Everyone Is Wrong: The Big Bang
Then buzz it up
May 2nd, 2006 at 12:00 by Shawn Lindseth
Science doesn't enjoy being wrong, but it should, as it happens all the time. Remember when the Earth was flat? Sure, you could argue that that's from an old uneducated science - or mockery of science depending how critical you'd like to get, but you get our point.
The same thing still goes on today - take for instance, the Big Bang Theory. From whence sprang the universe is a difficult question indeed. What drives us nuts is that instead of giving an always honorable and forthright "I don't know," we get a theory some quack dreamed up while scrubbing his nethers in a bubble bath.
All indicators seem to point to The Big Bang Theory being wrong, or at least extremely incomplete.
The Big Bang Theory stems from scientists noticing that the universe seems to be expanding from a central point - and at a rapid pace. This is implying that everything was thrust outward by one big and powerful force - i.e. the Big Bang.
Something exploded, a cloud of gases, an atom, whatever… it's not relevant - it's supposed to have been the kick start of evolution. What we want to know is what was around before that gigantic universal clap. The theory fails to answer that.
The fact is there's no such thing as nothing - it's an impossibility. Bare minimum you'd have a big empty space, but that's still something. That being true, something has must have always existed - always. What exactly we can't tell you, but it has to be true. Something must have made those gases, atoms, vast arrays of molotov cocktails… or whatever it was that caused that explosion.
If something always has existed, then we can plausibly extrapolate it further by saying something will always exist. Sure, eventually our sun will expand, swallowing our sweet blue planet (Don't worry, hecklerspray has a spaceship - sorry it's a two seater), and that may spell the end for Earth, but not the end of all. Even if every living thing in the universe came to a screeching halt, and all matter evaporated to nothing, we'd still have a big black vacuum - and that's still something.
Stupid Science. Thanks for the cars, instant oatmeal and dog shock collars, but leave everything else the hell alone. If you would please. Sir.
Science: 0, Entertainment Blog: 1
[story by Shawn Lindseth]
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:19 am
One possibility put forward by those same “quacks” is that there could have been a universe just like this one, prior to the big bang. As you know the universe is expanding, but it’s also slowing down. What happens when it stops expanding? Gravity will start to pull it in, faster and faster. Then after a few million million years it will all smash into a big lump in the middle. Now that’s a lot of energy. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that we will then get another “big bang”.
This is all fairly basic stuff which anyone with a feeble grasp of science will know. So I don’t really see the point of this article.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Yeah, but what was before the first expanding - contracting universe, and what is it currently expanding into? Ponderous, man.
May 4th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Who knows. Maybe our Universe exists amongst the fluff and sweet wrappers kicking around in a massive blazer pocket. Or we are just a science project for some spotty faced higher being trying to get gook marks in his “Create a universe etc” coursework.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
I find it largely hilarious that a site that launches various adhomenin attacks against celebrities vis a vis their relative ignorance should publish something this trite and full of undeserved pride. Shawn, put the computer down before you accidentally ingest it, and go back to bricklaying or sports reporting.
“but you get our point.”
Your respective hats cover them well. Science is _all_ about being wrong, which is why it tends to move towards being right through hypothesis, experimentation and peer review. Your example of the world being flat was a religious argument that placed the holy land at the centre of the universe and ignored the sterling work done by the greeks in proving curvature. I probably should point out that Religion is the thing that mucks about churches, science is the one that deals with universities.
“I don’t know,” we get a theory some quack dreamed up while while scrubbing his nethers in a bubble bath.”
Better than the incurious toejam served up as commentary from someone that doesn’t even seem that interested in the subject that they’re writing on.
“All indicators seem to point to The Big Bang Theory being wrong, or at least extremely incomplete.”
Really? You don’t seem to actually mention any. There is the instant before Planck time, roughly 10^-64 (0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000064) seconds after the big bang being a bit of a mystery, but that’s not a bad considering you’re working on inference from the COBE satellite and a few billion years of trajectory.
“it’s supposed to have been the kick start of evolution”
No, that was the binding of amino acids that was widely acknowledged to be the beginning of life, evolution being a biological process. You might be mixing it up with ‘the universe’. No, the mouse does not taste nice, put it down.
“The fact is there’s no such thing as nothing - it’s an impossibility.”
