What is the evidence for the big bang.

Great Debates
101

If there is not any empirical evidence for inflation and BBT dosent work without it. Why are we calling BBT a theory? Would that not demote it to hypothosis?

Hamster claims I am wrong in my assertion on several counts I will answer him/her soon on this. Perhaps the misunderstanding is mine…but I dont think so.

As I understand it the main thing that killed steady state theory was the ratios of
elemental abundances. Specificaly a lack of deuterium. I do not understand how this is worse than making up an inflationary period just because the math works better that way.

Agreed ID is not a theory and there is no model etc and yes they can save the details for in the home and at church etc.

Here is what would happen if I could make it so.
The first book of the textbook would say something like this.

In order to explore the laws of physics we will be investigating what is commonly known as The Big Bang Theory. This has many problems that have not been worked out as of yet and there are competing theories and perhaps this theory will be discarded at some point. This theory is just used at the moment as a starting point in our continuing exploration of the universe by a majority of mainstream science.
This theory does not prove or disprove the existence of creator nor does it attempt to do so.

Perhaps I could come up with something a little more succinct but hopefully you get the general idea.

Thats it…thats all I would prefer.

From the website linked below:
The Hawking special is the kick-off episode to a major new Discovery program, called simply Curiosity. I predict it will make something of a splash. The reason is simple: although most of the episode is about science, Hawking clearly goes all-in with “God does not exist.” It’s not a message we often hear on American TV
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/08/02/hawking-and-god-on-the-discovery-channel/

I do know that most of the mainstream scientists keep their opinions in their pocket on this subject and I salute them for that but it is scientists like Hawking and atheists like Dan Brown (whose understanding of BBT is prob inferior to mine) that are controling the PR.

I just think that between us getting lucky enough to have the laws of physics that we do and a creator…a creator is much more likely.

This is why I referenced the multiverse idea earlier. The fact that we got so lucky (if there is no creator) has driven some to postulate something they can never hope to prove.

102

Why stop there? The theory does not prove or disprove Big Foot, or UFOs, or that Oswald killed Kennedy, or that you are not a lizzard. There are an infinite number of things that are orthogonal to the Big Bang theory. Why do you want to choose that particular one that has nothing to do with it?

103

No, the willful ignorance of which I speak is the determined delusion that “God’s law” was authored by something other than men, and using scripture to prove the truth of scripture proves nothing.

Well, actually, in a lot of cases the people being killed by group X were themselves members of group X. They just had something worth stealing, and labeling them as “heretics” or whatever was the easiest way to get it. Heck, to pull out merely one example of many, the Knights Templar were (for all I know) good Catholics. But they had lots of gold coveted by other good Catholics, so some flimsy charges of heresy were enough justification to torture and massacre them.

Bullshit. Can I assume you’re posting from the United States or one of the other liberal democracies? Are you aware of the truly awesome amount of personal freedom and security you have under a system of secular laws, such freedom and security unimaginable in a theocracy or under an absolute monarchy where the sovereign’s powers “derived from God”.

Well, I suggest you compare the life of a person living in a liberal democracy to one living in a hardcore theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Or does “God’s law” exclusively mean the Christian version thereof? If so, why?

I have no interest whatsoever in formally legislating any part of any version of the New Testament, nor specifically legislating against any such version. A guarantee of freedom of religion of all kinds for all citizens will suffice. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms describes this as:

…with no need for embellishment. I don’t have to care whether or not you’re “one of those” (whatever “those” are). I do have to care (at least in the theoretical sense) that some politician is going to appeal to your nonlogical thinking and sucker you into voting for something that’s going to infringe on my freedoms. It looks like all he has to do is quote some scripture and talk about it in a way that appeals to you, and secular freedoms start getting corroded, slowly, steadily.

Uh-huh, and people who may have sincerely believed these passages still used some internal doublethink to decide who counted as a “neighbor”, and how to treat a neighbor who didn’t believe these passages, or didn’t believe them in an acceptable way. The fact is, if all Christians had actually operated on these principles, Christianity would not have become the primary power structure across most of Europe, at it was until the Enlightenment. There’s simply no way to “love your neighbor as yourself” and still wage wars of conquest.

Well, we can get conservation and health care and the like with no need for reverence for God. Canada has them, for example. We have a figurehead monarch, but our government is secular.

I’m skittish about the nature of your “help”.

