Big Bang Theory of the Universe's Begining Thrown Into Question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benn93Z28

But studying the radiation would be just as I said, studying the end result. By your analogy, studying the waves produced by something hitting the water would prove only that--something hit the water. But it wouldn't give you any idea on what exactly hit the water. ;)

--Benjamin

---

Actually, with our eyes you couldn't. But if you had a super computer to evalute and map the ripple you could synthesis the shape and size of what fell in the water, scientists don't look at the radiation with their eyes ;)

Also Rutherford used "alpha bullets" to determine what the atomic stucture of all matter is. He couldn't see the electrons spining around the nucleus, he could only see where the "alpha bullets" were deflected, the end result. Are you saying Rutherfords model of atomic structure is in question?

And what about human sight? You're not directly detecting objects, your detecting the radiation which deflects off the surface of an object.

As you put it: By your analogy, studying the waves produced by something hitting the water would prove only that--something hit the water.

So detecting the electromagnetic waves deflected from a cup only prove that there is light and it bounces off stuff? And not that there is a cup in front of you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benn93Z28

1) Scientists have never been able to reproduce nature's experiments on the creation of life out of noliving materials.

---

That is incorrect.

Scientists have created life out of non-living materials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OmniGear

That is incorrect.

Scientists have created life out of non-living materials.

---

I don't think it is, didn't they only manage to make amino-acids?

Anyway, to steer this back on topic, I found this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eta_Carinae of evcforum.com

The filament of galaxies mentioned here (at Z=2.38) is not a problem for the Big Bang but more of a problem for SPH and N body simulations of galaxy formation in a Lambda CDM cosmology.

Compared to those models structures of galaxies on this scale probably should not have formed at this epoch in the universe. I would caution reading too much into this though. These theoretical models are always undergoing tweaking AND I would point out the scale for the structure isn't that far from theoretical feasibility.

As to the comments about US telescopes - well that puzzles me. The onject in question is at a latitude of -44 degrees which puts it southerly but not impossible so - especially from Hawaii. So the only reason I can think was that they were refused time from the Hawaii scopes because of priority.

Now a redshift of 2.38 puts the object in an area referred to as the redshift desert - spectra are difficult to obtain due to atmospheric absorptions - but the Keck scopes on Hawaii are as capable as any in the world. In summary, I think the CNN staffer who wrote the repoet doesn't know dick.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OmniGear

That is incorrect.

Scientists have created life out of non-living materials.

---

They made amino acids essential to life, but they havent created life.

Still, it is a terrific breakthrough.

In any case, since time and space are connnected the further out in space you are looking the further back in time you are seeing. They can observe earlier states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

They made amino acids essential to life, but they havent created life.

Still, it is a terrific breakthrough.

---

Ahh, true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

Also Rutherford used "alpha bullets" to determine what the atomic stucture of all matter is. He couldn't see the electrons spining around the nucleus, he could only see where the "alpha bullets" were deflected, the end result. Are you saying Rutherfords model of atomic structure is in question?

---

Please. His model has been in question among the scientific community for years now. ;)

Captain Vegetable, I'm both a science student and a Christian, and frankly people with your attitude piss me off.

Not that I can't see where you're coming from, though. Evolution isn't a concept that comes intuitively, and the idea that life as we know it grew out of something else isn't an easy concept to grasp unless you're familiar with the picky details. Most people that believe in evolution, big bang, etc. (including, probably, many people in this thread) only believe it because it's what they've been told to believe. This relies totally on faith and is really no different than believing in divine creation or that the Earth is flat. I did not believe in evolution myself until I was able to study it and really understand how it worked.

But, when somebody has spent their life examining the world in an educated way, it's another matter. Why on Earth do you think scientists do their work? It's to find the truth, plain and simple - not disprove the existence of God or whatever. These guys know what they're talking about, whether you want to believe it or not. Someone like you who has no knowledge of how the world works aside from what your religious teachers have told you has no right to speak.