No, it’s an absence of ’something’. Although many people fail to consider that the current universe is a see of baryons popping into and out of existence and thereby providing space with dimensions, there is a place beyond the expanding wavefront of the universe that could probably be darned close to ‘nothing’. There’s also the spaces between the quanta that comes close to being nothing, but on extremely small scales.
“If something always has existed, then we can plausibly extrapolate it further by saying something will always exist.”
Religious argument that assumes longevity through no critical mechanism. You’re hiding behind ‘always’ as a weasel word.
“Even if every living thing in the universe came to a screeching halt, and all matter evaporated to nothing, we’d still have a big black vacuum - and that’s still something.”
Look up ‘Absolute Zero’. You’ll find it in an encyclopedia.
February 12th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
you go, another James! right behind you!
August 20th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Before writing about something it’s advisable to understand it, don’t you think? Which step was unfortunately not taken in the creation of this article.
>> “the universe seems to be expanding from a central point”
Well, no it doesn’t. There is no special point.
>> “it’s supposed to have been the kick start of evolution.”
Well, no it wasn’t.
>> “The theory fails to answer that.”
It also fails to answer who won the 1982 World Cup, and many other questions that are outside its scope. So what?
>> “something has must have always existed - always.”
This is really funny. You start out mocking people who assumed the Earth was flat, and you end up assuming that spacetime is flat. What makes you think there was a time before the Big Bang?
September 5th, 2007 at 3:11 am
The big bang discussion IS relevent. Much more so than who won the World Cup in 1982. Whether we think there is a God or not will determine how we order our lives. If there is a big bang, there is no need for a God to have created everything. Which, I think, is the purpose for proposing that there actually WAS a big bang. The big bang has many assumptions, little proof (primarily mathematic and computer scenrios), and no emphirical science. Pretty bold statement. Actually Joseph Silk in his definitative book on “The Big Bang” (now in it’s 3rd edition) left many unanswered questions. In Steven Weinberg’s book, “The first three minutes,” he assumes the initial explosion of the original “singularity.” These well qualified expert s do not have the answer to what caused the original singularity to begin it’s outward expansion. Actually, the singularity without time, space, matter, and only energy is the definition of a thermal death. The original singularity could not have produced anything. And then there is the “rate” of the the explosion (that had no cause). The outward expansion had to have been exactly perfect just like Goldylocks: too fast and nothing would have stopped the expansion, and too slow and the expansion would have collapsed on itself. Then there is the problem of “clumping.” The expanding debris of dust, energy, and gas could never clump. It would have continued its outward shockwave flow forever. Only kilometer size material has enough mass to collect other matter and overcome wind shear. And then there is the problem stellar evolution: Type II population stars consist of hydrogen and helium with a little of deuterium and lithium. Then they explode and recoalesce into type II stars, which explode and recollect into type I stars. But, have you ever been told that no one has ever seen a type III star? NONE EXIST! But they must in order for the big bamg to work. There are very few type II stars in our galaxy with the vast majority type I. Then ther is the problem of chemical evolution. But for natural selection to work, you must have a living organism to select. How did the 20 amino acids collect into polypeptides. Did you know that 19 of the 20 amino acids form mirror image arrangements? But in life, be it plant, animal, bacteria, or virus ONLY L-amino acids are used? If only 1 D-amino acid (right hand) is substituted in the string of assembled amino acids, the protein will not function. That’s how we get “Sweet & Low” a right handed amino acid is used and our body simply flushes out the entire protein string. In order to Hook up the amino acids, a water molecule is released. But, evolutionists attempt to use a “primordal soup” like ocean for these acids to form in. But, the water would break them appart as quick as they would form. Stanley Miller and later experimenters have been able to synthesize only 10 or 12 amino acids in their apparatus. The others can be made ONLY with bio-reagents in the labratory. Actually, cytosine has never been synthesized in the labratory. But, if these can only be made in the labratory, isn’t that actually Intelligent Design? Hemoglobin requires 206 amino acids in the correct order. If only 1 of these are substituted for another, sicle cell anemia results. Human DNA requires 3 billion pair of nucleotides. The limit of probabillity (actually possibility) is reached before 86,000 nucleotide pair are randomly selected. That is 10 to the 150 power (the number of estimated atms in the universe X the number of calculated seconds since the big bang). We are either the random, chance result of a cosmic accident with no puropse, no reason to exist, and no future, OR God made us in His image, we have a reason to be hers on planet earth, and we will, some day, be held accountable to our Maker. I have 120 excellent books on Creationism. many are technical tomes by Ph.D’s; nmany are readable and reasonable. Don’t take my word on it; search out the truth for yourself. whitely@catt.com
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Hi Gerald, we seem to be alone here, but I’m always glad to explain things to those with a thirst for knowledge. So I’ll answer your points:
>> If there is a big bang, there is no need for a God to have created everything. Which, I think, is the purpose for proposing that there actually WAS a big bang
No, Gerald, please be fair. The reason for proposing it was to explain all the weird funky stuff that we can see in the sky.
