the big bang theory is *just* a theory

[Tortington]

it was said on another thread that there is 'evidence'

I don't believe that god said 'let there be light' and all that malarky either.

but p[eople seem to spout that everything was created becuase of a big bang.

and i can't see ...if there was an exploson of this magnitude how there would be evidence to prove that it happened.

so, big bang theorists. without typing a thesis - or telling me to read a 'dawkins' book or some such - can you in lay mans terms explain where the evidence is for this theory.

i shall bump at lunch time when i have chance

cant someone tell me about other theories? its a nice debate, but i wouldnt want to donate my reading time to it

Message withdrawn

You want to cuddle up to Brian Cox, custy. he's your man.

Not sure how easy it is to explain all these theories to the layman - I don't understand enough physics to really begin to look at them.

(Or even if he isn't, he'd be nice to cuddle up to)

Pruni - have you read the Music of The Primes by Marcus du Sautoy? That's fab.

thanks for the recommendations. i'm not reading them though 'twill be sufficient for me to state it in the next argument i think.

The expected conflation between "evidence" and "proof" is on display in this thread, plus the usual cognitive dissonance. It's very difficult to get beyond that. In my experience every attempt to provide scientific evidence is met with "yes, but" or a declaration that this is not the evidence they wanted. I find it difficult to do it any more while keeping a level temper.

I do need to say, though, that OrmIrian makes a good point - it's not either/or.

If the evidence for the Big Bang is not conclusive, it doesn't therefore point towards "god" - i.e. each little bit of Big Bang theory that you challenge doesn't bring you one step closer to "god".

A question not having a totally shockproof answer doesn't automatically mean that the answer can just be arbitrarily replaced by something else.

Gosh thanks uqd

Message withdrawn

Custy - I'll dig out some links to the other main theories.

I don't really like to get into these arguments - as a scientist and a catholic, I'm in a no win position!!!

BUT - even if such a theory were PROVEN, beyond all reasonable doubt, the question of WHY is still going to remain.

WHY is water neccessary for life? WHY is water the only substance known to man where the solid is less dense than the liquid (for this fact is what have made life on earth possible)

Even when the mysteries of OUR world, even our galaxy are solved (which I'm in no doubt they one day will be), there will always be a new final frontier... What's beyond our galaxy or our solar system? There will always be questions.

I'm not sure if that's where you were going with the thread, but I can never understand why religion can't accept the 'knowns' - like we KNOW natural selection exists, but there is still the question of WHY (someone made that point earlier on this thread).

I don't think there will ever be a definitive answer. You can never prove there is a god, but I'm pretty sure we'll never prove there isn't either.

Message withdrawn

I agree with you Pruners, but I don't think - even when there is irrefutable proof - that it will stop people believing in GOd.

That's all I meant.

Message withdrawn

Well the research scientists would have trouble getting grants, so their careers would stall, and arts and humanities would take over the universities

I actually subscribe to the 'it just is' argument - I mean, even out of the handful of planets we know of, ours is the only one where 'things' have come together in the correct sequence / order to allow life to occur.

Rather like picking lottery numbers, it strikes me it's just random and, occasionally, it comes up trumps, but far more frequently, it doesn't (and therefore no life exists)

But that's just my own personal view.

Message withdrawn

Everytime you turn on your TV and see the black and white fuzz, you are looking back in history, and seeing the beginning of space and time.

Measurements show that the universe is expanding, so the logical conclusion is that it started at a distinct point.

Experiments have shown that matter can appear out of nothing, and disappear again. Something about quantum fluctuations and fundamental particles - I won't even pretend that I can understand it.

This is the limitation of our minds. We are evolved to deal mentally with only mid range numbers - our reality. When it comes to the very small and the very large, we are not able to grasp the meaning, and analogies fail. Only mathematics can represent these other realities.

And you are right, the BBT IS just a theory. The current evidence that we have points towards the BBT being correct. But science is dynamic, and theories can be constantly remodelled to reflect the latest experimental results.

Could I also meekly point out that a Dawkins book will have very little to tell you about the BBT. Hawking on the other hand...

good post roomforthree.