My position is that by default, scripture should never be legislated. If the text has some objective secular value (and references to God or Jesus don’t apply, as references to Santa Claus or dragons or tooth fairies wouldn’t), let it be rephrased before being written into law.

Christians not living up to the ideals of their scriptures? That’s not a surprise. That’s just… reality.

And yes, I’m an atheist. I have no interest in impeding your efforts to reconcile your faith in the manner you choose. I have an active disinterest in remaining silent when you make comments about science or law or freedom that I find irrational.

104

Can you please link to this?

It is very interesting and does make seem to make sense and I vaguely recall inflation and expansion being related but I am pretty sure I have never seen anyone to claim to observe FTL behavior in any object.

I agree.

Did you mean empirical?
I dont understand your use of esoteric here.

I disagree with your first comment in that paragraph. Could you please link it.
Also I think the evidence of super hot and super dense is alot thinner that you seem to think.

Stephen Hawking on the tv show Curiosity said it was “infinitely dense” would you agree with that?

105

Except that Stephen Hawking says otherwise and his bully pulpit is alot bigger that yours or mine. I agree with most of your post and there would not be an argument here if certain scientists would say such unscientific things.
Other than that just think of it as an intellectual exercise.

106

No, you don’t upgrade or downgrade things like that.

Why is it a problem? If one model explains the facts better than another, the better explanation is preferred.

I think it’s fair to point out that there are issues we still don’t understand, but I think saying the Big Bang Theory “has many problems” gives a false impression. Saying that our understanding of the universe is still evolving and that there are things we don’t know about how the universe reached its current state is accurate.

There’s no reason to bring this up in the first place. It’s not a good idea to give special mentions or special deference to religion in a science textbook. It has nothing to do with this topic, so don’t mention it in the first place.

This doesn’t respond to my point: individual scientists have varying opinions about God, but science isn’t out to prove or disprove the existence of gods. Hawking says he’s an atheist, and so am I. Dan Brown is a fiction writer and I wouldn’t trust anything he says about anything.

I don’t. That just leaves you with more things to explain. And if we weren’t here, nobody would be begging for an explanation.

I’m not sure if it’s unprovable. We’ll have to see how physics develops.

107

Considering that he can’t talk or type, and it takes a tremendous amount of effort for him to communicate at all, I’m sure he’d trade his bully pulpit for yours.

I imagine Hawkings is an atheist, but he does not say there is no God. What he says is that it is possible for something to come from nothing so that it is incorrect to say that the universe requires a creator.

But let’s imagine that he is a big bad bully that hates God, how would that affect the facts? It seems as though you are taking affront to his opinions on God to reject his scientific views. You must admit that makes no sense. There are lots of scientists that believe in God, should I just reject their work in science?

As I said before, you are creating a false dichotomy between science and religion.

108

My misunderstanding and I agree. However the proof of the scripture is in living the life. I do not expect you take my word for that and I do not think you will try the life either. I wish you would tho because that is the only proof offered by the bible. I am simply quoting the scripture to help explain my views.

I agree with your point about Christian on Christian violence…wholeheartedly.

Yes I am in Alabama and it is a balmy 50 degrees F at almost midnight here.
Yes I am aware that I live in the most privledged country in the world. I do think our legal system is unrivaled and the best that man can do. But we still have people starving in this country…how is that even possible?

■In 2010, an estimated 1,246,248 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 6.0 percent from the 2009 estimate.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime

That is success?

I do agree that any religious backed law would be twisted by those in power and things would regress in hurry.

Really your point is well taken and I do agree with it.
I am talking about each individual following the “golden rule” which is the only way God’s law would work.

I do not have much personal knowledge of the Quran but I have been told there is nothing about jihad or killing your daughter for having sex etc.
I have been told the radical Muslims twisted that in the same way that the crusaders twisted the bible to their own ends.
Again I am for anything that encourages you to treat me like you want to be treated and visa versa.

No you either have not been reading me very well or you cannot get past your own preconcived notions. I specifically wrote (at least twice) that Gods law cannot be legislated. I would not vote for anyone stupid enough to try.
FWIW the ones that hide behind the bible scare me the worst. All I have to do is look at their bank account to see how sincere they are not.

