Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 3843 days)
Re: Multiple Big Bangs
A close reading of the first few chapters of the Bible reveals not one, but two different -- and contradictory -- stories of creation. These are from two of the (at least) four traditions that are interweaved in the first books of the Bible, the Priestly and Yahvist traditions, out of the set that includes the Elohist and Deuteronomist traditions. This conclusion is reached by consideration of stylistic elements (for example, the Priestly tradition is heavy on statistics, the Yahvist and Elohist traditions refer to the Deity as "Yahweh" and "Elohim", respectively, and the Deuteronomist tradition is found in the Book of Deuteronomy), and is generally accepted by non-literalist Biblical scholars (for a good introduction to the historical background behind the Bible, see Asimov's Guide to the Bible, both volumes).
Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:
Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)
Note that there are "days", "evenings", and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim", which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods". In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good".
The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:
Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)
Then, there follows the story of the serpent leading Eve, and Adam, to eat that (unspecified) fruit, and get expelled from the Garden of Eden, whereupon that serpent was ordered to crawl on its belly (no mention of how it moved about before that). The Deity is referred to as "Yahweh" here, and creates plants, animals, and finally Eve for a lonely Adam. Yahweh seems to be trying to fix his creation as he goes, with not too satisfactory results -- his prime interest commits a big no-no (why not simply create a psychological inhibition to eating forbidden fruit? It would probably be more reliable).
Neither tale, it must be said, has much resemblance to the geological record, but in all fairness to the inventors of these tales, the geological record only became clear in the nineteenth century. I am not denying that one can come up with a Bible interpretation that somehow harmonizes these two tales, but such an interpretation would require rejection of the dogma of the literal truth of the Bible -- two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time.
The first of the two stories is sometimes claimed to be a good match; "Let there be light" supposedly means the Big Bang. But the Big Bang happened well before the Earth even existed. There are other discrepancies. The Sun is almost certainly slightly older than the Earth, and the Moon is as old as the Earth, or a bit younger (from current theories of planetary formation; the time differences are ~100 million years out of 4.6 billion years). The stars have no single age, but have been forming ever since the galaxies came into existence (or even before!); some are older than the Earth, some younger. The order of appearance of various is terribly mixed up. Though blue-green algae are much older than any multicelled animal, the first land plants appear ~400 m.y. ago, as opposed to the first sea animals ~600 m.y. ago. Flowering plants (the most common land plants) appeared about ~120-150 m.y. ago, well after the first land animals appeared, approx 400 m.y. ago. Also, flying animals appear after closely related land animals appear; flying insects after early wingless ones, pterodactyls after proto-dinosaurs, birds after certain small carnivorous dinosaurs, and bats after early placental mammals. Some sea animals are descendants of land animals; consider (partially aquatic) otters, seals and sea lions and walruses, penguins, alligators and crocodiles, and sea turtles and (completely aquatic) whales and dolphins, sea snakes, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and mosasaurs.
The second of the two stated that humanity originated in the Garden of Eden or a garden in Eden (depending on which translation you read). "Eden" turns out to be some marshland near where the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers flow into the Persian Gulf. And where did humanity actually originate? Charles Darwin proposed Africa because that's where our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees and gorillas, live. This hypothesis turns out to be correct for nearly all of the hominid species, including Homo sapiens. All the earlier hominid species, the Australopithecines and earliest Homo, are found only in Africa; later species, like Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, seem to have originated in Africa and spread to other parts of the world
From: London England
Message 371 of 380 (470601)
06-11-2008 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by ICANT
06-10-2008 8:31 PM
Re: Back Again
|So when did the BBT predict inflation?|
Never. To my knowldge.
|Was it some 50 years or more after the theory?|
When there was enough problems with the BBT that it should have been discarded.
Really? What problems are these?
|Inflation was not predicted. It was necessary or the BBT was dead. It was an invented add on theory to save a failed theory.|
No. Not at all. Where do you get this stuff from?
BB theory is based mainly on the following three things -
1) Observed ongoing expansion of the universe.
2) Abundance of light elements as is both observed and predicted as a logical consequence of BB theory.
3) Predicted existence, and specific measurable value, of the CMB. This again is a necessary and logical consequence of BB theory
From this we conclude that the universe has evolved (and continues to evolve) from a very hot, very dense, very small prior state.
This is the main conclusion of BB.
Inflation (or lack of it) changes none of the above.
If any of the 3 things listed above had been found to be wrong or significantly different BB theory would indeed be in trouble. However none of these have been found to be wrong or significantly different. Thus this problem you speak of seems to be non-existant.
|It was an invented add on theory to save a failed theory|
Failed theory? On what basis had BB been refuted? On what basis had the verified predictions of BB been shown to be invalid?
Inflation is indeed an add-on but it replaces an evidenceless assumption regarding the original BB theory rather than anything at all key to BB theory as a wwhole. The rate of expansion has little or nothing to do with any of the things listed above and on which BBT is ultimately based.
It was indeed initially assumed that the rate of expansion was constant. However this was an assumption not based on any evidence.
As it turns out if the rate of expansion had been constant we would expect things to be much more uniform than they are observed to be. Inflation was thus proposed to explain the "clumpiness" of the observed universe.
COBE, WMAP etc. have since largely verified inflatiionary theory and it is now part of the established BB model.
I am still not sure why you think any of this is a hige problem for BB theory?
In your bizzarre quest to find fault with the theory (I still do not understand why your theistic position is so hostile to the evolution of the universe as described by BBT?) you seem to have leapt upon a non-argument.
Have you ever read any popular science books on the BB? The first Three Minutes etc. "The Big Bang" by Simon Singh is particularly accessible book on the subject detailing the history of the various competing theories regarding the universe and the discoveries involved in the eventual conclusion. If you are going to persist in discussing these topics you really should familiarise yourself with the subject in a bit more detail.
Or do you fear that if you read a convincing book on the subject you might be tempted over to the dark side........? ;)
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 351 by ICANT, posted 06-10-2008 8:31 PM|| ||ICANT has responded|
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 372 by lyx2no, posted 06-11-2008 2:50 PM|| ||Straggler has responded|
| ||Message 379 by ICANT, posted 06-12-2008 12:59 AM|| ||Straggler has not yet responded|