NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been wondering for quite some time, and everytime I ask or look for information on it, I can't find any of the "substantial evidence" that science clergy give me. So where is this "undeniable proof" of the Big Bang? I haven't even found "slightly good evidence" that it happened.

I'm no physicist, but there is the "red shift", the lengthening of the wavelengths of light emited by stars caused by the doppler effect as the universe expands. The expansion is evidence of the Big Bang. Plus there is microwave background radiation that is the residue of the energy released in the "Big Bang" or something.

I've been wondering for quite some time, and everytime I ask or look for information on it, I can't find any of the "substantial evidence" that science clergy give me. So where is this "undeniable proof" of the Big Bang? I haven't even found "slightly good evidence" that it happened.

I am no scientist, but the most obvious evidence would be the constant expansion of the universe that is slowing at an exponencial rate. Thereby leading to the conclusion tha there must have been a sudden bang at the begginnig of the universe that started the expansion.

I'm no physicist, but there is the "red shift", the lengthening of the wavelengths of light emited by stars caused by the doppler effect as the universe expands. The expansion is evidence of the Big Bang. Plus there is microwave background radiation that is the residue of the energy released in the "Big Bang" or something.

Okay, but what caused it then?

www.google.com covers it very well

Okay, but what caused it then?
I dunno, maybe two "Branes" colliding.

What evidence is there for the Big Bang?
You mean you didn't hear it?

I've been wondering for quite some time, and everytime I ask or look for information on it, I can't find any of the "substantial evidence" that science clergy give me. So where is this "undeniable proof" of the Big Bang? I haven't even found "slightly good evidence" that it happened.

Hawkings early work dealt with a lot of this. Though, he proposed that a possible 2D representation of 4D space-time, actually was a hyperbola instead of many predated ideas of a v-shape space-time. The whole idea of unifying the major universal forces is to understand what happened in the beginning. Relativity calculations show the shape of space-time. The fact that it converges near 0 near t=0 shows a big bang. I use the term 'near' because no one is sure what happened before t=Planck Time (which is something like t=10^-34 or something, I believe the same order of magnitude as Planck's constant)

I dunno, maybe two "Branes" colliding.

You're referring to the branes with the dimensions in them right? That this particular universe is caused by their collision....what made them? Also what evidence is there of this other then the strength of gravity?

Okay, but what caused it then?

(sigh) is this going to be another forum having to do with divine intervention in the creation of the universe?

Okay we get it, you believe in god, good for you, but there is nothing that says that god and the big bang couldn't have co-existed.

As to a scientific answer, there are theories that state we may be the budded off matter from the black hole of another universe. That universe may have budded off a universe and we may be budding off other universes. Where it all started nobody knows.

What evidence is there against the Big Bang?

I've been wondering for quite some time, and everytime I ask or look for information on it, I can't find any of the "substantial evidence" that science clergy give me. So where is this "undeniable proof" of the Big Bang? I haven't even found "slightly good evidence" that it happened.
The Big Bang theory predicted the existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation or CMB which is composed of photons emitted during baryogenesis. Because the early universe was in thermal equilibrium, the temperature of the radiation and the plasma were equal until the plasma recombined. Before atoms formed, radiation was constantly absorbed and reemitted in a process called Compton scattering: the early universe was opaque to light. However, cooling due to the expansion of the universe allowed the temperature to eventually fall below 3000 K at which point electrons and nuclei combined to form atoms and the primordial plasma turned into a neutral gas. This is known as photon decoupling. A universe with only neutral atoms allows radiation to travel largely unimpeded.

Because the early universe was in thermal equilibrium, the radiation from this time had a blackbody spectrum and freely streamed through space until today, becoming redshifted because of the Hubble expansion. This reduces the high temperature of the blackbody spectrum. The radiation should be observable at every point in the universe to come from all directions of space.

In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, while conducting a series of diagnostic observations using a new microwave receiver owned by Bell Laboratories, discovered the cosmic background radiation. Their discovery provided substantial confirmation of the general CMB predictions—the radiation was found to be isotropic and consistent with a blackbody spectrum of about 3 K —and it pitched the balance of opinion in favor of the Big Bang hypothesis. Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for their discovery.

In 1989, NASA launched the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite (COBE), and the initial findings, released in 1990, were consistent with the Big Bang's predictions regarding the CMB. COBE found a residual temperature of 2.726 K and determined that the CMB was isotropic to about one part in 105. During the 1990s, CMB anisotropies were further investigated by a large number of ground-based experiments and the universe was shown to be geometrically flat by measuring the typical angular size (the size on the sky) of the anisotropies. (See shape of the universe.)