Study of the scripture reveals “my neighbor” to be any other human being I may come in contact with.
It may be your opinion that the inquistors for example sincerly believed in what they are doing but it is not mine. Honestly there is no way to misinterprit it that bad. I dont think those or the conquistidors or the crusaders just to name a few believed in God anymore than you do.
I am talking of course about the leaders…the followers prob never were allowed to pick up a bible.

Do you like the health care?
I work for an Italian company that uses a Portugese contractor at times…both hate the health care system. They buy private health care to subsidize the gov. care.

Dont blame you…you only have history with which to judge me by.
Thats not your fault or mine but it is somebodys fault.

Thats funny in that you agree with Jesus on that score.
Matthew 22:21
And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s

I thought the suprise would be the simplicity but guess not.
The fact that they dont live up to the ideals or even try too makes them IMO not Christians. It also says that in the bible.

I have no problem with you being an atheist and I respect you for being upfront about it and not hiding it out of fear or hope of personal gain.

109

The way Hawking communicates is simply amazing and it is very commendable how he has fought his sclerosis for so long. If not for his stubborn will he would have died long ago as predicted by his doctors. He actually twiches his cheek to choose words from a computer screen when he starts a thought the words are just random and he has to flip through them till he finds the one he wants. Once his thought is partially formed the computer algorims kick in and help him out a little bit by narrowing the list of words.

He is a brilliant man and I am discounting none of his contribution to our understanding of the world around us on the grounds of him being an atheist or anything else.

Is he the Einstein of our age? I am not smart enough to answer that question.
Would I trade bodies to get that superb brain of his?
Nah I dont guess I have the balls for that but I would have to think about it given the chance.

Him being an atheist is no crime but him saying he proved there was no God was wrong and obviously he is smart enough to know better. I provided you with a direct link to a direct quote by him saying God dosent exist. He communicated this thought on an episode of the tv show Curiosity sometime last year (summer I think)
After the show they had a round table discussion with Paul Davies and Sean Carroll and some theologian from the Catholic Church. Davies was also of the opinon that he should not have said it. Carroll was not and it was Carroll who wrote the article I linked too. I really wish you would read it.

I will paraphrase the Hawking’s conclusion at the end of the show for you.

At the moment before the big bang the universe was extremely hot and infinitely dense and at infinite density general relativity tells us that time stops therefore therefore there was no time for a creator.
Therefore there is no God.

I dont know how I could misconstrue that.
BTW I am pretty sure that the “infinitely dense” part contradicts his own work on the subject not to mention Einsteins.

There is no dichotomy between science and religion. But there are both those of the religious ilk and atheists who would have us believe that there is.

We can take religion out of the conservation anytime I would prefer to do so but not by dodging questions directed at me.

110

Yes there is, they are by nature enemies. Religion by nature corrupts science, as it corrupts everything; science by nature undercuts religion, both by showing it to be wrong and by undercutting the defective habits of thought that make religion possible.

111

Well, that doesn’t really work. An explanation that rephrases (rather than just quotes) scripture would at least indicate that you have read the material, understood it, and can apply it in a practical way. What, if anything, does “love your neighbor as yourself” mean in your day to day life? How do you apply it?

They’re pretty fond of violence overall, actually. Of course, so is everyone - it’s hardly a Christian-specific trait.

Well, I live in Canada, which in 2009 suffered 443,000 “violent incidents” (which turns out to be more liberally defined than in the U.S. - our figures look higher per capita because Canadians are more likely to include sexual assault and simple assault as “violent”, and since these are fairly common crimes, our “violent” totals look elevated).

Nevertheless, I live in a major city (the second largest in Canada, seventh largest in North America, though admittedly how one defines “largest” can vary) and can casually walk down to Chinatown at 2 a.m. for some late-night take-out and not need a gun or a doberman. I don’t live in fear. That is success.

The thing is, we don’t need God’s law, which is endlessly flexible and redefinable by whoever is proclaiming it, to have a secular ethical golden rule society.

Probably. I’m not sure I or anyone could rely on Quranic quoting when facing a Saudi tribunal. Scripture is so varied even within a single faith that pretty much anything can be justified, unlike secular law which at least makes an effort at consistency and has (ideally) a Supreme Court that can catch contradictions, i.e. the legislature passes a law that runs counter to a constitutional freedom and the courts eventually strike it down. It’s not a perfect process, to be sure. I don’t think a perfect process exists.