Thanks ruty

Lets question the essence of the unseen, our conciousness? what is between a non-living stone and a living being? How can this come form the big bang? how was the human being created with so much perfection, how can this be arranged by just physicalforces e.g magnetism, gravity....where does our conciousness go when we pass away? we know the physical returns to the earth!. Where is the dedision as to which century, date,dat and time we are born? do we really have control over this? who decides when we pass away? what day, date and time? what control do we have over this? Where in the physical world is the intelligent arrangement of personality? The violent tear of the heavens from the earth as spoken about in holy books is evidence of the big band, and the start of timeitself,science was created for us to discover. There is enough, plenty in front of us to 'witness' the infinate ocean of our creator.

haribo - another cackfooter eh

i think i like you - and your posts have been very informative ty.

and ty a betadad becuase you made some good points

and ty everyone for not patting my head

Did you know there is a wasp that lays its egg in an innocent caterpillar, and the growing larvae emerges eating the caterpillar from the inside out.

Did you know there is an African loa loa parasite that burrows into the eyes of children making them blind?

People believe these things were designed by a friendly father like God like figure? they even believe this nice chap is worthy of adulation?

But that's the problem with 'belief' it requires no real thought at all. Thought would tell you that the creatures we see around us have fought for their niche with millions of other creatures failing through disease, environment or predator.

The problem with theories is that unless we have a time machine they have to remain theories as we cannot replicate either human evolution or the big bang in a lab!

But at least science uses EVIDENCE based judgements. if you look at the evidence around from an analytical standpoint you will see they do indeed point to evolution and a big bang theory. The evidence for evolution is clearly laid out in a wonderful (old) area of the natural history museum.

Who knows what came before TBB? I don't nor do any scientists - but the odds on it being a friendly old man in the sky are very, very far-fetched!!!!

The Big Bang theory is not proved, but it's also not just a made up story. There is quite a lot of supporting evidence. If not that then something similar would have to take its place.

The way I see a scientific theory is a bit like the way I see a crossword. If I'm doing a difficult one I might pencil in the first words. This one is either Lark or Dove. In which case this overlapping word must be either Aardvaak or Avacados. To fit that this other one could be elephant or mammoth. (ok so I'm not terribly good at crosswords ) but the thing is the more overlapping words you get the more sure you are they must be right.

Some of the more outlandish theories, the ones we all have trouble accepting are like that. Too much of it fits together to be complete nonsense. Also some of these theories have applications. So based on a theory someone builds a device like say a DVD player which we all use.

I'm still going to withhold judgement on there being 'no time before the big bang so no need to explain what happened then' I have a lot of trouble with that one.

Onager your dvd point is one I totally get.

How is it all these religious anti science types will happily use a mobile phone (wow, like they are so tiny..and they like enable you to talk to anyone all over the world, gosh that's incredible - so amazing surely it couldn't be invented by simple humans?)

but they don't believe those same scientists when they explain why creationalism etc is impossible.

Its frightening what blind faith does to the thinking part of a person's brain!

Perhaps the answer is closer than we think? within us. Holy books asked the ego the come towards him, instead the ego went the other way. It refuses to accept anything that is perfect, anything that is from dicine source ,it promises to misguide creation. A natural characteristic within us, not to accept. How can we taste if we dont try? to understand the ego we must fast, every religion has this but devils change the reality of such concepts over the years to make it easy. even if one fasts for 12 hours they will see new openings. THe ego feeds fromthe desire of food and opposite sex. The globalmarketing model is based on this. There is less belief now and growing fast, as predicted in the three heavenly religions. Where is the power now for the credit crunch. You give a man amountain of gold, he will ask foranother. again characteristic of the ego. To underatnd it more, we need to train our egos and accept, this way then perhaps spiritual levels will be accept. Servanthood is our purpose to fight the diseases of our hearts, jealousy, backbiting, stealing, adultary, fraud and many others. Does this make sense? Depending on our spirituallevel we may understand this. I have some hard lessons myself and see others as my teachers.