In early 2003 the results of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy satellite (WMAP) were released, yielding what were at the time the most accurate values for some of the cosmological parameters. (see cosmic microwave background radiation experiments). This satellite also disproved several specific cosmic inflation models, but the results were consistent with the inflation theory in general.
[edit]

Abundance of primordial elements

For more details on this topic, see Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

Using the Big Bang model it is possible to calculate the concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and lithium-7 in the universe as ratios to the amount of ordinary hydrogen, H. All the abundances depend on a single parameter, the ratio of photons to baryons. The ratios predicted are about 0.25 for 4He/H, about 10-3 for 2H/H, about 10-4 for 3He/H and about 10-9 for 7Li/H.

The measured abundances all agree with those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-photon ratio. This is considered strong evidence for the Big Bang, as the theory is the only known explanation for the relative abundances of light elements. Indeed there is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the young universe (i.e. before star formation, as determined by studying matter essentially free of stellar nucleosynthesis products) should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than 3He, and in constant ratios, too.
[edit]

Galactic evolution and distribution

For more details on this topic, see Large-scale structure of the cosmos.

Detail observations of the morphology and distribution of galaxies and quasars provide strong evidence for the Big Bang. A combination of observations and theory suggest that the first quasars and galaxies formed about a billion years after the big bang, and since then larger structures have been forming, such as galaxy clusters and superclusters. Populations of stars have been aging and evolving, so that distant galaxies (which are observed as they were in the early universe) appear very different from nearby galaxies (observed in a more recent state). Moreover, galaxies that formed relatively recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed at similar distances but shortly after the Big Bang. These observations are strong arguments against the steady-state model. Observations of star formation, galaxy and quasar distributions, and larger structures agree well with Big Bang simulations of the formation of structure in the universe and are helping to complete details of the theory.

Enjoy!

I've been wondering for quite some time, and everytime I ask or look for information on it, I can't find any of the "substantial evidence" that science clergy give me. So where is this "undeniable proof" of the Big Bang? I haven't even found "slightly good evidence" that it happened.

Um...the universe?

I've been wondering for quite some time, and everytime I ask or look for information on it, I can't find any of the "substantial evidence" that science clergy give me. So where is this "undeniable proof" of the Big Bang? I haven't even found "slightly good evidence" that it happened.
Did you even try?

You're referring to the branes with the dimensions in them right? That this particular universe is caused by their collision....what made them? Also what evidence is there of this other then the strength of gravity?
I opened my first post with the disclaimer "I'm not a physicist". Since I'm not a physicist I can't help you with that information. I think even many physicists may not have any idea, and none know for sure.

So what? Are we not allowed to say "I don't know" when questions are posed that we don't have conclusive answers to? Or do we then need to make up an answer like "god did it" even if we have no evidence that a god exists or that it had any hand in creating our universe?

(sigh) is this going to be another forum having to do with divine intervention in the creation of the universe?

Okay we get it, you believe in god, good for you, but there is nothing that says that god and the big bang couldn't have co-existed.

As to a scientific answer, there are theories that state we may be the budded off matter from the black hole of another universe. That universe may have budded off a universe and we may be budding off other universes. Where it all started nobody knows.

It's not meant to be. I won't get like that. I'm religious, that's true, but not closed minded. If I ask a question honestly, I really am curious. I like to learn about anything I can, this is something I want to learn in earnest.

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


That's the best evidence.

I opened my first post with the disclaimer "I'm not a physicist". Since I'm not a physicist I can't help you with that information. I think even many physicists may not have any idea, and none know for sure.

So what? Are we not allowed to say "I don't know" when questions are posed that we don't have conclusive answers to? Or do we then need to make up an answer like "god did it" even if we have no evidence that a god exists or that it had any hand in creating our universe?

I didn't say that, though you do that to anyone with religious beliefs. *shrugs* figured that meant that you had some sort of a backing that gave you the power to do that. Not attacking just putting my honest thoughts before anyone jumps on me.

It's not meant to be. I won't get like that. I'm religious, that's true, but not closed minded. If I ask a question honestly, I really am curious. I like to learn about anything I can, this is something I want to learn in earnest.

Thank you for not trying to cram religion down our throats. I apologize if I have offended you. I am just sick of zealots who have no grasp on reality and try to force their beliefs on us.

Thank you for not trying to cram religion down our throats. I apologize if I have offended you. I am just sick of zealots who have no grasp on reality and try to force their beliefs on us.

I don't see it as my holy duty to convince everyone else that they're wrong. Too pagan for that ^_^

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


That's the best evidence.


Thank you that does help alot. but what do you speculate caused the singularity? If the Big Bang caused the creation of energy and matter in the universe, then what caused the singularity?