Well, you’re talking about altering textbooks, specifically:

I find that to be sufficiently “corrosive” (albeit at a small scale) to be worth commenting on. You’re basically talking about science disagreeing with your beliefs, therefore science should be forced to conform to your beliefs. I figure you’re free to tell your children anything you like (and send them to less science-respecting schools if you prefer), but the way I see it, the lifestyle to which I have become accustomed relies on scientists and engineers and technicians, to conceive, design and deploy the medications and machines that help me live longer and more comfortably than my great-grandparents. I don’t want their science educations compromised just to mollify the discomfort of someone who doesn’t understand science.

Further, in these competitive times, it’s looking more and more like the breakthroughs will come from central and eastern Asia, where religious conformity is not affecting science to the same degree as the more devout United States. Since the economy of my country is inextricably linked that that of yours, I don’t want you dragging us down with you. Science and technology is the future. Religion and intelligent design try desperately to cling to the past.

If you really want textbooks altered in this fashion, then I really have to voice my objection.

Well, I guess it’s safe to safe we can’t know what people dead for hundreds of years sincerely believed. They did, however, have the financial support of various popes and pope-pleasing kings and whatnot.

Sure. The Canadian system (well, the Quebec system - it’s run at the provincial level, though financed federally) is not without its flaws, but it works well enough. In recent months, I’ve been checked by a dermatologist and though I had to pay for the medications, I didn’t for the diagnoses.

Some Canadians are doing that. I guess dissatisfaction is inevitable. It’s even good - it drives change and improvement. As far as I can tell, the religious equivalent is to tell the malcontent to conform, read the scripture, accept that “God moves in mysterious ways”, accept their lot and shut the heck up.

And then occasionally one starts nailing things to church doors and all hell breaks loose.

112

Wikipedia has a decent overview.

Objects can’t MOVE faster than the speed of light. But, technically, the expansion of space isn’t movement.

The current rate of expansion is about 74 km/s per megaparsec. For every megaparsec of distance from Earth (about 3,200,000 light years) space expands 74 kilometers per second faster. That means at about 12 billion light years distance the rate of expansion becomes greater than the speed of light. This doesn’t violate relativity because it’s not really movement.

During the inflationary period the rate of expansion was much, much higher, so objects that were much closer together experienced faster-than-light expansion speeds. The result was that things that had been close enough together to equalize temperatures were carried far enough apart that light still hasn’t had a chance to cross the gulf between them.

Esoteric in the sense of “not amenable to explanation in a brief message board post”.

The big bang theory existed for a long time without inflation. It was only when increasingly subtle measurements discovered some observational anomalies that inflation was added as a refinement.

The universe is expanding. Extrapolate that expansion backwards in time and you a very hot and dense universe. Also, the further away something is, the longer the light has taken to reach us. Looking at distant object is looking back in time. When we look beyond the most distant galaxies, all we see is a cloud of hot, dense plasma. What parts of those observations do you disagree with?

Anything you see on a TV show is going to be simplified for consumption by a general audience. I would agree that the universe was extremely dense in the first nanoseconds of its creation. I think its unclear whether the density of the universe was truly infinite at t=0.

113

A better way for me to say that would have been: BBT should have never been considered a well tested theory in the first place. But of course the scientific community upgrades and downgrades theorys base on what is observed.
At one time the earth was the center of the solar system and the universe not to mention flat.

Let me say here that for all the good the scientific community has done like anything else it has its problems. One of the big problems is terminology.
We have law, theory and hypothesis I think we need a few more catagories.
For example string theory really does not fit either theory or hypothesis.
It is only “proven” with theoretical math which would suggest hypothesis but yet it is very complex which would suggest theory.

This is the crux of my argument. BBT may be the best but it is the best of a bad lot.
I dont have a problem with the teaching of it or the discussion. I have a problem with how much weight it is given.

That is schematics but I would have no problem in using your wording.

I can assure y…oh I better not say that…AFAIK there is no ID religion.
The designer could be a big turtle for all the disclaimer says.

Sorry Marley I let my fingers get ahead of my brain I meant Dan Barker co-pres of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. He started preaching from the bible as a young teen, was a missionary and then at the age of 35 or so he converted to atheisim. He is the best atheistic debater (70 or more formal debates) I have ever seen in action and knows the bible better than I do.

