “He’s always been there.”)
Really? You actually think that this particular cultural myth was, like, believed worldwide? I can save you the trouble of digging up a cite by telling you it wasn’t.
No, they really, really didn’t. Two centuries prior to the time of Christ, not only did the Greeks know that the Earth was a sphere (and had for some time–you can see its shadow on the moon, you know), they fairly had accurately calculated its size. The fact that the Earth is a sphere has been known for longer than you would expect.
The Bible was, clearly, not around before the elephant/turtle thing, nor some of the things goboy referenced.
Um, yeah, it could and did, before Jesus ever lived. Amazing, huh?
You’re joking, right? You really think we didn’t already know the Earth was a sphere, and how big it was, before 1957?
I’m not going to make any condescending guesses about how old or young you are, or about how educated you are or aren’t, but I will point out that you managed to compile a rather lengthy post here composed entirely of out-of-context quotes, anecdotes, logical fallacies, false assumptions, and outright falsities. You’re really going to have to do better to convince anyone of anything.
The Big Bang was not that kind of explosion. The word “explosion” in connection with the Big Bang refers to an exploding expansion of energy/matter. One can believe in evolution and still believe in God, of course. We shouldn’t mix the two. True, if there is no evolution, then the only alternative is a God; however, evolution has been well established. For purposes of this debate, we should assume it as a fact.
As to Varloz’s post: Since energy is matter, to say that energy always existed is to say that matter always has existed. This is not the same as saying that a Creator always existed. We know the nature of energy/matter. We don’t know the nature of any Existence that could have created the universe. We ascribe it certain characteristics: omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. The difference is that energy/matter is finite. We can know the nature of finite things. A Creator, if It exists would be infinite and eternal, presuming It has not died.
However, the fact that there is conservation of energy and matter in the universe may be a clue to its origin. If the universe arose from virtual particles, there had to be creation of additional energy/matter. So, I think we can rule that out. The bouncing ball theory (implosion and explosion ad infinitum) eliminates that problem, but does not resolve the ultimate origin.
It is impossible to determine the origin of the Universe from a scientific viewpoint. That is a matter of philosophy and/or religion, which deals with the ultimates. Analogy is to matter. Scientists kept finding smaller and smaller particles. Now they say they have found the fundamental particles: quarks and leptons. Are they sure? Of course not. Smaller and smaller particles have always been found in the past and may in the future. Scientists cannot know the ultimates. That’s the field of philosophy.
I believe you are conflating several different things.
Evolution and the Big Bang have nothing to do with each other, just like Evolution and Earth’s sphericity have nothing to do with each other.
Evolution could occur on a flat earth, or on any other sort of habitat that can support life. Similarly, evolution could occur in a steady state universe, or a big bang universe, or a created universe.
Contrarily, if the Big Bang occured that does not mean that evolution occured. Perhaps aliens created life on earth, or a supernatural being named YHWH created life on earth, or perhaps life arose on earth by natural processes other than evolution, or by unknown supernatural processes.
Also, even if we proved that a supernatural being named YHWH created life on earth 6000 years ago that would not prove that YHWH created the universe. I would guess that creating life must be hundreds of trillions of times easier than creating a universe. Human scientists today are figuring out the genetic code and how proteins form. If one of them whips up a primitive life form from scratch that wouldn’t prove that he could create a universe, would it? Neither would it disprove the existance of God, or disprove that God created the universe, it would have no bearing on the question of God’s role in the universe.
Also, evolution and biogenesis are related but different puzzles. We could have evolution even if it was shown that life originated by a supernatural process. YHWH could have created the first living creatures 3 billion years ago and all the other creatures could have arose through evolution. Or, we could imagine that life arose through some unknown but natural process, but that evolution does not occur and all organisms have existed unchanged since they arose through that natural process.
Also, evolution and natural selection are two different things. We could imagine evolution by some other process than natural selection. Many other such mechanisms have been proposed, but none of them have been persuasive enough for scientists to abandon the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Also, the very very very first scientists ever, the ancient Greeks, proved that the earth was spherical. I don’t know where you get the idea that the bible claims the earth is spherical, since it refers to the earth’s four corners and such. But even the most charitible reading of the Bible does not support your assertion that the ancient Hebrews beleived the earth was spherical.
Also, if an orderly creation implies an orderly creator, then what does the presence of the ordely creator imply? If the universe logically cannot exist unless it was created by some power, then that power could not exist without being created by some power. Either way we have infinite recursion. You can call the power “God”, I think it is more honest to say “we don’t know.” Your mileage may vary.