Hopefully you can understand the scientific proof, because it's pretty ironclad. It's a lot of big words, but most of them are actually pretty simple once you understand the mechanics of the whole thing. The real problem you're asking us, is the why. That is theoretically impossible for us to know now. It'd be like trying to calculate whether or not a baseball hit into the air will be a single or a double...before the pitcher has even thrown. You cannot calculate for items that ceased to exist (as far as we know) prior to the creation or during the creation of the items you are subsequently calculating from. The cause is something we can only theorize on for now. Is it because matter eventually falls back into greater and greater densities until its all packed together, causing some kind of universal bubble burst so to speak? Who knows. Trying to understand how the universe started isn't like trying to understand how anything else started. You're trying to figure out the beginning of existence. Everything you are deriving your information from is inherently useless as it can only calculate what up to its own existence, not before that. Do we know if this is the first time the universe has expanded? No. Do we even know that the universe is "expanding" perse, and that it's not just a dimensional correction for our inability to really "see" reality? The fact of the matter is, we don't know what existence really is. Time? Heat? Space? We don't really understand any of these things. Is a second just a second, or is it merely perceived that way because that's what our brain says is happening? What is heat (or gravity for that matter)?

DISCLAIMER This is my personal view here, so you can feel free to disregard this entire paragraph.
I guess what I'm saying is, you're asking questions that cannot be answered. That's why people have religion, to give them an answer to things they cannot explain. What happens when you die? How did I get here? Etc. It's the basic damnation of sentience. We have answered some of these questions over time (although some religious people would like to believe we haven't), yet others remain unsolved. I see no reason to fall back into mysticism the first time I am confronted with something I cannot explain. If I am doing laboratory work with heat, I will accept that I don't know what heat is. Maybe we will find out eventually, but the fact I don't know now is no reason for me to fall back and claim heat is some kind of supernatural element. Trust the proof, not the blind faith.

I've been wondering for quite some time, and everytime I ask or look for information on it, I can't find any of the "substantial evidence" that science clergy give me. So where is this "undeniable proof" of the Big Bang? I haven't even found "slightly good evidence" that it happened.
Sigh... there is no solid proof for the big bang... I guess it just sounds like a good thing to believe in.





PS... Olympia Smells Bad.

Thank you that does help alot. but what do you speculate caused the singularity? If the Big Bang caused the creation of energy and matter in the universe, then what caused the singularity?
It turns out that casuality does not apply to singularities. So nothing caused it. It simply just happened.

I've been wondering for quite some time, and everytime I ask or look for information on it, I can't find any of the "substantial evidence" that science clergy give me. So where is this "undeniable proof" of the Big Bang? I haven't even found "slightly good evidence" that it happened.
Microwave Background Radiation. (http://aether.lbl.gov/www/science/cmb.html)

PS... Olympia Smells Bad.

Smells better then Seattle...ish...


And at least we have visible traffic lights!

Microwave Background Radiation. (http://aether.lbl.gov/www/science/cmb.html)
Best proof we have yet, I think. Physicists scare me.

God did it!

God did it!

Smites you

Quiet down and let the rational thinkers improve humanity.

Sigh... there is no solid proof for the big bang... I guess it just sounds like a good thing to believe in.

PS... Olympia Smells Bad.

Correction, there is lots and lots and lots of proof of the big bang. You just have to...you know...actually look at it.

You know, I think most disbelief in very very robust scientific theories is because some people are just unwilling to believe that there are smarter people out there.

Okay we get it, you believe in god, good for you, but there is nothing that says that god and the big bang couldn't have co-existed.

Religion and the Big Bang theory can co-exist. Pope Pius XII supported the Big Bang theory in 1951.

Source:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

The Big Bang theory supports the Christian view that the universe was created from nothing. Pope Pius used this as a par tof his assertion that God existed.

Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, [science] has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the Creator. Hence, creation took place. We say: therefore, there is a Creator. Therefore, God exists!

If you read the source, you'll see that the topic was never really touched on after that.

I'm a Christian, but I believe that God used means that are provable by scientific means. Hence, I support the Big Bang theory.

Correction, there is lots and lots and lots of proof of the big bang. You just have to...you know...actually look at it.

You know, I think most disbelief in very very robust scientific theories is because some people are just unwilling to believe that there are smarter people out there.
It is kind of like asking why is the sky blue and hearing somebody say:

"The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air.
However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue."

And then hear somebody else say: Because God painted it that way.
One is more comforting and understandable than the other.

-Snip-

Yes, I also believe that science and religion support each other. Second time I have had a reason to say it.