Back to your point that I didnt respond to “Scientists aren’t looking to prove or disprove ID”

Some are. Would that be a better response?
Really I do agree with you that most scientists would just as soon stay out of this argument for the most part. Of course science is a tool and has nothing to say on the subject. I assert that but the truth is that maybe someday empirical evidence of a sentient God might be found but I do not believe it.

The thing is that Hawking is not just some scientist. Fair or not for a large percentage of the population he is the voice of science.
And Barker is the voice of atheism

What is the problem with more things to explain? I thought that was the fun part.

Only the fool is sure?

I did read somewhere that if our universe had collided with another (would seem to rather traumatic) at sometime in the past we should be able to see it in the CMB. But I would prob think that they just adjusted the formulas to fit the observation and I think that has happened alot with BBT.
More on this if and when I get around to answering Hamster.

I am not good with the math but neither am I the trusting sort I found this website to be very helpfull in that regard. I often wondered why, if you could “prove” things with the math, you need the observations. If anyone out there wonders the same thing.
This is for you.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/physicist.html

114

Newton was wrong?

115

If I have two dollars and you have none I give you one.
If I have enough for two to eat and you have none I give you half.
If I have enough for one to eat and you have none I give you half.
If I have only an m&m to eat and you have nothing I tell you we are both screwed.
I dont drag you down to elevate myself.
If I disagree with something you say or do I let you know in a respectfull way as opposed to telling all our mutual acquaintances what a dolt you are.
When you drive up in your new Maserati I am genuinely happy that your are able to afford nice things as opposed to thinking why is he so lucky when I am such a better person.
If I decide to sell my truck for 4,000 dollars and you offer me 5,000 I tell you that is to much.
I dont steal from you…I dont cheat you…I dont harm you even when I think you deserve it.
I help you succeed and find no pleasure in it if you fail.

Cannot argue with that.

So if we have it better than someone else that equals success?
Good then there is only one failure in the whole world at any given moment.
I am kidding. You are correct we do have a sizeable measure of success.

Brings me in mind of a point tho that has nothing to do with your comment. It is my opinion that many proclaimed Christians are just as atheistic as you are but are either too scared or selfish to admit it.
There is another sizeable group and that is the group that says well at least I am better than fill in the blank. They think (judging by their actions) that being better than someone else makes you “good”.

I am not saying we can get even a sizeable minority to follow Jesus’s second commandment. I wish.
I am sure not saying make it the law of land.
I am saying it is fairly obvious that many proclaimed Christians are not even attempting to follow it. Some of it is due to ignorance but alot of it is not. I see perfectly intelligent men and women who have bible knowledge willfully break this commandment everyday. I saw it on this MB the night I started this thread.

This is a continuation of my response to your question…Who has the authority to decide who is a Christian and who is not?
Of course it is not proper for me to try to decipher every action my fellow human beings take but daily in my life no deciphering is necessary.

Why do I need to break down the motives of Rick Perry gov. of Texas and Pres hopefull when over 200 executions were carried out on his signature.

Either he does not read the bible or he has the understanding of 5 year old.

Other than Jesus most people would say Paul is the most outstanding man in the New Testament.
Do you know what his name was prior to his conversion? Somehow I think you do.
It was Saul whose sole task was to hunt, torture. and kill Christians.
If Perry was really a Christian would that not give him pause?

How does he know he did not snuff out the Paul of our time?
He is no Christian as defined by his own acts.

Your comments are appreciated more than you know particularly the negative ones. If I had wanted to hear soft cooing noises I would have had this conversation in my head.

I fail to see how ID and religion are inexorably linked. My disclaimer idea (of course not original to me) leaves the door open for turtles. lucky the leprecaun, as well as Jehovah Lord of Hosts.

Would your concern be the wave of evangalists claiming a victory for God via the press?
If so I would find that valid but it would not be enough to change my mind.

Of course we can. Compare what the bible says and how they acted. Its pretty simple. If Ronald Reagan had declared on his deathbed that he was and always had been a die hard liberal would you feel forced to consider him one?

Pope Gregory IX. Pope Innocent III. Christopher Columbus do you think these men were ignorant of what the New Testament said?
I dont…I think if they were here to defend thereselves they would try to fall back on the Old Testament but that wont work. The New Testament plainly says the old law was nailed to the cross. And they couldnt even use the old law to defend their actions.