As you know, Gerald, other people have explained the stuff, long ago, with a story about “god”. And you, Gerald, seem to be happy with that story.
But these “scientist” people are playing by different rules to you, Gerald; they won’t accept a story unless it makes “testable predictions”. The God story is charming, but it doesn’t make any predictions that can be tested. To speak bluntly, Gerald, you can’t DO anything with the God story.
>> The big bang has many assumptions, little proof
Gerald, Gerald, scientific theories are never proved; they can only be disproved. You ought to know that! I mean, here you are lecturing us about the Big Bang, so surely you understand the basics of Science?
You know, Gerald, it’s dishonest to lecture about subjects that you don’t understand. It’s called ‘bluffing’. Does your god approve of Dishonesty?
>> for natural selection to work
Gerald, Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. It’s a totally different branch of science… different books, different people, different institutes. Why are you linking them? What have they possibly got to do with each other?
It is because they both disagree with the Bible? I think you’re bluffing again, Gerald. I’m wagging a finger at you.
>> We are either the random, chance result of a cosmic accident with no puropse, no reason to exist, and no future, OR God made us in His image
So we have only 2 options, Gerald? Are there no other possibilities? If not why not?
For example, could we be created by aliens, or by some other god or goddess - not your one? There are SO many gods in human legends, that I lose track of them…
What’s that, Gerald? You think these other ‘pagan’ gods don’t exist? Well, here’s an invigorating mental exercise guaranteed to improve your brain power: tell me why YOUR god should exist, if these OTHER ones do not.
October 6th, 2007 at 4:10 am
Dear Mr. David (and others who might read, but not respond),
Thank you for taking me to school on several points. But when you come to school, remember your books. Look up at my posting and look back to your posting and see who used facts and who used opinion. Opinions are fine, but in your words, they are not science. I can accept belittleing, but it shows you have a weak position.
Actually, there are only 2 choices: either God made it all or He did not. The alien angle is not actually a third, as it only removes the origins discussion to some planet long, long ago and far, far away. Sound familiar? Francis Crick realizing that DNA was so complex that it could not have evolved, suggested Panspermia - alien seeding of earth. Sounds rather farfetched for a true brain.
Please list some of the “weird, funky stuff in the sky” that is better explained by the Big Bang. I listed several observations (real science again) that the Big Bang cannot account for. I realize that no theory explains everything, but a working theory should, at least, explain the major points. Again, the Big Bang does not explain the actual beginning of the universe and galaxy formation (lumpiness). If it doen’t accomplish these 2 points, it’s not much of a theory.
Please list for me what you know for sure about evolution. Facts only, please. Please correct my naive ignorance.
Gerald Whitely
whitely@ catt.com
October 12th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Gerald:
My goodness, you’re still here! And so am I!
>> Please list for me what you know for sure about evolution. Facts only, please.
Gerald, I don’t have the time. You could maybe read the works of people who get paid to explain it?
>> Please correct my naive ignorance.
Glad to, Gerald!
>> “The limit of probabillity is reached before 86,000 nucleotide pair are randomly selected”
Hmm… how do you know the probabilities? I’m sure that a full simulation of this molecule is beyond the computing capability of the human race… we simply can’t figure out the probabilities. How did *you* manage it?
>> “The others can be made ONLY with bio-reagents in the labratory. ”
Hmm.. “only in the laboratory”. How do you know that? Are you much older than I thought, Gerald? Have you been wandering around for billions of years, examining each chemical environment that this planet has ever produced? Because only then could you truthfully write that sentence.
>> There are only 2 choices: either God made it all or He did not.
>> The alien angle is not actually a third
You’re right - the ‘alien’ suggestion simply moves the question of the origin of life, does not answer it. But your other assertion rests on huge, shaky assumptions. Why do you think that a god exists? And why only one god? I asked you this before, Gerald.