Science asks: What and how. (Location, when, etc)
Religion asks: Who (God)

It's best when science and religion match up and things make perfect sense. Really though, how you can say that nothing magical happened when something was created from nothing?

Yes, I also believe that science and religion support each other. Second time I have had a reason to say it.

Science asks: What and how. (Location, when, etc)
Religion asks: Who (God)

It's best when science and religion match up and things make perfect sense. Really though, how you can say that nothing magical happened when something was created from nothing?

Bingo. The problem occurs when someone insists that there's a magical cause for something that is provable (as provable as something can be,) by science.

Look up Dr. George Smoot's COBE experiments. Best conclusive evidence for the Big Bang I've ever seen.

Bingo. The problem occurs when someone insists that there's a magical cause for something that is provable (as provable as something can be,) by science.

Yet science doesn't disprove the existance of magic in any way, it just says how things can be done without it.

Yet science doesn't disprove the existance of magic in any way, it just says how things can be done without it.

"magic" is simply science that we do not understand yet. A gun is magic to a Cro-magnon.

Is a gun magical?

Science that is advanced enough appears to be magical. Anyone read "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"?

Science that is advanced enough appears to be magical. Anyone read "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"?
Excellent example.

Hubbles Law itself is the best evidence. Simply follow the galaxies back through time to the point at which they all converge.

I've been wondering for quite some time, and everytime I ask or look for information on it, I can't find any of the "substantial evidence" that science clergy give me. So where is this "undeniable proof" of the Big Bang? I haven't even found "slightly good evidence" that it happened.
Have you even tried looking for yourself? once ?

"magic" is simply science that we do not understand yet. A gun is magic to a Cro-magnon.

Is a gun magical?

No, but there are things that are magical. I have seen and felt them. Maybe one day we'll scienceify them (I know that's not a word, but IT IS NOW!) but until then it is still magic. Though Magic can be explained with Quantum Physics, control of it is harder to explain.

Have you even tried looking for yourself? once ?

Yes, yes I have indeed. Or else I wouldn't say, I can't FIND evidence. Not looking would justify not finding it, therefore I wouldn't have to ask. So far I see things that don't really convince me of it. I see why you could think that, but not overwhelming truth. Though it is a theory after all...

No, but there are things that are magical. I have seen and felt them. Maybe one day we'll scienceify them (I know that's not a word, but IT IS NOW!) but until then it is still magic. Though Magic can be explained with Quantum Physics, control of it is harder to explain.
Are you after me Lucky Charms?

Yes, yes I have indeed. Or else I wouldn't say, I can't FIND evidence. Not looking would justify not finding it, therefore I wouldn't have to ask. So far I see things that don't really convince me of it. I see why you could think that, but not overwhelming truth. Though it is a theory after all...
Do you understand the scientific concept of theory?

Yes, yes I have indeed. Or else I wouldn't say, I can't FIND evidence. Not looking would justify not finding it, therefore I wouldn't have to ask. So far I see things that don't really convince me of it. I see why you could think that, but not overwhelming truth. Though it is a theory after all...
Well here is a beginning over view

IT covers the basics from backround radiation to expansion

You want more indepth info start subscribing to magazines or review the theory itself

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

Do you understand the scientific concept of theory?

yes, do you see something wrong with the way I'm using it?

yes, do you see something wrong with the way I'm using it?
Your comment seemed to imply that a theory was something other than the most solid level of scientific explanation there is.

Are you after me Lucky Charms?

darn tootin.

darn tootin.
HELP!! KIDS!!

Egh... It all comes down to one point, the VERY beginning... I don't agree or disagree with the big bang theory. It is highly pluasable, considering the massive black holes at the centers of the galaxies... It could be that, just as the earth has a cycle of melting its crust and spitting back out to the surface again... The universe has a cycle of mashing everything up into a tiny ball and then having it implode? OR maybe God just made it all... Now that isn't to say that the same laws are not in place, or that from this point on there isn't going to be a "Big Bang" following along the same cycle as is theorized above. Who knows? Why should we care? At this exact point in time, in the grand scape of things... It doesn't really matter all that much, does it?

This is my point, you can't prove anything, ever. Wether you get into the fine details of something or the amazingly huge picture that its a part of... Something, somewhere won't fit. Its just part of life. *sigh*

Alright... One thing to support the big bang and another to throw a wrench in the works, just so you can't say that I went off topic ;) The idea is supported by the black holes mentioned earlier (I'm too lazy to look up any links, go research it yourself if you don't know about it already.) BUT is kind of sort of disproven by the same thing... See, you can't just have a random explosion from a tiny ball of matter, I don't care how much of it there is! If there was enough mass/gravity to get it all in there in the first place... It'd stay there, because there wouldn't be any other "thing" to screw with it physically. (Unless you put God into the picture... "Oh, wow, that time already? Hold on Jesus, I gotta go 'splode the universe again... No, no... You won't have to die again... YES! I swear to myself that I won't f*$& it up again.")

