Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

You seem to ignore that fact that your only argument so far has involved you claiming that a feature of the Big Bang - the inflationary universe - is also a feature of the Bible.My, if you're arguing that the Big Bang and the Bible are different, you're going about it a funny way...And you still haven't answered my question. In what ways do the Big Bang and the Bible disagree? Be specific. It's simple. How can the Bible be literally true if the words aren't literally God's?

Actually, Crash, I think you are wrong about this one. While in traditional usage the 'literal' and 'inspired' camps are different -there is no contradiction if you simply take the base meaning of the words.Inspired here simply means that the bible was scribed by humans from god's direction rather than penned by his own fair hand.

quote:

---

And you still haven't answered my question. In what ways do the Big Bang and the Bible disagree? Be specific.

---

I'll take the liberty to give you one example of an answer on this.Expansion of space is observed. It is explained in two different ways.- 6000 years ago, God created the universe, and set it in motion by starting the expansion of space. Hence, the big bang is impossible because it requires the expansion to have occured before God set it into motion.Or- The universe has been expanding since the big bang. Hence, the bible can't be correct because it requires a specific minimum size of the universe which is that of 6000 years ago.It's mostly a matter on if you think the christian God did it exactly like that based on the bible, or if you think it's better to observe the universe and put trust into experiments and empirical evidence instead.Of course, this is all dependant on a specific interpretation of the bible, which is exactly what he argues is the correct one, regardless of observations.

Just to add to Crash's point here I'd like to ask Navy why he thinks that a catholic priest (Lemaitre) would propose such a notion if it was so clearly an arguement against the exsistence of God and the biblical narrative?Hmmmm catholic priest proposing atheistic theory, something isn't right there....Maybe Navy would also be interested to know that the big bang at first had something of an uphill struggle, because of the theological implications of everything coming from nothing, untill the evidence started rolling in....

Then again curtains and tents are usually pullled taut but not made to expand...

I thought that this effect was measured as an energy level which showed that there is a little more matter than anti matter which is the contributor of the force. If there is more matter than anti matter, how could a zero energy force universe appear or emerge out of nothing?The sum difference of the greater number of photoic energy verses the fermionic photinos energy is supposed to be so great over the entire universe that there is discussion as to why this energy doesn't "cause space-time to curl up".I've read a few other web sites trying to explain this but it is above my ability to comprehend just what they are talking about. I'm not sure if they are refuting the Casimir effect or just explaining it away as a quantom anomole.Unless I am not grasping the Casimir effect correctly, the evidence of this force would not allow a zero energy force universe to exist.

Actually over time, if tight enough, a tent or a curtain would stretch. They didn't have elastic back then.As far as the Big Bang being strictly an atheistic consept. I never said that. In fact, Frog had never made that point until that post. Everything I have said has been to the topic you can see at the top of the screen. "Big Bang...How Did it Happen." Not if there are confused theists or not. I don't understand this hard-on you guys seem to have to put words in my mouth. I've put what I have to say, for everyone to read. I'm sure there is enough to talk about there. No need to make stuff up, or try to change the topic of the argument.Joe

How exactly do the Big Bang and the Bible disagree? This is important.

Melchior said it good: Joe

So, it's just the age that's different? That's the only disagreement?

Basically during about the first 10^-43s of the universes exsistence all four forces were unified (we aren't quite sure how yet we still need a theory of quantum gravity but that one will be cracked eventually)...During that period quarks and leptons were indistinguishable and quantum numbers were not conserved...Quarks and antiquarks changed from one to the other freely and at t = 10^-43s there was a slight excess of quarks over antiquarks (about 1 in 10⁹)...And a good job too because when the rest of the quarks and antiquarks anihilated that slight excess became our universe...The Casimir effect that we observe happens with the four fundamental forces seperate and thus it creates equal ammounts of matter and antimatter and quantum numbers are conserved...

It seems to be a logical fallacy to assume that there are only two possiblities, doesn't it Navy? Not that all possiblities are equally likley, but there may be quite a few better contestants than a 6000yr old universe. Heck, I think the Australian Aboriginies have a better creation story.

No not just age. In the Bible, first was the "heavens and the earth" then came "light", then atmosphere. Plants came next and then heavenly bodies, stars and planents. Prehaps you could explain how this could fit with the Big Bang. Plants, growing on earth before the Sun was even around? Doesn't work with the Big Bang at all.Joe

If you have another hypothesis, you are free to argue it on here.

Why don't you take some time and enumerate exactly what you think the Big Bang and the Bible disagree on? Keep in mind that the Big Bang is not about the age of the Earth, the evolution of life, or anything but a model for the size of the universe over time up to Plank time - a tiny fracton of a second after the formation of the universe. (We don't have the theories yet to go back any further.)