>> Francis Crick realizing that DNA was so complex that it could not have evolved
I don’t see how that could make any sense, Gerald… why should there be a limit to complexity? Maybe you can refer me to Mr. Crick’s explanation?
And is the same Crick who said “Creation-science simply has no place in the public-school science classroom”?
>> Please list some of the “weird, funky stuff in the sky” that is better explained by the Big Bang.
Gerald, I’m sorry but I can’t. The “god” explanation is the BEST explanation. Theories of neutron stars, glaxies etc. are incomplete, messy and thousand of pages long… mere works-in-progress… whereas the “god explanation” is complete, simple, and elegant! It can be written down in a single line! Here, I will write it out, just to admire its beauty:
“GOD MADE IT”
Wow! What a wonderfully elegant explanation for absolutely everything!
Except for two little problems:
[a] it’s not a scientific theory, hence we can’t use it for anything
[b] the complete lack of evidence that this GOD fellow really exists.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Dear Mr. David and others,
Again, you have dodged the issue. When you say, “I don’t have time to list all the evidences of evolution,” you are actually saying, “I really don’t have ANY examples of evolution, so for a smoke screen, I’ll just say that I don’t have time to list all the examples of evolution.” Please, I have plenty of time, and you have plenty of time. Just list me ONE example of evolution that you know for sure. If you don’t, we’ll both know that you are bluffing.
You took me to task on the probability of DNA evolving randomly. I have actually done the math. Have you? There are only 4 base nucleotides in DNA, a polypeptide of 3 BILLION base pairs, ALL of which must be written perfectly in order to function. Let me lead you through: 4X 4 X 4 … = 4! which is 4 to the 86,000 power =10 to the 150 power, which is the commonly accepted limit of probability (actually the limit of possibility). We have reached impossibility at 86,000 nucleotides, EXTREMELY before 3 billion!
Actually, Mycoplasma genitalium is the simplest free-living organism. It has only 1 chromosome with 470 genes, which contain 1,040 nucleotide base pairs. Using 3 nucleotides for each codon, the average size protein coded for by these genes contains about 347 amino acids. The probability of forming, by random assembly method, ONE such average size protein containing the amino acid residues in a required sequence is 1 in 10 to the 451 power! Again, well below 10 to the 150 power.
I suggest that not everything in our world has a naturalistic explanation. Some things are obviously made by a Superior Intelligece. For example, If we found a body on the sidewalk, we might forensically begin to look for a cause of death. We may suspect Anthrax, or Ebola, or draw blood for a lab work-up. But if we see a knife sticking in the back of the body, our time might be better used looking for a PERSON.
Our world is too complex to have evolved; we need to be looking for a source of knowledge and information that is extremely higher than all of the organization that we see in the body of scientific observations. David, I am compelled to believe that there is a God. What is your take on the facts?
Gerald Whitely
whitely@catt.com
November 7th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
gerald,
You have made some very rational points, when you look at the intricacy of the universe from the micro to the macro, you can only wonder at the creator of such a thing. Even if you can’t bring yourself to say the words “i believe in god” you can appreciate that whatever did create us and the sublime precision of the universe and its constants, you have to say that whatever did create it is way beyond our imagination. I am muslim, so i will give you my view - obviously the Islamic view.
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
(Al-Anbiya 21:30)
This is one of the many miracles of the quran, which i believe along with 1 billion others is as constant as these laws which make our universe. It was revealed 1428 years ago to an illiterate desert arab. I urge you to find an arab or go to islamic sites to check it out. ( anti islamic sites do try to alter the words, but we have the first quran, we have version control )
the quran said this 1400 years ago.
In more direct answer to your last comments, I think there was something before this big bang. Allah is eternal. Allah being arabic for the singular almighty creator.
We dont believe that the universe is eternal because testable evidence is to the contrary. Everything is finite, no matter how large the number or how difficult to imagine with our relativly inept brains. Also the very crux of monotheism is Islam and in islam science is embraced as proof of creation and creator.
Unfortunately Modern science is having its brain amputated, as we refer to the creation as “mother nature” and fail to refer science to the creation, instead of the creation to science.
