Oh come on, Creston! You aren't seriously trying to equate a biblical parable with hard science
You consider it "hard science" Halsy, I consider it a man's attempt to quantify something he can't understand. As you might have guessed, I believe in God, and therefore I happen to put more faith in the biblical parable than in the "hard" science.Big Bang is accepted fact even if we don't have all the info.
No, it is an accepted THEORY that is heralded as "Law of the Universe", because so far nobody has come up with a better scientific
theory yet. However, there are many things wrong with the Big Bang theory, that even contradict itself.
In fact, when I took science / physics (I can never remember which one is the correct translation) in high school in Europe, during the mid 80s, the teacher taught us the Big Bang -> expansion -> reduction -> Big Crunch -> Big Bang etc theory as "Truth". Not his fault, science at the time thought that was how it was happening / had happened.
However, ten years (?) later they discovered that really the universe was expanding too far and too rapidly for it ever to be able to crunch back together again. And so the Big Crunch theory went the way of so many scientific theories.
And yet, for who knows how many years, it was taught as Da Truth in schools, and kids were "indoctrinated" with it.
I have no problem with that, we learn all the time, I'm just saying that what you call "FACT" is in fact no more than another theory, and might be discarded ten, fifty, one hundred years from now.
My biggest problems with the Big Bang theory are that
A) Taking into account Laws of Physics we now know to be in existence, the Big Bang would have immediately collapsed into the Big Crunch, since the mass of the universe was too great to be able to escape that one point of origin.
So, in order to keep the Big Bang going, we say that the Laws of Physics only came into being a minutely small amount of time AFTER the actual explosion (Planck's constant? 1x10^-49 or so?). But without those Laws of Physics in place at the exact zero point, why would the universe have started expanding?
This is just from memory btw, I might be stating a few things wrong, I was never a devote student of astronomy / physics etc, and I really can't be bothered to go through reams of scientific stuff to figure it all our correctly.
B) The EXACT makeup of our universe. If certain ratios had been off by just one electron, our Universe would be a mass of nebulae, instead of having solid matter. (again, don't know the precise details, can't be bothered to look it up, it's not as if this argument will change anyone's opinion anyways).
The circumstances that allow life to actually EXIST on our planet, due to the unique magnetic field of our solar system that keeps the radiation from the Milky Way's core away from our planet, the almost unique location of that solar system in the Milky Way, the makeup of the Milky Way etc are so extremely rare that added up all together, they make for odds that are smaller than 1x10^-99.
The Big Bang -> Big Crunch theory explained how that MIGHT have happened, since the thing could have been going an infinite time, and eventually if it happens an infinite amount of times, it's bound to get it right at some point.
But when the Big Crunch theory was discarded, science needed to come up with something new, and Stephen Hawking, whom I'll readily admit is a billion times smarter than I am, then came up with the idea of a Multiverse that is "spewing out" an infinite amount of Universes, which in some / most scientific circles is tentatively adhered to as "Maybe Da Truth".
Btw, a nice fellow actually put a lot of those points together in this website. It's a nice read, even if you DON'T believe in (a) God.http://www.godandscience.org/index.html
I find all the scientific "facts" more outlandish and harder to believe in than a higher power that simply created everything. *shrug*You may not believe in gravity, but leap off a cliff and see if that belief keeps you from splattering on the ground below
That's an often heard argument from the scientific side to "prove" that science has value. I am **not** denying the value of science. Science does great and not so great things for our planet. Which way the scale falls is a different argument.
I'm also not denying the existence of Gravity. Funny enough, neither does the Bible.
I am merely denying the Big Bang. Showing to me Gravity exists has nothing to do with the validity of the Big Bang, and the surrounding theories such as the Multiverse idea, etc. As a wiser man than I once said...
If you now argue that Big Bang theory is just a theory and that all theories are not proven fact, then you have just reduced all of science to some kind of silly passive process of recording events with no meaningful certainty in interpreting them.
Yeah I read the guy's website. He's that Swedish guy that worked for Nasa for a few dozen years and now teaches somewhere in Washington, right? Has a website in which he answers questions about astronomy? He's one of those hawks that INSIST that Creation theory has no place in schools?
I sent him a long email once in which I debated some of his points, but he never replied. Must've not had any answers
He's basically saying "Well, because we can prove SOME things, EVERYTHING that science theorizes must therefore be accepted as fact, or else you demean the value of everything scientific".
Which is not what I'm saying, and which is not what a lot of believers are saying. Just because you can prove to me gravity exists, and can theorize that in a model, doesn't mean that every other model you make automatically
holds equal validity and should therefore be accepted as truth.
And despite his tantrum, I see no problem with believing some things from science, and disbelieving others. Albert Einstein has long held that NOTHING travels faster than the speed of light, and yet we now know of tachyons which apparently do so. But according to the saying you quoted, if I had assumed Albert Einstein to be wrong back when he first posed his theory, I would have invalidated all of science to some kind of silly passive process? Bullshit.
(Btw, from the first moment that I heard about it, way way back, I never believed that nothing could go faster than the speed of light. Too many sci fi novels as a child I guess.
I have another saying for you.
Religion and Science are not at odds. Science is simply too young to understand. Believe whatever you wish to, but believing a thing does not make it so
The same goes for the Big Bang Theory. *shrug*Subjecting children to dogmatic indoctrination when they lack the necessary critical-reasoning skills and background knowledge to come to a decision themselves after weighing everything they've seen and heard is plain wrong.
Which is why schools should teach BOTH, which is what I'm an advocate of. In Europe, they only teach Big Bang. Over here in the US, it seems a majority (?) of school solely teach Creation?
I say teach both. Because REFUSING to teach Creation in favor of the Big Bang is just as wrong as the other way around. However, even offering such a solution sends those hawk scientists into fits. ONLY OUR WAY SHALL BE TAUGHT! The fact that they might be wrong apparently doesn't figure into it, nor does every human's right to make up their own mind. The argument apparently only works one way.
One fact is simple. If you do not believe in (a) God, you are in the minority on this planet. This is simple numbers.
Why should, in a Democracy, the minority dictate what is to be done, and what can be taught and what not? In fact, there are plenty of scientists, astronomers etc who believe in God, and are trying to "prove" God exists through their science (which I think will never happen, but I digress).
This "Big Bang is FACT, everything else is dogmatic bullshit" gang you're a part of really is only a minority. A SMALL minority.
But, believe what you will, and I'll believe what I will. I merely ask that people allow each other to believe what they each wish for themselves.
The Founding Fathers allowed for Freedom of Religion as well as Freedom of Speech, if I recall.