Sadly I have to agree that is what the religous paradigm is today but the paradigm does not fit the scripture. In no way does my bible tell me to shut up and accept BS.

Now you have suprised me and it is the reason I thought you might have some bible knowledge. You know the history of the Restoration. They did try and some of these men I do consider true Christians and I do know I was hard on the Catholics but the same could be said about many protestants they more of the KKK and skinhead types tho.

I think we could do with some nailing of scripture…common sense wouldnt hurt either.

116

Jon55 You seem like a nice persons, but you are operating under so many delusions it’s hard to know where to start. Hawkings is not “the voice of science”, he’s a smart guy with an interesting back story that the popular media has latched on to. He is not the frigging science Pope, he is one of many people working on physics and cosmology. They agree on some stuff and disagree on other stuff, but the fact that there are differences in their view does not mean that ID somehow becomes an alternative to the big bang. First of all, Intelligent Design is not a single theory, it’s just a bunch of people saying “God did it”. Some of them are young earth creationists, some of them admit that the earth may be a little bit older than 6,000 years but God specifically created man out of whole cloth, others believe in evolution but think God kick started it at some point, and still others just think God created the universe and physical laws that allowed life to develop. It’s not science; it makes no predictions other than that there are some things too complex to have risen by chance. The problem is every time they come up with an example they are proven wrong so have to move further back in time: “Well maybe wings, and eyes, and DNA, could have come about from natural forces, but how do you explain how the laws of the universe are specially created so that our puddle fits exactly into this hole?”.

And there is no spokesperson for atheism either. I don’t know who the hell that guy is, and expect that most non-believers don’t know or care either.

And be honest (it’s the Christian thing to do), you don’t believe for a second that it’s turtles. You are just trying to reconcile your belief in God with what you read in science books written for the general public. Just give it up. If you want to believe that God kick started the universe go ahead. But it’s a disservice both to him and you to ignore all the evidence that he placed in front of you. He took a great deal of trouble to create the red shift, and have everything move away from everything else, and put in background radiation. Just follow where the evidence leads and adjust your religious views to that rather than try and make the facts jibe with your preconceived ideas about God.

117

Due to the hour I am not going to be able to do this justice. I did scan the article and a few things jumped out at me. I will give it a better read soon even tho I am not a big fan of wiki. This sentence from the link illustrates why “The term “inflation” is also used to refer to the hypothesis that inflation occurred, to the theory of inflation, or to the inflationary epoch.” Is that contradictory or is the hypothesis that inflation occured and theory of inflation two different things. I hope you read my reply to Marley. I think that science could use a few more terms because many things seem to fall between theory and hypothesis.

I do understand that the space is expanding and GR is not violated during expansion. I did not know that some scientists considered that it could still be ongoing. In this line of thought we would consider it inflation in the past and expansion in the present although the mechanics are the same. You still have no hypothesis for the underlying cause?

We cannot observe the FTL behavior because everything is moving away from us?

That kind of makes sense but the photons once emitted in our direction would sooner or later reach us? And would have a redshift that we could measure as faster than light?

Also if this has been going on since the start would that not mean that no light could reach us?

This helps alot as it points me in new directions.
I dont have the time to become a self made physicist perhaps when I retire.

So data that agrees with the theory is sound and data that dosent is an anomalie?
Like this under the heading Observational status

“Occasionally, effects are observed that appear to contradict the simplest models of inflation. The first-year WMAP data suggested that the spectrum might not be nearly scale-invariant, but might instead have a slight curvature.[59] However, the third-year data revealed that the effect was a statistical anomaly”

BTW you came real close to saying that BBT does not work without inflation.

I agree the universe is expanding and that collecting the light that traveled so far is akin to time travel at least for observational purposes.
I also agree that one iinterpretation could be that space has always been expanding in this way but I think it would be false logic to say that it has to be that one. And I do understand that is not the only thing BBT is based on I just think that is the center piece of the argument.

The “all we see is a cloud hot dense plasma” I am not so sure about. The Hubble pictures I have seen are quasars or at least that is what they used to call them.
Red blobs.
Yes they do look like hot balls of gas. Can they infer a temperature from that?
Also you wrote it like it was one cloud of gas I have not seen any pictures like that.

Mr. Hawking was very straightforward in his assertion that he had proof that God did not exist and his proof was that time did not exist in the cosmic egg because it was infintely dense. I will try to find some more quotes because you are not the only who dosent seem to accept this.