From a religious standpoint, if you do believe that this planet is a creation of God (which I personally do), the world as it exists today is an expression of his work. God speaks through nature just as much, if not more so, than he does through the Bible. By choosing to ignore the evidence that exists around you, you are shutting yourself off to what God has made and what he has to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable

Show me scientific proof that disputes the beliefs in the Bible.

---

I cannot think of any. It is difficult to disprove the Bible in essence.

However, it is not so difficult to reasonably disprove various interpretations of the bible. For instance, the belief that Moses (or whoever really wrote Genesis) did mean six days literally, that the Earth is 5000 years old, and so on. None of this comes straight from God - it's all tradition that has been adopted by humans over the years. Therefore, if something you believe is proven to be wrong, you need to change your interpretation, not your belief in God or the Bible.

Quote:

---

Your problem is not with Christians ignoring "science fact," but "scientific supposition." I see no problem with ignoring the latter, as it is no proof at all.

When was the last time you heard a Christian dispute the laws of gravity (fact) or the laws of concervation of mass/energy (fact)?

---

You do not understand science at all.

There is no such thing as "science fact". By its very nature, science acknowledges no facts. *Everything* in science is a theory, including the theory of gravity and the theories of thermodynamics.

These are no different than the theory of evolution, the "Big Bang" theory, or whetever else. You just accept gravity as fact because it better fits your world view. When Creationists say that "evolution is just a theory", they are ignoring the fact that everything else is also just a theory.

And, you know, what difference does it make to you how God created the world? If he created life by evolving it from single-celled organisms, then what's the problem? It's a lot more interesting than having him magically making stuff appear. If God said "let there be light" and the Big Bang happened, what's wrong with that? Are you saying that you were around at the time and it looked different? There is no reason why science should be opposed to religion - nothing in science has disproved the existence of God; if anything it gives him and his creation more dimension than it would have had otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable

Please. His model has been in question among the scientific community for years now. ;)

---

Actually, no. His model has been improved upon, but the whole "electrons spinning around a nucleus" thing still stands. In the same way Darwins theory of evolution still stands as "survival of the fittest and traits being selected naturally and sexually", but when you get down to the nitty details of what Darwin said, his theories were wrong as a whole and have been improved upon.

Why did you "attack" the Rutherford thing but not the whole human vision point I made ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt

However, it is not so difficult to reasonably disprove various interpretations of the bible. For instance, the belief that Moses (or whoever really wrote Genesis) did mean six days literally, that the Earth is 5000 years old, and so on.

---

Very true. And even if people attack of the beliefs of the Bible, in no way does it prove that there is no God. It relies on a bunch of assumptions, one, that the Bible is the absolute work of God, two, that belief wasn't corrupted by the knowledge of the prophets, and three, that the Bible is literal. I get angry when athiests (er... other athiests) attack the belief of God by saying shit like "a whale is not a fish", "the sun doesn't revolve around the earth", and "the young earth *snicker*". It's just stupid.

Anyway, how can you possibly prove that something doesn't exist? It's absoultely impossible. You can prove something exists because you can establish its existence, but how can you possibly establish non-existance? It would require God to write a letter explaining he doesn't exist. OMG TEH PARADOX!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt

And, you know, what difference does it make to you how God created the world? If he created life by evolving it from single-celled organisms, then what's the problem? It's a lot more interesting than having him magically making stuff appear. If God said "let there be light" and the Big Bang happened, what's wrong with that?

---

Yeah! Imagine how cool it would be if God perfected all the factors of the big bang so that in a billions of years a species would evolve exactly into his image. That's mind boggingly cool.

And for the record, I'm not an athiest because of science, I'm an athiest because I can't comprehend (read= agree with) philosophical (read= moral) concepts of the Bible. Nothing more, nothing less. And I wasn't brought up Christian and I wasn't brought up athiest. I was brought up by non-practicing protestants that told me to read everything and decide for myself.