Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

Ok, finally! Lets explore these one by one.The first: Expanding Space. How do we know that space is expanding?

We look at other objects in space, in this case other galaxies. Do you know how red-shift and blue-shift works? If the universe was static, galaxies wouldn't have any prefered direction and speed, relative to us, right?But it has been measured that in more or less all cases, galaxies are moving directly away from us, and with a speed that depends on their measured distance from us.For this to work out, it can't be that the galaxes are moving, because then they'd all move at about the same speed.So, the explanation is that it's the fabric of space-time that expands. It expands equally all over, because the speed/distance ratio is uniform no matter which galaxies you look at.

quote:

---

The first: Expanding Space. How do we know that space is expanding?

---

You were already told....Hubble red shift of galaxies....Now if you don't think that the red shift shows the universe is expanding what is YOUR explanation? I mean surely you have an alternate way of explaining the data?And may I suggest that "it doesn't make sense to me" is a damm stupid arguement unless you can back it up....

Interestingly, it was the red-shifts that first suggested that the universe is expaning. Once the hypothesis of an expanding universe is made, one can make predictions about future observations to test it; observations that have been verified. The Cosmic Microwave Background was predicted before it was discovered, based on the assumption of an expanding universe. We would also predict that the early universe was different than the present one; sure enough, by peering back in time (by looking at objects farther away) we do see that the universe was much different than now; for example, we don't see any nearby quasars.

Yep interestingly the two fellas who found it weren't even looking for it, they found it by accident while trying to use the Bell antenna for something else....Still I'm kind of interested in how he explains observed red shifts bar an inflating universe...

Sorry all for taking so long to reply, had some major tests. Have a few more coming this week as well, so I won't be able to send a flurry of posts. To the point of the day. After looking long and hard at several different sources, and at the posts we have all been slapping up here with regularity, I noticed some things. The first thing was this, the basis of the arguments supporting the Big Bang should not be compatible with Creationism. At least, that is what I asked for.
Ok, I must admit, I didn't bring this point up in my last post, a bit of an over-site on my part.A spreading, stretching, expanding universe is not only compliant with Creationism, it is mentioned in the Bible.
Job 9:8a speaking of God "Who alone stretches out the heavens".
Or Isaiah 42:5a "Thus says God the Lord, Who created he heavens and stretched them out."
My personal favorite is Isaiah 40:22, "It is He who sits above the circle* of the earth, and it's inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."
Now, for those of you who don't know, in the Bible, whenever it refers to heaven in the plural form, it means sky or heavenly bodies. Some theologians actually argue that "the heavens" means space it's self.The point is, not only does the expanding universe theory fail to prove the Big Bang, it actually shows where the Bible was ahead of science, as we know it.Interesting reading on this site, I don't know whether to believe it or not, but here it is: Astronomy | Answers in Genesis Ok, what is the next greatest proof of the Big Bang?Joe* Joe note - Oh my, did he say circle? The earth is a circle? I know technically the earth is a sphere, but Old Hebrew didn't get that exact. I doubt Isaiah had access to scientific information not available to the rest of those living in his time. I know the Bible is not a science textbook, but it does happen to mention truths that don’t make sense at the time, but do make sense later.Edited: Changed two words.[This message has been edited by Navy10E, 03-23-2004]

Well, yes, if you ignore all the posts in which people have told you the evidence. I notice you've not once replied to them.

Not with all Creationism? Or just not with Biblical literalist, young Earth creationism? Which creationism are you talking about?We're just talking about theories in cosmology. Since the theories don't make any mention of creationism, whether or not they're accurate theories has absolutely nothing to do with how well creationism might agree with them.I don't see how a co-incidentally interpretable passage that sounds like something going on in cosmology proves that the Earth is only 6,000 years old or that evolution doesn't occur. What on Earth do you think cosmology has to do with a biological theory? Where in the above discussion did we talk about biology having anything to do with models of the universe?Where in The Origin of Species did Darwin say "of course, all this is true only if the Bible can't be interpreted to say that space is expanding."You seem to have a bit of a problem keeping track of your arguments. Only if you interpret the passage in light of what we've already found out. "He who stretches the heavens" provides absolutely no clue or methodology for devising models of inflationary space.You say it's ahead of modern science? I say it's a co-incidence based on a loose meaning after the fact. You can make anything seem to say anything when you play that game. (And you ignore several instances where the Bible is well behind modern science.) What, he never saw how distant mountains rise over the horizon top-first? He never observed sunlight from the bottom of a deep well?It doesn't take a spacecraft to determine that the Earth is a sphere. The Greeks did it centuries ago. Eratosthenes even estimated the circumference of the Earth around 200 BC, and was startlingly accurate.There's a Hebrew word for sphere. That the Earth was spherical would obviously be something that people of the time of the author of Isaiah would have been able to comprehend, as there were people at the time who comprehended it. If the Bible is so right, how do you explain this glaring error?