Oh, and that whole thing about there not being any matter in the first place... Having something out of nothing... Although if I said that there had to be a God to create the something... Then you go into the debate about "Well, smart ass, where did God come from, huh? He's something from nothing?!" So, I won't go there...

See, you can't just have a random explosion from a tiny ball of matter, I don't care how much of it there is! If there was enough mass/gravity to get it all in there in the first place... It'd stay there, because there wouldn't be any other "thing" to screw with it physically.

I believe Alan Guth would disagree with you:

http://www.edge.org/documents/day2/day2_guth_index.html

And Victor Stenger, in his book "The Unconscious Quantum" makes a mathematical argument based on General Relativity that an empty universe would expand exponentially (see inset on pages 221-222).

Basically, from GR you have -a/r = 4*pi*G*(p+3P)/3 - L/3 where r is the scale factor that multiplies distances as the universe expands, a is the second time derivative of r (the acceleration), p is the energy density of matter (rest energy), P is the radiation pressure, and L is the cosmological constant (apologies to any who notice a change in the standard symbols, p is usually a small rho and L is a capital lambda).

Now, in an empty universe, p and P are 0. If L was also zero we would have nothing, not even a universe. But, if L is non-zero, then a/r=L/3. Solving the second order differential equation (recall "a" is the second time derivative of r) then we end up with r(t)=r0*exp(sqrt(L/3)*t).

Oh, and that whole thing about there not being any matter in the first place... Having something out of nothing... Although if I said that there had to be a God to create the something... Then you go into the debate about "Well, smart ass, where did God come from, huh? He's something from nothing?!" So, I won't go there...

Actually, "something out of nothing" is a simplification. The real first law of thermodynamics is equivalent the conservation of energy, i.e. the total amount of mass/energy remains constant with time (a result of time symmetry). Now, E = T + V where T=K+Mc^2; where E is the total energy of the universe, K is the (positive)kinetic energy, Mc^2 is the (positive) total rest energy, and V is the (negative) gravitational potential energy. To quote Stenger "Thus, since the Planck time, an enormous transfer of energy into the rest energy of matter and kinetic energy of matter must have taken place. We can view that energy as being removed from the gravitational field of the universe, making its potential energy negative while keeping the total essentially zero." (Stenger, The Unconscious Quantum p.220)

Well then! I might just stand corrected on the first portion. Although it is all still theory ;) BUT for the second... Bah... Way too much speculation in there for me. Its like asking a fourth grade kid to do algebra... He might find a formula that works, but it doesn't mean he'll get the right answer. ^_^ Good stuff though.

It just doesn't make sense to me. How can all of the matter in the universe be squeezed into an area the size of a period? There has to have been some kind of divine creator behind it. Without God, how can you describe the beauty of the night sky, when you can see the Milky Way and billions of itty bitty tiny little stars? I can't think of anything.

And yes, there is a sort of magic in finer firearms. Nothing beats a well-aged vintage 1911.

It just doesn't make sense to me. How can all of the matter in the universe be squeezed into an area the size of a period? There has to have been some kind of divine creator behind it. Without God, how can you describe the beauty of the night sky, when you can see the Milky Way and billions of itty bitty tiny little stars? I can't think of anything.


Yeup.
Natural aesthetics and beauty can only come through a designer of both, because for nature to look nice, it has to be nice AND the human mind has to appreciate it.

Aesthetics is not essential to survival, and thus evolution doesn't explain how we come to appreciate our natural surroundings. Can it, evolutionists?

Yeup.
Natural aesthetics and beauty can only come through a designer of both, because for nature to look nice, it has to be nice AND the human mind has to appreciate it.

Aesthetics is not essential to survival, and thus evolution doesn't explain how we come to appreciate our natural surroundings. Can it, evolutionists?

Actually it can. As a criterion on which mates are selected.
Think of it as the plumage of a male peacock. The plumage is completely irrelevant for it's own survival. It can even be seen as detrimental since it makes it more visible for predators. But it is absolutely essential to have a chance to get offspring.

Yeup.
Natural aesthetics and beauty can only come through a designer of both, because for nature to look nice, it has to be nice AND the human mind has to appreciate it.

Aesthetics is not essential to survival, and thus evolution doesn't explain how we come to appreciate our natural surroundings. Can it, evolutionists?