Also, it is not a problem for us to admit that science does not have the answers to every question, or that there are some questions that scientists will NEVER be able to answer. What did King Tut have for breakfast on his 12th birthday? What was the name of the guy who painted the Lasceaux cave ceiling? How many arctic foxes were alive in the Yukon territory on Dec 17, 1745? What was the universe like before the Big Bang? We will probably never know the answers to these questions because the evidence that would answer them has been destroyed.
Not nececelery. One possible alternative would be the regular abiogenesis of exceedingly complex lifeforms – e.g. if there’s a natural process by which bacteria could arise where there was no life, there could be a natural process by which Sequoia trees and Rhesus monkeys could arise where there was no life.
But as you’ve said, the evidence for evolution is pretty darned overwhelming.
first off let me start off by saying that unless you have proof that something is false you should never bash (for lack of a better word) other people’s theories. After all, everything involving prehistory is in some way a theory (thats not including fossils and stuff).
Isn’t it possible, for arguments sake, that the big bang, evolution and creationism could all fall together? I mean, The Supreme Being (God, Omega, whomever) could have decided to create something, so he puts energy into the universe. Ultimately, over a long period of time (to us anyway) the big bang occurs and creates solar systems, universes planets etc. The Supreme Being wants one planet to have more inteligent life than the rest.
So organisms come out. Then, for these organisms to survive (and here comes evolution) they need to find different food and different climate. So they adapt to these things. Over a long period of time, these organisms grow and adapt to each other and their surroundings. Eventually animals come and even humans.
I’m not saying that this is true or not. One, two or both things could be thrue but we won’t know the truth for a very long time (at least). But this is just a theory just like everything else. Of course, some have more evidence to support it, but unless there is evidence to say that something is not true, then it can’t be disproven.
FYI… Not all creationists are Christians, some are Jews, Muslims, Hindus and others. All these religions believe in a supreme being who created the universe. That means to some extent they are all creationists, unless I do not undestand the full meaning behind creationist. Although, I believe it is a fact that Jewish people as well as Christians believe in creationism since it is stated in Genisis which is in the old testamate.
The theory that energy has always existed (to go back to that post) is the same as saying that energy and mass have always existed: that there are an infinite chain of events, with no beginning. Similarly, with the “bouncing ball” of implosion and explosion, it is an infinite series of bouncing balls, with no beginning.
I have never liked that explanation: there is no first cause, but only an infinite series of events. I don’t know about you others out there, but that is very unsatisfying to me.
However, it’s not just that there is matter and energy in the universe, or there is a universe at all, which is mind-boggling, but there is LIFE. It’s amazing how intricate and complex the very process of living is. Life is so finely tuned to be at all. The mechanisms to maintain homeostasis, ward off antigens, etc., and then get to mankind and his ability to THINK (other animals can think too). And now his ability to create different forms of life. I cannot lay this to mere chance, to mere evolution, to mere infinite series of causes. On the other hand, it is unfathomable and incomprehensible to imagine a Being that always was, always is, and always will be that set this in motion somehow. How is such a Being? What is such a Being? Where is such a Being? Mind boggling.
So there is that dilemma I have. I find both alternatives mind boggling and cannot believe either one. Yet there is no third alternative.
I don’t believe in the literal interpretation of every word of the Bible. Somewhere along the way, early on, Christianity got corrupted into a bizarre form of book-worship with many people, and I disagree with that.
I don’t believe the Genesis story of creation. I think it was intended as allegory.
Now, with all that said up front …
Seems to me, all those who search for a purely scientific answer to how “all this” got here need to acknowledge one point or the other, within the framework of their Creator-less belief: Either something arose from nothing; or some things have always been.
Don’t just cop out with, “We don’t know.” How can one of those two premises not be involved?
Those premises are exactly as fantastic and beyond human comprehension as that of a Creator.
**
Uhhh … no shit. Religion is based on faith. Quit trying to codify it with scientific rules.
The OP said (paraphrasing), “Where did the stuff from the Big Bang come from?” How did the thread get so quickly to creationism-bashing? (OK, I know moronmountain helped.)
This is the response many of you seem to have to the OP:
“I have no freaking clue. My belief structure that makes me feel so above it all on this issue offers no answer to the question whatsoever, and never will. But allow me to ridicule the faith-based views of others while I’m here!”
I think anyone who denies that there is an evolutionary process ongoing on this planet is denying some quite provable facts. If you believe in a Creator/God, however, how does this undermine that belief in any way? God created the evolutionary process, which is part of “all this,” which we already believe He created. (Those of us who do believe that.)
Creationism isn’t Catholic teaching.