We are missing the point: that if we can prove big bang ( which i believe we will as the quran suggests this
) we cant then decapitate ourselves scientifically again and say “that means there must be no God” because the very nature of an “impossible to imagine amount of mass in a point of zero volume” then exploding and instead of absolute destruction creates absolute perfection only really points to one thing doesn’t it.
The next step once we realise that there must be a creator is “what does he want with me”? How come we can have a profound discussion about the origin of everything? And surely there must be a communication by this being otherwise this whole creation and this whole discussion would have been created for no good reason, which is as illogical as it gets.
Does it have anything to do with us? Is there evidence of a message? What are the implications if there is? How do we ind out the truth?
These questions i believe are as within our grasp as the conquering of the science o the physical aspect of the creation of the universe. I think they are bound together.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Dear Mr. John,
Thank you for your kind comments. Obviously, you are approaching the question of the Big Bang as I do: There must be an Intelligent Designer. In my discussions with Mr. David, I intentionally minimized the name of God. As a scientist (actually, a layman with a scientific bent), we should approach the question of origins from a logical standpoint. I sincerely do believe in God, but in the scientific discussions, that belief comes after we have exhausted the natural explanations. At the end of our naturalistic quest for answers to origins, we come up empty, therefore, there must be a God.
It is interesting that the Qur’an states that Allah sent us the truth by the law (Moses) and by the Gospel (of Jesus) to guide mankind. Surah 3:2-4 Actually, all Muslims are commanded to read and believe in the Injeel (the Gospel of Jesus). Surah 2:136 and Surah 57:27 True Christians are actually friends to Muslims. Surah 5:82 Christians must judge all revelation by the Injeel. Surah 5:47, 68 Many imams teach that Moses was corrupted, so God sent Jesus. Then the Gospel of Jesus was corrupted, so God sent the Qur’an, which is incorruptible. However, as you can see, the Qur’an never makes such a claim.
Please read the above verses for yourself and see what they truly say. Then read the Gospel of Jesus (Injeel) and see what it truly says.
I have found, in you, John, a resonant opinion as to the Big Bang.
What about you, David?
Gerald Whitely
whitely@catt.com
November 14th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Hi Gerald,
I have to say, your explanation of these verses are a little biased!!!
3:2-4
(2) He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel. (3) Aforetime, for a guidance to mankind; and hath revealed the Criterion of right and wrong. Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. Allah is Mighty, Able to Requite (the wrong).
The meaning here is that all muslims have to believe in the torah an injeel but we follow the quran in truth. muhanmed said “if moses were here today he would only follow me”
Allah wants us to be true to all the messengers, not pick one and call him god… may allah save us from this.
2:136-137 ( you need 137 to understand 136 fully)
Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered. (136) And if they believe in the like of that which ye believe, then are they rightly guided. But if they turn away, then are they in schism, and Allah will suffice thee (for defence) against them. He is the Hearer, the Knower. (137)
57 : 26-29 (again 1 verse isnt enough, this is a dangerous way of quoting quran)
Then, We sent after them, Our Messengers, and We sent ‘Īsā (Jesus) son of Maryam (Mary), and gave him the Injeel (Gospel). And We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him, compassion and mercy. But the monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them, but (they sought it) only to please Allâh therewith, but they did not observe it with the right observance. So We gave those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are Fâsiqûn (rebellious, disobedient to Allâh). (27) O you who believe [in Mûsa (Moses) (i.e. Jews) and 'Īsā (Jesus) (i.e. Christians)]! Fear Allâh, and believe in His Messenger (Muhammad SAW), He will give you a double portion of His Mercy, and He will give you a light by which you shall walk (straight), and He will forgive you. And Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.[] (28) So that the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) may know that they have no power whatsoever over the Grace of Allâh, and that (His) Grace is (entirely) in His Hand to bestow it on whomsoever He wills. And Allâh is the Owner of Great Bounty. (29)
5:82 ( there is no indication of your explanation in these verses… )
Verily, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Al-Mushrikûn (idolators), and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: “We are Christians.” That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud. (82) And when they (who call themselves Christians) listen to what has been sent down to the Messenger (Muhammad SAW), you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of the truth they have recognised. They say: “Our Lord! We believe; so write us down among the witnesses. (83) “And why should we not believe in Allâh and in that which has come to us of the truth (Islâmic Monotheism)? And we wish that our Lord will admit us (in Paradise on the Day of Resurrection) along with the righteous people”(84) So because of what they said, Allâh rewarded them Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise), they will abide therein forever. Such is the reward of Al-Muhsinûn (the good-doers).
