The Myth of the Big Bang

[Abramelin]

In simple terms, take one measurement at one extreme of the earths orbit and another at the other extreme, and you have baseline approx 180 million miles long. I guess, as long as the star is about at right angles to the plane of the earths orbit. It wouldnt work if the star was on the same( but extended) ellipse as the earth's orbit.(or close to it) Hope i got my terms right

Yes, I think that's about it.

And the opposite points of the earth's orbit would only form the largest baseline possible. I think points on the orbit that are at a right angle (3 months difference) would work too, but less accurate.

Maybe I don't get it, but what would it matter if a star is on the same plane as the earth's orbit?

[FurthurBB]

Its no more of a belief then believing a fork is a intelligent design. What details are you talking about? Its admited by honest scientist they have no idea, say for instance, how the first living cell formed. Some people look at it, with all its amazing complexity and say it must be designed. Others look at it and assume conditions must have been perfect for it to create its self. Seems to me, though both take a leap of faith, believing it could create its self takes at least as much faith then thinking it was designed.

A fork is obviously created and in no way compares to anything natural. I never said I knew how the first cell came about, but you do not have to know to look at 1000s of molecular aspects of those cells that all lead you back to same answer and that answer is not design, it is chemistry. When you can also see those same chemical reactions happen everyday without any intelligence to guide them, why would you assume there was a designer? It takes no faith to believe it when you can witness it every single day. Oh, what people believe that anything can create itself? I think you forgot the large group of people that believe natural, chemical processes are responsible for life on earth.

[Arbenol]

Now how on Earth can a scientist tell us we have galaxies millions of light years away and trace them back to a central location from which they emerged 14.5 billions years ago? Its a wild guess with an error rate of 99.99999%. I may as well go to a psychic and have them predict how far away a galaxy is.

I don't think this is the whole story. Trigonometry is useful to a point but will be less accurate for much further objects. I believe they can also use a spectrum analysis to estimate distance.

[Arbenol]

This whole thread seems to be the result of a bit of quote mining. I think it's fair to assume that Sagan used a fair bit of poetic licence in his writing.

As an example, I was recently watching a BBC documentary about the great seasonal floods in Botswana that turn desert into a network of lagoons. I lost count of the number of times the narrator (David Attenborough) used terms like "magic" and "miracle" to describe the events.

Now, it's possible that he thinks there is a supernatural cause to the events - but I doubt it.

[vitruvian12]

Yes, I think that's about it.

And the opposite points of the earth's orbit would only form the largest baseline possible. I think points on the orbit that are at a right angle (3 months difference) would work too, but less accurate.

Maybe I don't get it, but what would it matter if a star is on the same plane as the earth's orbit?

I dont understand why he thinks it wouldnt work in that situation either.

[Mr Walker]

I dont understand why he thinks it wouldnt work in that situation either.

Probably a fault in my visualisation. You could still get measurements at either side of the ellipse. I saw it as a dinner plate on a table. If the star was a pea off to the top or bottom of the table, you could get a triangulation. But at first it seemed to me that if the pea was on the table with the plate you wouldnt get a base line. However you could, by going across the plate on the same plane. I can't visualise things in my head, so unless i use a real life scenario, it makes stuff like this more tricky.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Mr Walker

[preacherman76]

A fork is obviously created and in no way compares to anything natural. I never said I knew how the first cell came about, but you do not have to know to look at 1000s of molecular aspects of those cells that all lead you back to same answer and that answer is not design, it is chemistry. When you can also see those same chemical reactions happen everyday without any intelligence to guide them, why would you assume there was a designer? It takes no faith to believe it when you can witness it every single day. Oh, what people believe that anything can create itself? I think you forgot the large group of people that believe natural, chemical processes are responsible for life on earth.

A fork is a obvious creation, yet a cell which is infinitly more complex is just a chemical reaction? A chemical reaction that you have never seen. Never been able to replicate. If you dont know how the first cell came about, how can you possibly say it wasnt designed? What natural chemical process created life? You have no idea.

[vitruvian12]

A fork is a obvious creation, yet a cell which is infinitly more complex is just a chemical reaction? A chemical reaction that you have never seen. Never been able to replicate. If you dont know how the first cell came about, how can you possibly say it wasnt designed? What natural chemical process created life? You have no idea.

Just because a cause of something is unknown at this time doesnt mean it needs to have a designer or that its proof that there is one. If we dont know the answer we cant just assume that implies that the answer is whatever we would like to believe it is.

[FurthurBB]

A fork is a obvious creation, yet a cell which is infinitly more complex is just a chemical reaction? A chemical reaction that you have never seen. Never been able to replicate. If you dont know how the first cell came about, how can you possibly say it wasnt designed? What natural chemical process created life? You have no idea.

What you do not understand is knowing how life came about exactly, doesn't need to be known. There is nothing going on in a cell that is not a natural chemical reaction. My fork might be rusting, but that is about the only natural chemical reaction going on with a fork. You look from the big picture and it seems impossible. I look at the details and anything else seems improbable.

[preacherman76]

Just because a cause of something is unknown at this time doesnt mean it needs to have a designer or that its proof that there is one. If we dont know the answer we cant just assume that implies that the answer is whatever we would like to believe it is.

That logic is flawed, in my opinion. We could stumble on something far less complicated and know without a doubt it was designed. I look at a cell, and all its amazing wonder, it screams as loud as any created object (even more so in most cases) that it was designed. Was created, for a purpose.

Now who or what created that cell is a entirely different subject.

[preacherman76]

What you do not understand is knowing how life came about exactly, doesn't need to be known. There is nothing going on in a cell that is not a natural chemical reaction. My fork might be rusting, but that is about the only natural chemical reaction going on with a fork. You look from the big picture and it seems impossible. I look at the details and anything else seems improbable.

Thats cause you are looking at, well, a miracle, that is already set in motion. To say it doesnt matter how it started, what pt that cycle in motion, is dishonest. To say the least. Especialy considering its admited that even the simplest of life is so amazing, the probablility of it creating its self is absurd.

[RightInTheStatisticals]

That logic is flawed, in my opinion. We could stumble on something far less complicated and know without a doubt it was designed. I look at a cell, and all its amazing wonder, it screams as loud as any created object (even more so in most cases) that it was designed. Was created, for a purpose.

Now who or what created that cell is a entirely different subject.

The same logic, you are using in your argument, can be applied to anything though. For example say a geological feature like the Devil's Postpile (link). You can look at it and be amazed, thinking that that had to be designed because the lines are too straight or that it had to made by something of intelligence.

However, people didn't stop at saying it had to be made, that nothing else can explain it. They studied it and eventually realized it was created by lava and it mineral composition at the time it solidified.

Just because something looks like it had to be created (too you) doesn't mean you can just sa, "It looks created, you can't explain that."

[RightInTheStatisticals]

I googled nothing about Carl Sagan. I read it straight from his book "Cosmos". And what you bring up above that I should read it several times, I did

just that, for I could not believe my eyes, and I saw nothing different from what I had understood in the first reading. The appendage that follows his statement about the big bang as "our modern myth" does not at all diminish from his original statement. Of course that being science-questioning and that scientists perform experiments and observations to test their ideas, says nothing about having the big bang ceased being a "myth."

Please, RTS, make me no wrong. I do not discard the probability for the big bang. I just do not accept by faith that a "myth" is enough for me to discard the probability of a Creator for the universe.

Ben

First off I never said you googled anything. I said I googled the keywords 'carl sagan myth of big bang' and found the repeated internet spamming of your exact post, by you, over a multitude of forums.

Second, as someone who is a staunch, fence-sitting agnostic I believe you have every right to believe in a creator or creators, whatever makes your world-view happiest. However, just because you believe that a creator made the universe, does not mean that the BBT becomes a myth. Why the hell people think the two are mutual exclusive is beyond me. If there was a creator, why can't BBT be his/her/their mechanism. All science does is look at things and says "Hey, to the best of our understanding and data, this theory seem to explain how things work or happen."

What I don't like about your copy-paste post is that you take one statement about BBT by Carl Sagan, selectively edit it AND take it out of context, then run with it as your sole argument. That doesn't help your argument, if anything, it show you are being misleading at best.

[FurthurBB]

That logic is flawed, in my opinion. We could stumble on something far less complicated and know without a doubt it was designed. I look at a cell, and all its amazing wonder, it screams as loud as any created object (even more so in most cases) that it was designed. Was created, for a purpose.

Now who or what created that cell is a entirely different subject.

A cell to me is obviously not designed and has no real purpose.

[FurthurBB]

Thats cause you are looking at, well, a miracle, that is already set in motion. To say it doesnt matter how it started, what pt that cycle in motion, is dishonest. To say the least. Especialy considering its admited that even the simplest of life is so amazing, the probablility of it creating its self is absurd.

No, I am not looking at a miracle. I am looking at a collection of chemical reactions. It is not dishonest to say that it does not really matter how it started. You do not need to know everything to know something. I have always find the god of gaps to be rather insulting. Not only does it force the concept of god to be very small and insignificant, it also forces scientists to prove no god exists there when those gaps are filled. It is really a lose/lose situation. Also, why do you keep talking about things creating themselves? That is absurd.

[AdealJustice]

Lol, im not gonna take a side here, but i don't the we should focus on "god" rather the implications of the origin of the universe from an Intelligent source. Big bang is based up endless hypotheses which are supportd by more hypothesis almost all of which havent been proven, nor anywhere near proven, to make matters worse even those hypothesis are supported by more hypothesis lol. Electric or Plasma universe models are much more reliable , logical and are supported by far more evidence than the model of the universe and its origin that is perpetuated today. We shouldn't just disregard other theories , especially for the sake of traditional beliefs ...

[Abramelin]

That logic is flawed, in my opinion. We could stumble on something far less complicated and know without a doubt it was designed. I look at a cell, and all its amazing wonder, it screams as loud as any created object (even more so in most cases) that it was designed. Was created, for a purpose.

Now who or what created that cell is a entirely different subject.

There is no shred of logic in your post either.

You look at those 'wonders' with your human eyes, and you are only able to assume it must have been some omnipotent all-knowing super-engineering super-power that has made these cells.

But can you also imagine what can happen in billions of years time?

[Abramelin]

Thats cause you are looking at, well, a miracle, that is already set in motion. To say it doesnt matter how it started, what pt that cycle in motion, is dishonest. To say the least. Especialy considering its admited that even the simplest of life is so amazing, the probablility of it creating its self is absurd.

That is indeed absurd, and has nothing to do with evolution at all.

[preacherman76]

A cell to me is obviously not designed and has no real purpose.

I think we are done here.

[preacherman76]

There is no shred of logic in your post either.

You look at those 'wonders' with your human eyes, and you are only able to assume it must have been some omnipotent all-knowing super-engineering super-power that has made these cells.

But can you also imagine what can happen in billions of years time?

Of course. But no more then Id look at a boeing 747 and assume it was created by a highly intelligent super engineer. In either case billions of years has nothing to do with it.

[Abramelin]

Of course. But no more then Id look at a boeing 747 and assume it was created by a highly intelligent super engineer. In either case billions of years has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it. People who do not approve of the theory of evolution often say, "Why doesn't it happen now?". It does happen, but at an extremely slow pace. Like a boulder can weather down to the size of a brick, but you won't see it happening during your lifetime. It has to do with minor changes over many millions of years.

However, faster and (almost, well...) visible evolution is also possible; ask any micro-biologist.

[Emma_Acid]

All right WfH, what can you prove or disprove, the big bang or the non-existence of a Divine Creator for the universe?

You can prove (and disprove) a whole heap about the origin and expansion of the universe, as has already been done. The same cannot be said for the idea of a creator.

Hey AB, how much has been written about the big bang? The much you can think of, one can read it in a year. How many generations are necessary to read all that has been written about God? My point is not to prove any thing by the number of books written about it, but to bring to your attention that there are copious evidences for both.

You don't understand the concept of empirical evidence.

Im not sure where to start BB. Everything seems to have the finger print of intelligent design. From a simple grain of sand, to the most complex life forms.

An argument from ignorance. Simply because you don't understand how something came into being without being Created, doesn't mean it's impossible.

[preacherman76]

It has everything to do with it. People who do not approve of the theory of evolution often say, "Why doesn't it happen now?". It does happen, but at an extremely slow pace. Like a boulder can weather down to the size of a brick, but you won't see it happening during your lifetime. It has to do with minor changes over many millions of years.

However, faster and (almost, well...) visible evolution is also possible; ask any micro-biologist.

Well I dont agree with everything evolution teaches, but I dont dissmiss it entirely either. Either way, life didnt take billions of years to start. In fact it had a VERY short time frame once the process began. The first living cell no doubt had mear hours to pull of the incredible. One of the least being reproduction. All of this with no will, or even knowledge of its own existance.

[preacherman76]

You can prove (and disprove) a whole heap about the origin and expansion of the universe, as has already been done. The same cannot be said for the idea of a creator.

Yes, you can prove and disprove alot about origin. One thing you can not do is replicate it. Which at this point, if any theory about origin were true, it should be easily done.

An argument from ignorance. Simply because you don't understand how something came into being without being Created, doesn't mean it's impossible.

That depends on what we are talking about. A fork found in a place where no known civiliation ever existed, is still created. No one would dispute that. The simplist forms of life that come fully with a blueprint, and means to full fill the ideas of that blue print are far less likely to have created its self, then that same fork. Is it possible it created its self? I guess. But the statistical odds are so in the negative, that no reasonable person could say it was anywhere near probable. And that is just the odds of one life form creating its self, let alone millions of them.

[FurthurBB]

Well I dont agree with everything evolution teaches, but I dont dissmiss it entirely either. Either way, life didnt take billions of years to start. In fact it had a VERY short time frame once the process began. The first living cell no doubt had mear hours to pull of the incredible. One of the least being reproduction. All of this with no will, or even knowledge of its own existance.

Do bacteria have will and knowledge of their existence?