Well yes actualy Evolution can, it is probably a by product of our complicated brain structure. As there is no selective pressure to remove aesthetic appriciation why would it become selected against?

Hell maybe being able to appriciate something as beutiful helps you to get a mate. Just to say it must be god is plain lazyness...........

It just doesn't make sense to me. How can all of the matter in the universe be squeezed into an area the size of a period?
<snip>
/

The thing is that according to the theory there was no matter for at least 300 000 years.

Well yes actualy Evolution can, it is probably a by product of our complicated brain structure. As there is no selective pressure to remove aesthetic appriciation why would it become selected against?
Then there would be no selection. We would find nothing nice because it is not essential survival. We could live solely on wheat bread but we choose to top it with butter and jam for a taste. But we don't put asparagus on because asparagus tastes disgusting.

Then there would be no selection. We would find nothing nice because it is not essential survival. We could live solely on wheat bread but we choose to top it with butter and jam for a taste. But we don't put asparagus on because asparagus tastes disgusting.

We put butter and jam on because it's fat and sweet (respectively) and thus contain a lot of energy. It's instinctive for humans to prefer high-energy foods because in the past it was vital for survival. That's why humans usually like sweets and fatty foods.

Funny that this has started turning into a debate about evolution... seriously, evolution and the big bang are different theories.

One thing I'll say though is that neither evolution nor the big bang contradict theism. They contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible, but that's not exactly hard to do.

We put butter and jam on because it's fat and sweet (respectively) and thus contain a lot of energy. It's instinctive for humans to prefer high-energy foods because in the past it was vital for survival. That's why humans usually like sweets and fatty foods.

No. Jam and butter are processed foods with a good taste. If we wanted something that contained a lot more energy and JUST for survival we'd eat a few more slices of plain bread or more rice. Say, why do we cook? Why don't we just eat things raw or live like all the other animals? Surely we didn't know about proteins and germs and such. We first cooked for the taste.

No. Jam and butter are processed foods with a good taste. If we wanted something that contained a lot more energy and JUST for survival we'd eat a few more slices of plain bread or more rice. Say, why do we cook? Why don't we just eat things raw or live like all the other animals? Surely we didn't know about proteins and germs and such. We first cooked for the taste.
I'm no biologist, but as I recall, cooked foods are safer and easier to process than raw - especially meat and root vegetables. So we die less often from parasites and food-related illnesses, and have much shortened digestive tracts (so less bulk).

Both are self-evidently rather handy for survival.

No. Jam and butter are processed foods with a good taste. If we wanted something that contained a lot more energy and JUST for survival we'd eat a few more slices of plain bread or more rice. Say, why do we cook? Why don't we just eat things raw or live like all the other animals? Surely we didn't know about proteins and germs and such. We first cooked for the taste.

How does our sense of taste disprove evolution? Cromotar gave reasons why those foods are good for us (or at least would have been hundreds of thousands of years ago), and taste motivates us to eat things that are good for us and avoid bad things.

Well yes actualy Evolution can, it is probably a by product of our complicated brain structure. As there is no selective pressure to remove aesthetic appriciation why would it become selected against?

Hell maybe being able to appriciate something as beutiful helps you to get a mate. Just to say it must be god is plain lazyness...........
Not to mention that aesthetic appreciation helps people appreciate good and useful things and generally make sense of the world around them. Both of which have utilitarian benefits.

In fact one of things that annoys me about creationism is that there is just so much beauty and order, and just sheer glory out there. To say, "Oh yeah, that's only there because (my conception of) god made it", simply cheapens the whole thing.

I'm no biologist, but as I recall, cooked foods are safer and easier to process than raw - especially meat and root vegetables. So we die less often from parasites and food-related illnesses, and have much shortened digestive tracts (so less bulk).

Both are self-evidently rather handy for survival.

Export this back to your "caveman" scenario. Is it simply coincidential that cooked foods are both tastier and safer to eat?

How does our sense of taste disprove evolution? Cromotar gave reasons why those foods are good for us (or at least would have been hundreds of thousands of years ago), and taste motivates us to eat things that are good for us and avoid bad things.

So is it just coincidential that healthy foods mostly taste good and unhealthy foods taste bad?

Not to mention that aesthetic appreciation helps people appreciate good and useful things and generally make sense of the world around them. Both of which have utilitarian benefits.
That's nothing to do with survival, which is what evolution is about.

In fact one of things that annoys me about creationism is that there is just so much beauty and order, and just sheer glory out there. To say, "Oh yeah, that's only there because (my conception of) god made it", simply cheapens the whole thing.

It doesn't cheapen the whole thing. Evolution does. "It's there because it was banged there, for reasons unfathomable". But God made the world so beautiful because He wanted us to enjoy it. Green is the most relaxing colour for our eyes, and Nature is very green. That can't be coincidential, or if it is, the chances are so slight.

That's nothing to do with survival, which is what evolution is about.



It doesn't cheapen the whole thing. Evolution does. "It's there because it was banged there, for reasons unfathomable". But God made the world so beautiful because He wanted us to enjoy it. Green is the most relaxing colour for our eyes, and Nature is very green. That can't be coincidential, or if it is, the chances are so slight.
Green is also the predominent wavelength in sunlight, hence the best carrier of information for us in the visual spectrum. Hence our aesthetic appreciation of it provides us with more information about our surroundings, hence is good for survival.

You're also missing my point about aesthetics. To say the beauty is there because of our petty cultural preconceptions is to miss the essence of the beauty. It makes it about yourself, not about the thing in itself.

Export this back to your "caveman" scenario. Is it simply coincidential that cooked foods are both tastier and safer to eat?

I direct you to http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/cooking/:

Cooked food is easier to digest, safer to store, and was the most effective way of introducing complex proteins into early human's diet. This was a crucial constituent for fuelling Homo sapiens' growing mental power, with modern humans finally emerging 100,000 years ago.

So is it just coincidential that healthy foods mostly taste good and unhealthy foods taste bad?

The problem is that the definitions of "healthy" and "unhealthy" food has changed with our society. Unfortunately, society changes much faster than human nature, which means that our bodies are still programmed with prehistoric standards. A long time ago, foods with high energy values, i.e. high in sugar and fat, were preferential because the supply of food was limited; you never knew when your next meal would come along. That nature still remains today.

However, in our society where food is abundent, a constant supply of foods containing high amounts of energy has thrown off the natural process. We still enjoy sugary treats and fatty burgers with fries because we're programmed to do so, but it's not good for us because there's so much of it.

You can't mix up cause and effect; food is not delicious for our enjoyment's sake. We perceive food as tasty because we need it to survive.

Export this back to your "caveman" scenario. Is it simply coincidential that cooked foods are both tastier and safer to eat?
I don't understand where your counter-argument is coming from. Things taste good to us, because, in general they were good for us to some degree in that primitive scenario. Our taste buds and associated mental processes evolved to recognise and appreciate food that was better for us than otherwise. You can see similar behaviour in animals - our cat, for example, turns her nose up at food that's stale or going off.

Edit: Cromotar makes the same point better, and more fully.

I heard Harvard is working on this right now. their trying to explain creation without divine intervention.

To get back on topic, however, the biggest problem many people seem to have with the Big Bang is the problem of "where did the matter that exploded come from?"

The problem is that this is a question that can not be answered. The Big Bang was, as has been mentioned, a singularity. The definition of a singularity is a situation where the laws of physics do not exist. As such, there was no "time" as we know it. For these reasons, it is not meaningful to hypothesize what it was "before".

Duh! Places of natural beauty usually contain a lot of vegetaion/water. Therefore it is a help to survival to be drawn to such places. Likewise, much of our appreciation of human beauty has to do with symmetry, skin elasticity, nicely shaped bodies, glossy hair, etc...all indicators of health and as such a preferrable mate.

As far as a thing of beauty requiring an intelligent designer, consider a normal everyday stone that is tossed in the ocean and is scrubbed smooth and brilliant by sand and water. We know exactly how that happens, and it is perfectly by "chance," i.e. purely mundane means. Unless, of course, you want to contend that only God smoothes stones...

The thing is, there is no need to fear the Big Bang or Evolution. Knowing how something happens in reality doesn't cheapen it. It opens your mind to just how complex/interconnected and beautiful the universe is. Dimensions, sub-atomic particles, forces, quarks, black holes, gamma bursters, string theory, quazars, DNA, mutation, fusion, fission, wormholes...all these things that can be absolutely observed or extrapolated from actual evidence seem much more fascinating to me than a cranky guy in the sky who commands you not to eat shellfish or touch yourself.

And still, nothing in science disproves the soul or the existence of a higher power or powers. If you think that they do, then your faith is rather weak, since they have nothing to do with God. It's like thinking that finding out that the Sun doesn't circle the Earth somehow disproves the existance of God. It's silly, insecure thinking.

Deal with it. A lot of people much smarter than you or I have determined that the Big Bang and Evolution are as close to the truth as we can know at the moment...but not one of them thinks that either proves or disproves the existance of God.

So why should your faith be threatened by something that in no way has to do with your faith? Suck it up, accept the truth, and go on believing in God.

It's really that simple.