5:68
Say (O Muhammad SAW) “O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! You have nothing (as regards guidance) till you act according to the Taurât (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel), and what has (now) been sent down to you from your Lord (the Qur’ân).” Verily, that which has been sent down to you (Muhammad SAW) from your Lord increases in most of them (their) obstinate rebellion and disbelief. So be not sorrowful over the people who disbelieve. (68)
Obviously the true gospel is simply not here today. Also the torah has been all but replaced by the thamud, which is another altogether manmade scripture. In another verse allah says :
“But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them (Jews and Christians) and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others). (The Noble Quran, 5:13)”
Allah knows what is in the hearts.
I have read the bible twice and found major discrepancies in the message, language, and cannot in my right mind attribute that to allah. based on our scientiic methodology of arriving at truth of god, i could not accept a religion which was based on a faulty document.
Which is why, as i said allah gave us the quran and promised to protect it, and promised muhammad as the seal of the prophets. The verses you pointed out are points of interfaith dialogue between the jews and christians of the time and muhammad. they are just as relevant as today!
Due to the prominence of Islam in todays society as an “evil ideology” we get many websites such as “answering islam” all over the web. This is natural. Any system which takes the power away from man and gives it back to god will get this kind of propganda.
Here is a link to a website which is very nice, and has authentic translation of quran: http://www.quranexplorer.com - surat mary - 19 may be interesting
also a link to a talk by a muslim scholar - i think you will be impressed at the level of it:
http://www.aswatalislam.net/DisplayFilesP.aspx?TitleID=2032&TitleName=Khalid_Yaseen
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:02 am
I have read the Bible through at least once each year for the past 30 years and have not found the errors that you say exist. Please list them for me. Actually, the Jewish scribes went to extreme pains to insure that the texts were copied exactly. Each of the scribes who copied the Torah did so with demanding and extraordinary precision. With the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, the scrolls of the 5 books of Moses have been brought back from the various communities thousands of miles apart, separated for thousands of years! The scrolls brought from Poland and Germany during the holocaust were compared with those brought from Yemen, which were taken there during the destruction of the Temple in 586 B.C. Each were identical, containing exactly 304,805 letters! The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in the last century, have verified other texts as well.
The Bible itself claims to be the inspired word of God, and not just the word of men. II Timothy 3:16 The Bible itself says that every word is pure. Proverbs 30:5 It is not the word of men, but Holy men wrote the words that God himself told them to write. II Peter 1:21 The Bible claims that the only way to heaven (salvation) is through the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ. Acts 4:12 The Apostle Paul reminded the church at Galatia that Jesus Christ was the only way to heaven, and that even if an angel were to come down and preach to them another gospel, he should not be believed, but be accursed. Galatians 1:6-9
Mr. John, I do not want to argue religion with you; this is about the Big Bang and Evolution. Thank you for agreeing with me on these two topics. But, your decision on Jesus Christ is paramount. That will decide where you will spend eternity.
Gerald Whitely
whitely@catt.com
January 5th, 2008 at 5:20 am
Hi. Even though everyone seems to conflict with Mr. Lindseth, I am convinced that he is right. I am studying astrophysics in England. Once my teacher told me that when some scientists say ‘no’ to your questions, in majority, their theories cannot handle them. This is not a problem that some ideas are not in the domain of their theories i.e., World Cup has no link with Big Bang, but just because their theories cannot solve them Big Bang has to explain why we all are here in the first place to be able to play and see the World Cup.
Because frankly speaking, I too have no answer to any of the points of Mr. Lindseth though I can explain through Inflation, Quantum Gravity, Relativity, and so on but I myself is not satisfied with the answers. Only thing I would like to mention and which is the only hope for me is as following:
‘Say: There is One God. He is Eternel and Absolute. Nothing gave birth to Him and Nothing is born out of Him which is like Him. And, There is Nothing like Him’. The Holy Qurran. I believe that circumstances around the primvel subatomic particle of our Universe which Mr. Lindseth said is the same God. No flight of imagination can comprehend Him and yet He is everywhere.
Though Mr. Lindseth may not be knowing that but this is the only answer which the Creator of the Universe Himself gave. This is authentic and human knowledge is no more than a conjecture.
