Where did the universe come from?

The origin of this universe from a single point some 13.7 billion years ago (the current estimate) has been calculated by the simple (in principle) process of measuring how far away the furthest observable parts are, plus the rate at which they are moving apart. It is then possible to work out how long it has been since the expansion from a single point began (I know it's more complicated in practice, but that gives the general idea).

I don't know of any cosmologists who disagree with that general picture any more. There is still much work to be done at the quantum physics level in order to sort out some of the basic laws of how the universe functions. However, the rapid rate of increase of human knowledge means that, in principle, a logical explanation for the physical development since the Big Bang of life, the universe and all that, can be found.

Questions concerning what was there before the Big Bang and why it occured are in a different category altogether. As someone has suggested, perhaps humanity will never - can never - know.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

I heard the Hubble can 'see' the edge of the universe.

(Note: I'm a firm creationist but I still love science)

 

In principle, that position is totally contradictory. Science is all about the process of observing physical phenomena and devising logical explanations for what's observed. These explanations are thoroughly and objectively tested by others working in the field before being accepted. The Big Bang theory is a classic case of this; there were other theories around (the Steady State universe) but none of them provided such a logical explanation for the observed state of the universe.

Creationism, OTOH, is all about accepting without question a given "truth", as laid down in whichever Holy Book you choose to believe in. It's the exact opposite of science.

Whether that matters much depends on the type of creationism you believe in. If you are a fundamentalist Christian and believe the literal truth of the Bible, the universe was created around 6,000 years ago. That is totally opposed to science and you can't accept both unless you're deeply schizophrenic. OTOH, if you believe that God created the universe at the moment of the Big Bang, but left everything else to happen by natural processes, that doesn't pose any practical problem, because no-one knows what happened before then anyway.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[quote="Tony Williams]If you are a fundamentalist Christian and believe the literal truth of the Bible, the universe was created around 6,000 years ago.[/quote]

Yep, that's me. Don't accept the Big Bang. I kinda of figured someone would point the contradiction....Of course I can't explain properly without using my hands.. must go work on video for this...bugger.

 

I await your rationalisation with interest, but I don't see what a video has to do with it. Logical argument works for me

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

I mean like how science has proved lots of things in the bible (Quite a lot actually).

I just don't get how we've gone from the belief of the Bible as the only truth (practically medievil times) to 'Bible? Ack! Lies! Lies!' (don't actually know anyone like that, but it seems to be the reactions these days)

 

Could you name some of the many things in the bible which science has proven?

 

Yes.

For a start, the existance of currents in the air and the sea.


The 'Biblical' age of the Universe is, I belive, the work of a Welsh monk from the early Middle Ages. I would like to know the following things:

1) How did he calculate it, as for large swathes of the recorded history no lengths of time are mentioned

2) bearing that in mind, why does anybody still take it seriously?

 

I have studied the Bible (in the dim and distant past) and found it an interesting document for what it reveals about the way people thought in the past. It is clearly a mixture of folk tales, mythology, instruction and some genuine history all mixed together, written by many hands over a long period of time. Separating which elements are mythological and which are historic is where believers and non-believers will always disagree.

To my mind, the sequence of development of religion (which IMO is likely to apply to any intelligent race which is remotely like humanity) goes like this:

1. Intelligent beings become self-aware, start to wonder where they come from.

2. In the absence of any knowledge, they make up stories about where they came from in order to try to explain the existence of life, the universe and all that (you see this in all cultures - the stories are, of course, all different).

3. The best storytellers obtain status and influence in their societies because people like to listen to them, and find their 'explanations' comforting - it gives them a place (usually a central place) in the world.

4. The storytellers start to build up a whole structure of belief, laws etc which helps to establish them as the leaders - the 'priest' class is born.

5. The stories and laws are written down, and obtain the status of 'holy books' which must be believed and obeyed - this happens in many religions (but the books are, of course, different).

6. Successors to the original storytellers - the prophets - start to add more and more laws onto the structure in order to increase their power (a simple example: the Bible says nothing about priests being celibate, or that a Pope will be infallible – or even that we need a Pope at all).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

The Excodus for one. By the same token science has also misproven itself.

the Sun is shrinking, but at the current rate, it would have been touching the surface only a few million years ago, not 100's of millions.

BTW does anyone know why Darwins Theory of Evoulution is being taught as fact in schools when he himself admitted it was only a theory?

 

That would depend on the level of detail you go to. Any of the events contributed to a god was not due to gods, if they took place (simply because there are no gods).

Nonsense.

Who says that it's always been shrinking at its current rate?

This is brought up by a lot of creationinst, and as all those who bring it up, it shows that you don't understand the basic concept of science. Everything in science is theories. Gravity is 'just a theory' too. All evidence collected by biologists, archeologists, geologists, etc. supports evolution.

 

I think you misunderstood. The Hubble is the most powerful telescope humans have ever built (as far as I know - correct me if I'm wrong). Thus it can see further than anything else we have. The oldest light it can still percieve is, for us, in our state of technological development, the "edge" of the universe, though there's no reason to assume that the universe stops where we stop seeing it (unless you're all into existentialism ).