Dude. Don't accuse me of not reading posts, and then blatantly ignore what I was saying in my post.
I'm not discounting thier evidence at all. I'm simply saying that that evidence actually FITS with creationism. Even better then I knew. I learned a lil' about my own beliefs here.
Reread my post, and maybe you will get it. If not, I'll help you out.Have a good day
Joe

Creationism meaning what?You seem to have this view that "scientific theory" means "disagreeing with the Bible," and that if the Bible agrees with science on any point, it must mean that the Earth is 6,000 years old and God created all species seperately. Can you defend these assumptions, or explain how I'm in error?

Ok, first of all, I noticed my error, and quickly changed 'evolution' to 'big bang'. Not quickly enough, but not a problem.
Second: You offered the expanding universe as a definant proof for the Big Bang.
Third, the Hebrews were not a scientific culture. Isaiah probably didn't know about the Greeks feat. In fact, I'm not sure which came first.
Fourth, discount the Bible all you want. Expanding universe fits with Creationism
Fifth, How about the Creationism I've argued the whole time? Biblical literalist, young earth. Comon' man, I know you're above redundant arguements like this.Joe

I was talking about the expanding universe, a supposed proof that YOU brought up. I wasn't creating a thesis both defending creationism as a whole, and disproving the Big Bang and Evolution together.
As far as explaining how you are in error...I'm working on it. There are lots of errors.

And since the Big Bang makes no mention of creationism or God, and is therefore compatible with the idea that God created the universe, which is a kind of creationism, what's your point?Both the Big Bang and certain types of creationism can be true, simultaneously. You need to be more specific. When you say that creationism is true, exactly what are you saying isn't true, instead? But presumably God did, right? Who was dictating the thing to the author of Isaiah, right? If so, why did God say "circle"? Why didn't he say "sphere"? You don't seem as sure as you were before about the Bible being the literal word of God. I keep having to ask because you don't seem too sure about what you believe. Is the Bible the literal word of God? Here you say it is, but a minute before, you said that Isaiah and not God wrote Isaiah. Which is it?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-23-2004]

Poor poor man.I don't believe I have wavered on my convictions at all. If you would like to demonstate an inconsistancy, please feel free to bring it up.
The reason the Bible doesn't read sphere has already been explained. There is no word for sphere in Old Hebrew.As far as how the Scriptures were written, this isn't the place to discuss them. However, I will risk the fury of the moose and answer. Have you heard of inspiration? In greek, it means "driven along". Simular to how a ship would be driven in a storm. In fact, the same word is used for that very example (in acts). Now, the men on the ship could move around on the ship as they pleased, but the ship went where the wind drove it.
So it is with the Bible, God inspired it, and he "got it where he wanted it to go", but the writing style, and the actually writing it's self was preformed by the man. I thought that this was basic theology that you (as a failed christian) should have known. If not, it would explain why you failed.I have at no point been unclear over my beliefs. If I was, you were free to ask. This is the first time you have brought up how the Bible was written. Stop making things up and argue your points.JoeAdded by edit - Literal Bible Rocks!!![This message has been edited by Navy10E, 03-23-2004]

Really? I had no idea ripples in the microwave background radiation were correctly predicted by the bible in a way that matches observation.Like most Creationists you cling to a tiny, tiny part of the evidence which might with a little twisting be post hoc matched with an obscure Biblical verse while ignoring all the stuff already mentioned that has no match in your book of myths.I also don't think you have any idea what evidence is, or how it works in real science. Post hoc matching is poor evidence for anything, where is the predictive evidence from Creationism?