Thanks
January 21st, 2008 at 10:21 am
hi this will be my first and last post here but to argue the point a theory is jsut a theory unless proven wroung but to let you all know im in class 101 and yet nothing can be answered or be denyed because right has we are speaking we are killing a different universe and killing in we are not standing still and i do belive in the big bang theory because you all see exploding stars in the sky every time if you check out the net for expolding stars you will see what im talking about also check out nasa and you will find alot but theorys in High schools are always proven wroung thats way theres steps you gotta take so for mister Gerald i think he needs 2 brush off his books and head to dummy’s 101 if anyone wnats to talk to me (Gerald) contact my email at darkclow@gmail.com i know everything about this stuff has i get 100% in my class and also in my debate i have won it 10 years straight in my school an undefeated if you have the guts to take me on email me
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:59 am
“Again, you have dodged the issue. When you say, “I don’t have time to list all the evidences of evolution,” you are actually saying, “I really don’t have ANY examples of evolution, …”
Well, the evolution of the flu virus (which happens many times a year), requiring a re-working of the flu vaccine is ONE piece of evidence for evolution. The evidence for evolution fills many many books. (As you know but pretend not to know.)
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
> We are either the random, chance result of a cosmic accident with no puropse, no reason to exist, and no future, OR God made us in His image, we have a reason to be hers on planet earth, and we will, some day, be held accountable to our Maker.
Why the false dichotomies, why not both? Perhaps there is a God as is described in Christian literature, and perhaps the Big Bang was His vehicle for our creation.
> Human DNA requires 3 billion pair of nucleotides. The limit of probabillity (actually possibility) is reached before 86,000 nucleotide pair are randomly selected.
It is not assumed that 3 billion nucleotide pairs occurred from any single “attempt” no more than a BMW could have been made from a single “attempt” (i.e. building upon existing information). Hence disproving by saying human evolution as a whole surpasses the limit of possibility is not quite valid.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Another James, perhaps you are the one who should be looking up “absolute zero” in the encyclopedia since it has absolutely nothing to do with your argument. If anything it contradicts you. Absolute zero is yes, just a theory but it is impossible to be reached since it cannot be connected to nothing therefore there will always be some degree of warmth no matter how close it is to Absolute zero.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Dear Mr. Jim,
The “mutating” flu virus is a misnomer. Viruses are not viable without a host to live inside of. (prepositions are not to end a sentence with.) They need a host cell to invade, hijacking its DNA and using it to trick the host organism into believing that the virus is really a dividing “friendly” cell. The “mutating” virus, therefore, is not really mutating in the sense of changing into a new organism. Now if a cat mutated into a dog, well that would be news. But there has never been, nor ever will be, a “dat” (or a “cog” if you prefer). 10 times in Genesis 1 God commanded life to reproduce “after its own kind.” The stasis of the unique organisms is science. Dark or light varieties of the peppered moth may change population numbers, but they are still all peppered moths. None of them have mutated into a new butterfly. There is variety within a “kind,” such as with varieties of dogs or horses, but these varieties are only the random recombination of the existing DNA through sexual reproduction. No new information has been added to the canine genome when we produce a “new” breed of a dog. Also, bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics are not mutating; the “healthy” bacteria have been killed off by the antibiotics, leaving only the weak bacteria to proliferate, which cannot process the antibiotic enzymes, and are therefore immune to the antibiotics. Again, only a population shift, not evolution. There is no proof for evolution. No true science, only philosophy.
Gerald Whitely@catt.com
April 8th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
First let me respond to Gerald Whitely who rejects changes in the flu virus as evidence of evolution. He basically claims that changes in the DNA can produce differences in a species but never a different species.
I wonder if he acknowledges that most of the plants and animals which once lived on this Earth are extinct. If so, does he imagine that all of the species currently found on the Earth also lived side by side with the dinosaurs?
If yes, I can only smile at the twists and turns a mind can take to avoid reality.
If no, then that is proof of evolution. Sadly, for you, your argument by definition does not apply to the Earth we live on.
The basic argument against the big bang comes from this claim: “The fact is there’s no such thing as nothing - it’s an impossibility.”
I can prove that “nothing” does in fact exist. I will prove it by comparing the universe we live in with one in which “nothing” was impossible.