As to why some people currently see the Bible as nothing but lies - they weren't brought up in the belief that it was all true, and have never been persuaded to believe in any of it. Therefore, applying their reason to the material which has no emotional value for them, they consider it untrue. Of course, not everyone who wasn't brought up a Christian considers it all to be nonsense, but not being raised in a religiously tainted environment of any kind really enforces a person's awareness of their logical flaws and utter interchangeability.

 

So since everything is a theory, technically I might not come back down next time I jump really high?

And besides, if a documentary about ancient Egypt narrated by Lenord Nemoy admits the Isrielites (danm spelling!) left...that at least happened (I was thinking about that not the rest of the story)

They admit Abraham and Moses existed.

And as for the Sun thing, the assumption was that it was.


Is it just me or has no one thought about the Law of Entropy? (not the Star Trek version though... )

 

A theory supposes that it is possible that whatever it states might not always be true, in which case the theory must be discarded. All science is based on the idea that it's only true if you can prove that it will always happen the way you say it will. Since you cannot prove that something will always happen in the exact same way, all science is based on theories.

If you can prove that something you drop does not fall, the theory of gravity will have to be revised. Similarly, if someone can prove that living beings do not evolve, the theory of evolution will have to be altered. Such proof does not exist, however.

 

I have written a novel about an alternative WW2. Most of it is fiction, but there are some real facts in there. But anyone who would point to the few facts and say, "there you are, that proves the whole story is true!" would be suffering from a serious logic problem.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

Siberian Black - you seem to be arguing from a hiostorical, not a scientific view. Which is fair enough, Archeology (etc etc) has proved that most/all of the major (and minor) identifiable events chronicled in the Bible did happen. No serious historian would argue against that view.

But no responses to my post? I'm upset.

Tony, we may not agree on much in this issue, but this point we do:

And it pees me right off. I would change 'prophets' to 'theologians' for a more accurate statement, but other than that...

Bloody idiots. A perfectly straighforward relationship with God is put before them, and they start making a political tool out of it. :angry:

 

Let me chime in on this.I find it to be extremely interesting when science gives evidence that something biblical could have happened.

1.Certain crystals have been found on mountains. These particular types of crystal are known to form only under water.This leans toward the possibility of a great flood.

2.The retreat and violent return of water during a tsunami could explain how the Israelites were able to escape the Egyptians.There is more to this theory,but I'll keep it simple.

3.Sodom and Gamorrah are described as two cities within sight of eachother and both are located next to a body of water.The ruins of two cities,within sight of eachother, are found next to a dry lakebed approximately where the Bible says Sodom and Gamorrah were located.

Any thoughts?

 

I don't think that anyone argues against the proposition that some of the historical tales in the Old Testament have a basis of truth. The problem is that these were passed down orally via many generations of storytellers (and inevitably embellished along the way, to make a better story) before they were written down.

As far as the Biblical flood is concerned, that one has been fairly well sorted. There was a huge flood affecting what is now the Black Sea several thousands of years ago, when the land barrier separating that sea from the Mediterranean was breached (the breach now forms the Bosphorus, running through Istanbul). At that time the Black Sea was far lower than the Med, due to evaporation, so the flood caused a huge rise in the level of the Sea over a period of a few months. There is plenty of evidence for this.

Everyone living around the Black Sea would have been driven to higher land. Some will have been caught on land which quickly became an island. As the island became smaller they would have had a stark choice: stay and drown, or move. It's not hard to imagine them desperately cutting down trees to make a raft, and piling all of their possessions - including domestic animals - onto it, before paddling to safety.

Such a dramatic story would of course have been passed down from generation to generation, becoming embellished on the way. So a big flood became one which covered the world, the raft became an ark, the animals became all animals.

The story of the flood doesn't actually originate in the Bible - it turns up in other stories from cultures in that part of the world, in even earlier accounts. There's no doubt it happened - but the tale of Noah in the Bible is perhaps 10% fact, 90% fiction.

However, you don't need such a flood to account for water features at the top of mountains. That happened because of changes in the Earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years, with some parts of what had been sea bed being forced up into mountains. The top of Mount Everest is made of sedimentary rock, originally laid down on a sea floor. Google for "Plate Tectonics" to get an explanation.

You may be right about the tsunami permitting passage across a sea bed, although they'd have to get one heck of a move on - the period of opportunity would be measured in minutes rather than hours.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[quote="Roel]Such proof does not exist, however.[/quote]

By the same token there isn't exactly solid proof of that fact.

 

No, but there's a great deal of very solid evidence for the evolution of life, in terms of the fossil record.

OTOH there is no proof whatsover for any alternative theory to evolution, except for a very old book full of stories made up by people who did not have the benefit of the knowledge we have. And that does not constitute any sort of scientific evidence.

SB, I suggest that you read through THIS

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum