A Big Bang Misconception

The plain fact is that the original expansion model was that space-time singularity did originate as a speck of energy. And if you don't agree with that, then you should write to certain textbook companies that have it in their books as some sort of unassailable fact.Here's what I've found in a 2003 college textbook:“In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.”So allow me to clarify by paraphrasing: Nothing exploded, and here we are. It goes on to say:“In the beginning all the energy condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck. That speck began to expand. The space-energy speck, now the size of a baseball, began cooling off and matter condensed from energy. By three minutes, atomic nuclei appeared.”The belief that certain cosmologists think that the universe started out as an energy-speck isn't a creationist belief, it was a belief that was held up for years by secular science.

Chemistry, 6th edition; Houghton Mifflin 2003 He's right to be leary of such a pernicious theory being taught as fact, though I don't particularly like Hovind. He's a bit too antagonistic which I think detracts from his points.In any case, perhaps a crusade to correct antiquated theories should be in order. The OP seems peeved that people actually think that the Big Bang was not the product of an energy speck, but the problem lays wholly with the people that print the material. Its not the laymans fault that they didn't know any better.

I don't know what an 'isbn number' is.

I don't know, that might be it. I got it and a bunch of others at the Northern Arizona University library. I viewed through them and wrote down the anamoles I found. Then I composed a paper on it and wrote down my referrences. Why do you ask?

Yeah, I just figured out what it was when I looked in a search engine. Thanks.

The problem is, an hour ago I thought the ISBN might have been the barcode. Because I looked it up I now know otherwise.

Too be honest, I dno't know how I feel about the BB. The BB has been popularized and up until recently was the only serious model proposed. This is due, in part, because the Big Bang has been supported by observation with an explanatory power unrivaled to that of other theorems. The premise behind the theory is that life must have begun in singularity. Its otherwise been referred to as 'Planck's time' which is 10 to the -43 seconds after the universe began. If that doesn't speak about the beginning, then I don't what does. Consider singularity as the point in the space-time continuum at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume. Accordingly, space and time have become infinitely distorted. To expound on this, think of an empty hand. What is inside of an empty hand? There is nothing, right? Actually, there are millions of subparticles swirling about. Nevertheless, at the singularity there literally was nothing in the truest sense of the word. This is a distressing truth though that has brought the greatest minds to exhaustion. As compelling as the theory is, it still does not offer any explanation as to why matter exists at all. Conventional wisdom simply cannot account for it.I think the casual and causal inference of man is based on the intuition that something cannot come from absolutely nothing. A pure potentiality cannot, in it’s own right, actualize itself. I think virtually all cosmologists and astrophysicists, whether theistic or atheistic, agree on this point. So, at what point does time, space, and matter become actual? It had to become actual at some point. So the burning question is, how it happened?I don't think we could answer these questions with Newtonian precision, but nonetheless, I think its deserving of a worthy effort. Hawking put it in an interseting way. He said, what's the north of the North Pole. And from what I gathered from that quip, he's essentially saying, we'll never really know either way, so who cares? But I don't think man will be truly satisfied until he knows the answer of his origins.

If memory serves me correctly, the opening section attempted to reconcile early abiotic chemicals and attribute it to nucleofusion in stars some time after the Big Bang. That's probably why it caught my eye. I'd love to give you a more definitive answer, but I have so many quotes that I would never remember where I located them had I not jotted down a referrence. It probably came from the same writers who just tweak it as time goes on. I already explained why chemical evolution was assimilated into cosmology. I think Hovind makes alot of good points, however, for every good observation, he tends to go off on tangents that bear no relation to his orignal premise. As well, he appeals to the layman because he sounds as if he's more than one and he is a good orator and debator. But as I said, he's too antagonistic.

It was a brief synopsis. It was a blurb. But even a blurb like that being portrayed as an unassailable fact without corroborating evidence has no place in the book at all. That was my objection to it. He is afforded the opportunity to believe as he does. But lets look at it truthfully. If what Hovind was saying was so fantasitically false, then no one would care about his babble. As it is, its more than evident that what he's saying is hitting home to the scientific community. If creationism as a whole was not presenting a problem to secular views, then there would not be propaganda campaign to stop it. I mean, look at Talk Origins. Nearly the entire site is devoted towards the debate, as is this webforum. If it wasn't a problem and if it wasn't based on, at the very least, some merit, then no one would care either way. So its reasonable to assume that what Hovind and the gang are saying has more legitimacy than some would incline.

Eh... Whatever. As I stated earlier, Hovind is a bit discourteous and I'm not a big fan, though I'd agree that he's a persuasive orator. But, I guess that's not saying much because so was Hitler.Anyway, you sparked my interset with moon-landing hoaxers. I am not one. However, one argument thay've made has always stuck with me and I can't help to think how one aspect might have legitimate implications. Alright, in the footage that we've all seen, it shows the American flag waving. But space is a vacuum devoid of oxygen. So how is the flag waving in an oxygenless vacuum? Where is wind coming from if 1. There's no oxygen in the first place. 2. Its in a vacuum.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 05-13-2006 12:35 AM