The “no nothing” premise means that there is something (i.e, empty space) for infinity in every direction. That is a possible universe (btw) but it is not one we live in. The universe we live in contains gravity. And gravity bends space. This bending creates a shaped universe. That is what we have. Not a flat universe going on forever in every direction.
Because of the shape of the universe, we can postulate a point (and give it mathematical coordinates) which is not inside our shaped space. You may claim that that point “exists” if you want.
But, given the law of gravity and the distribution of mass, there is no way anything (not even light) can go to that point. It is truly nothing.
In other words, although it is very large, our universe is finite (according to quite a bit of excellent evidence).
April 8th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
I’m not that bothered about whether the universe is finite, or what the definition of absolute zero is, etc etc.
I’m more interested in the debate over on that World’s Biggest Penis article.
Is this normal?
April 8th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
It’s all Big Bang for you JP, isn’t it?
Incidentally, Absolute Zero is the wrong
thing to look up to prove the point of a universe in
eternal flux - Heat Death is the correct one. Enjoy!
April 8th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
With all these intellect-types replying to each other’s posts on this topic seems to prove the Big Gang-Bang Theory, doesn’t it?
April 8th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
“Also, bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics are not mutating; the “healthy” bacteria have been killed off by the antibiotics, leaving only the weak bacteria to proliferate, which cannot process the antibiotic enzymes, and are therefore immune to the antibiotics.”
This is absolutely the most retarded misunderstanding of microevolution promulgated as fact I have ever seen. Congratulations, you incredible moron.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Dear Mr. Jim,
The fact of extinct organisms does not prove nor explain evolution. They just died out. The fact of “extinct organisms” does not prove that they evolved into us. That is assuming evolution and mere circular reasoning. We are here, they are extinct, therefore we evolved from them. Come on Mr. Jim, that is not science. Observe and measure: who was there to observe this evolution? If they were there, where is their record? Oh wait a minute, that’s called the Bible and the observer is called God. But then we must reject God out of hand, we must have only a naturalistic solution to incredibly complex systems and structures. May be Mt. Rushmore is the product of erosion? What about the tooth fairy? A complex structure with details and design must have a Designer greater and more complex than that structure itself. DNA and galaxies scream that there must be a God. Check out Ben Stein’s new movie, “Expelled” that is out today.
Let’s separate science from philosophy. I admit that I believe the Bible by faith; but you should admit that you believe evolution by faith as well.
Euclid is right, we are headed for a heat death. II Peter 3:10 says, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” Sounds like thermonuclear meltdown – predicted 2,000 years ago.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
wo wo wo wo wait a minute here.
Heat death and Jesus stink are two very separate and distinct
categories of thought in my universe.
“A complex structure with details and design must have a Designer greater and more complex than that structure itself.”
Ever hear of entropy? Complex structures tend toward more complex structures.
So when you die the great complexity that is your living organism and all the microorganisms that it is host to will fall into a state of decay, at which point they
will be rendered more complex. Disagree? Try putting someone dead for
a few years back together.
Oh, never mind. You and this whole Creationist reality-averse flat earth stupidity
are beyond merely tedious. You are aggressively tedious. If you want
to be a bore, please go right on ahead, but do us all a favor and keep it to your own.
April 13th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Dear Euclid,
wo wo wo wo; now you wait a minute. You are using the bait and switch tactics of a used car salesman, not the facts of a scientist. Your statement that complex organisms give rise to more complex organisms is not entropy, nor evolution. It is fiction.
First of all, the law of entropy states that systems tend towards less and less usable energy. By correlation, systems tend towards disorder, not more order. When I pull up a radish and eat it, we are not witnessing the radish evolving into a human; you’ve got to be kidding! The radish goes from being a growing, complex organism to being nothing but food for a more complex organism. You are saying that is evolution?! Or entropy?! Your organization into a more complex organization is only possible by the cellular machinery of digestion, assimilation, cellular transportation, cellular respiration, and mitochondrial action, and only possible because of the instructions of DNA that are evident, not increasing. Secondly, there has never been one single account of information added to any genome, only recombination (sexually) of pre-existing DNA information into novel organisms. Please correct me. The stasis of the genome is a fact. Again, please correct me. Radishes remain radishes; Euclids remain Euclids. If a few finch beaks change a little in the Galapagos Islands, that’s not evolution. Show me a finch turning into a giant tortoise and I’ll be Euclid junior.
Give me some facts; take me to school. But please remember to bring your books, not just opinions.