And I do know that it is a moot point in regards to my original question because BBT theory does not hang on what Hawking believes the density to be at zero seconds. But it really does not help the trust level when I view his work.

A few more random hits from the wiki article that point to major problems.

Fine-tuning problem
One of the most severe challenges for inflation arises from the need for fine tuning in inflationary theories. In new inflation, the slow-roll conditions must be satisfied for inflation to occur. The slow-roll conditions say that the inflaton potential must be flat (compared to the large vacuum energy) and that the inflaton particles must have a small mass.[64] In order for the new inflation theory of Linde, Albrecht and Steinhardt to be successful, therefore, it seemed that the universe must have a scalar field with an especially flat potential and special initial conditions.
A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data we could get. It is significant that Paul J. Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics. He calls ‘bad inflation’ a period of accelerated expansion whose outcome conflicts with observations, and ‘good inflation’ one compatible with them: “Not only is bad inflation more likely than good inflation, but no inflation is more likely than either.

The two paragraphs above from the wiki link indicate that in some cases the data has been interpreted to fit the theory.

I think that is called following your heart instead of the evidence.

118

Thank you for the compliment…everyone here has been respectfull to me as well. And very direct I appreciate both.
Part of the problem is I am carrying on (at least) two debates at the same time and I am a little slow crafting my responses. It does lead to confusion.
Understand when I talk about Hawking I have alot of respect for him and him and Carl Sagan are mostly to credit for my interest in cosmology.

There are alot of people whose only contact with science, other than using the byproducts everyday, are the shows on discovery, national geo, and science channel. Some of them are good particularly the one with Morgan Freeman, some are downright deciving and some just plain old silly.

Thats ok…not good but ok but when a man with the stature of Hawking makes an assertion that contradicts his own work you have to wonder what is going on. And I think it deserves a response. Of course there is no official voice of science but Hawking put himself in that position and I feel sure many viewers just gobbled it up.

As I said before I do have doubts of my own faith and you have touched on some of the sources and the only reason I got into the secondary debate with Marley and Bryan is I felt compelled to tell why I still trust in Jesus.
That is living the life of a Christian has done wonders for me.
This has lead to me answering questions about that life and why it is so good and fullfilling and I have only scratched the surface of it.
I sure am not complaining although it was not my intention to get into this discussion on this thread I had hoped to save it for another day.
Its all good.

The ID discussion came about while talking about textbooks and my desire that the door should be left open for our orgins until science has something concrete to say.
I think I have made it plain that I believe in the God of the Holy Bible but I would not want it to be put in our textbooks for reasons that Bryan has done a nice job of illustrating.
I do not see the problem with ID it leaves the door open for all religions and discriminates against none. It is inclusive not exclusive.
Does it discriminate against atheists?
That only just occured to me I will give it some thought I am interested in how any of you would answer that tho.
Here is a compromise for you. Do orgins have to be discussed in grade and high school?
Can we not teach physics without getting into BBT or steady state etc?
I could go for that.

Dan Barker tours the country doing debates with creationists and more specificaly those who defend the bible. He is no more of a scientist than I am but for alot of people he is the only atheist they will ever hear saying exactly what he believes and why he believes it.

I was not trying to imply that I believed in a creator turtle. That is a take off of Stephen Kings Dark Tower series actually the creator turtle make a cameo in a couple of his other books as well. I was just making the point that with ID you can fill in the blank in whatever way seemed correct to you.
Flying spagetti monster anyone?
I am trying to reconcile what Christianity has done for me with what facts are out there. Maybe I am following my heart in some fashion but also I am leaving the door open for alternate possibiltys.
I hope you will do the same.

119

I believe you have misconstrued it. I just watched clips of the after show and what they say is consistent with what he wrote in his latest book, that cosmology shows that the universe could have come into existence without God. Furthermore, the panelists go on to state (better than I could) that if your view of God is something that does not interact with the universe bujt rather just created the laws of physics then it is outside the realms of science; but if you say that God does interact with the universe then it is a legitimate question for science to investigate.

120

ID is not science, there is not even a consistent view of what it is. You could cover the entire subject just by saying “Some people think God did it.”

The BBT has nothing to do with “origins”, it is about mechanisms. If you want to believe that God created that mechanism then more power to you. Schools should take no view either way on that question.