One final metaphore. Does finding out that Michaelangelo used a chisel make David any less beautiful? Does knowledge that he used a brush make the Sistine Chapel any less amazing?

Feel free to think of the Big Bang as the chisel and Evolution as the brush.

Personally though, I find it hard to believe in some anthropomorphic supreme being. If anything, I think of the Universe itself as God. What created the Universe? The Universe. By it's own laws (which we have the ability to learn,) it exists. All existance is a Church.

I heard Harvard is working on this right now. their trying to explain creation without divine intervention.

I don't see how they could do this. There is no way to scientifiaclly disprove the existence of some kind of deity. No matter what we find out about the origin of the universe there's no way to rule out the idea that it was the work of a god.

Sigh... there is no solid proof for the big bang... I guess it just sounds like a good thing to believe in..

There is far more solid proof for the Big Bang than there is for a god.

The fact that you ignore it is your own fault.

<snip>

Again, someone else makes my points much better, and more fully, than I could.

I guess it's time I did some real work. :(

There is far more solid proof for the Big Bang than there is for a god.

The fact that you ignore it is your own fault.

Have you tried looking for proof for either? To remind you: physics on the astronomical sense is very theoretical and not proven. They are accepted for granted for now so that other things can be built upon them, but they are what are, theoretical.

Have you tried looking for proof for either? To remind you: physics on the astronomical sense is very theoretical and not proven. They are accepted for granted for now so that other things can be built upon them, but they are what are, theoretical.

I have less proof that you exist than I have proof of the Big Bang. After all, to me, you are just a collection of lights on my monitor.

I guess you don't exist.

I didn't say that, though you do that to anyone with religious beliefs. *shrugs* figured that meant that you had some sort of a backing that gave you the power to do that. Not attacking just putting my honest thoughts before anyone jumps on me.
Sorry. I'm just so used to people using arguments like this to claim that it's proof of god and that we atheists need to get with the program or burn in hell that getting defensive is just a reflex now. Anyway, sorry if I offended you.

Have you tried looking for proof for either? To remind you: physics on the astronomical sense is very theoretical and not proven. They are accepted for granted for now so that other things can be built upon them, but they are what are, theoretical.

Proof depends on what you consider proof. To me, if there are mathematics which support it and its results have limits which relate to the physics we know (i.e. reducing special relativity to low speeds and recovering Galilean relativity), then I am satisfied. And there are several people out there who will never believe the proof shown because they cannot 'see' or 'feel' (or hear but I don't want to use that pun) the Big Bang. These are the linear and unfortunately will never think out side the box because they never thought outside the line.

Proof depends on what you consider proof. To me, if there are mathematics which support it and its results have limits which relate to the physics we know (i.e. reducing special relativity to low speeds and recovering Galilean relativity), then I am satisfied. And there are several people out there who will never believe the proof shown because they cannot 'see' or 'feel' (or hear but I don't want to use that pun) the Big Bang. These are the linear and unfortunately will never think out side the box because they never thought outside the line.

They are such squares. Plane silly, if you ask me.

They are such squares. Plane silly, if you ask me.

I wish there was a LMAO smiley. Excellent.

I've been wondering for quite some time, and everytime I ask or look for information on it, I can't find any of the "substantial evidence" that science clergy give me. So where is this "undeniable proof" of the Big Bang? I haven't even found "slightly good evidence" that it happened.

Some of the pieces of evidence given here are quite good and provide strong evidence that the big-bang happened. The exact how and why are less certain and the subject of much research.

What would you consider to be 'slightly good' proof? Some good evidence has been given which you seem to ignore.

Incidently - the Big Bang does not exclude the existance of God, in fact to me it gives weight to the creation storey. "let there be light" seems to be a pretty good description of the opening moments of the universe.

BUT for the second... Bah... Way too much speculation in there for me. Its like asking a fourth grade kid to do algebra... He might find a formula that works, but it doesn't mean he'll get the right answer. ^_^ Good stuff though.

It is really just a straight forward application of the first law of thermodynamics. Happens all the time, (e.g. an electron-positron pair coming into existence and then being annihilated) it is what makes black holes fuzzy.

(sigh) is this going to be another forum having to do with divine intervention in the creation of the universe?

Okay we get it, you believe in god, good for you, but there is nothing that says that god and the big bang couldn't have co-existed.

As to a scientific answer, there are theories that state we may be the budded off matter from the black hole of another universe. That universe may have budded off a universe and we may be budding off other universes. Where it all started nobody knows.
does there even need to be a reasone for the big bang. if a god could have existed forever with no reasone, then why does there need to be a reasone for the branes to have existed forever?
adding god just complicates things. occams razor