Big Bang - Still Speculation

[Underseer]

Argh! We don't have a TABLE tag implemented yet on this forum? Gah!

Big Bang Theory		Creation Theory
Produces predictions about the movement of galaxies, predictions that rely on  fine tuning of existing theories with additional entities		Predicts the movement of galaxies is meaningful, beautiful, powerful, ordered, and graceful
Produces predictions about the strength and frequency of the cosmic background microwave radiation, some of which do not match what is observed		Predicts that there should be some indication of intent in the CMB, and there should be some indication of some violation of the Copernican principle, and coincidentally there is, although it may be due to foreground contamination
Produces predictions about the large scale structure of the universe (where galaxies are and where galaxies aren't)		Predicts that the universe evolves according to rules, and conscious choice about when and where to follow the rules
Has to be fine tuned, theories it depends upon have numerous problems including the  vacuum catastrophe		Only postulates a creator, constantly has to accommodate knew knowledge acquired, just like the BB theory
Hadron asymmetry problem (perhaps due to antimatter having gravitational repulsion rather than attraction)		Decision to select one form of charge distribution over another, manifested as a natural law

Talking snake...

Thanks for showing me wrong about the TABLE tag.

Predicts the movement of galaxies is meaningful, beautiful, powerful, ordered, and graceful

You don't seem to understand the standard here. Using the Big Bang Theory, we can predict the motion of galaxies. In order to replace the Big Bang Theory, the Talking Snake Theory of Creation would have to produce more accurate predictions than the Big Bang Theory, and "galaxies move, an' ah shore thank that iz purdy!" doesn't get you there.

Your comment about fine tuning also does not cause the Talking Snake theory to produce better predictions about the motion of galaxies, but it does tell us something important that you think it could, and it also shows that you think holes in the ground are shaped to fit the puddles that form in them, rather than that that the shape of the water conforms to fit the hole.

some of which do not match what is observed

See? There's room for improvement. If you can show that creation theory can explain these few details that the big bang theory cannot, you will demonstrate that creation theory fits the evidence better. Got anything?

Predicts that there should be some indication of intent in the CMB, and there should be some indication of some violation of the Copernican principle, and coincidentally there is, although it may be due to foreground contamination

Again, you don't seem to understand the standard. Creation theory needs to produce more accurate predictions than the Big Bang theory about the cosmic background microwave radiation (e.g. strength, frequency, direction). Not one single thing you said here does that. In fact, you have not demonstrated how creation theory can be used to produce any predictions about the cosmic background radiation at all in any meaningful sense. The fact that you even mention Copernican theory suggest that you either don't actually understand the conversation we are having.

Predicts that the universe evolves according to rules,
and conscious choice about when and where to follow the
rules

If you can demonstrate how creation theory can be used to make more accurate predictions about the large scale structure of the universe, then do so. Simply saying that you have done so does not advance your argument.

Has to be fine tuned, theories it depends upon have
numerous problems including the vacuum catastrophe

Two things:

1. The universe does not have to be fine tuned. There are actually a lot of values those constants can have that would produce life as we know it.
2. Again, the hole is not shaped to fit the puddle, the puddle is shaped to fit the hole.
3. Until we can make measurements of other universes, you can't honestly say you know what any of the relevant probabilities are, so you can't say that this configuration is unlikely at all

Only postulates a creator, constantly has to accommodate
knew knowledge acquired, just like the BB theory

You seem to have completely missed the standard. In each category of evidence, creation theory needs to make more accurate predictions than the Big Bang theory, and thus far you have completely failed to demonstrate how creation theory can be used to produce any predictions at all in any of these categories of evidence.

So my previous statement stands. Right now, the Big Bang theory is the best guess we have, while the Talking Snake Theory of Creation does not rise above the level of a  just-so story (i.e. ad hoc fallacy). There is no discernible difference between your explanation for where the universe comes from and the ancient Greek myth that tried to explain where echoes come from.

 

[Kharakov]

Unfortunately, all of that is trumped in the creationist's mind by the idea that they can put in their column "Explains why the universe was created, and your place in it"

I don't see how "God created the universe" leads someone away from curiosity about the universe and the way it works?

Such an answer likely does not lead someone away from a curiosity driven examination of the universe. But such curiosity is most often not a feature of the creationist mindset. The simple answer of the form "God did it, and here's why" will always have the ability to fill in the blank for many folks.

Hmm. Ok. <-- that's a subtle joke.

I don't think the creationist mindset can be summed up with that one statement- in fact I don't think it even applies to the majority of creationists. Instead I see that statement as something that would satisfy an anti-creationist's desire for knowledge of a creationist's mindset.

Note that I said "anti-creationist", not atheist. There is a difference, although many anti-creationists are also atheists. And many anti-atheists are also creationists.

 

[Kharakov]

Again, you don't seem to understand the standard. Creation theory needs to produce more accurate predictions than the Big Bang theory about the cosmic background microwave radiation (e.g. strength, frequency, direction).

The BB theory is a creation theory. As we discover more about the intricacies of creation, we don't have to say "because we discovered this, God didn't create it!"

In fact, you have not demonstrated how creation theory can be used to produce any predictions about the cosmic background radiation at all in any meaningful sense.

Creation theory would assume some type of message, or view of the form of God, in the CMB. Strictly physical theories would assume that there is no message, or hints at God's existence, in the CMB. That's the division.

The fact that you even mention Copernican theory suggest that you either don't actually understand the conversation we are having.

You don't understand what the violation of the Copernican principle would imply?

Has to be fine tuned, theories it depends upon have
numerous problems including the vacuum catastrophe

The universe does not have to be fine tuned.

Huh? No, various theories that are tied into the BB theory are  fine tuned to match observations. You know  General Relativity, with the  ad hoc hypothesis of  dark matter +  dark energy to justify observations?

Mentioned the  vacuum catastrophe, because it is one of the largest failures of physical theories to date.

You seem to have completely missed the standard. In each category of evidence, creation theory needs to make more accurate predictions than the Big Bang theory, and thus far you have completely failed to demonstrate how creation theory can be used to produce any predictions at all in any of these categories of evidence.

The only distinguishing characteristic of creation theory is that it posits a creator, and BB theory does not include statements about a creator.

Hell, a bunch of proponents of the BB theory also believe in God- creation theory and BB theory are not at odds with one another.

Show

So my previous statement stands. Right now, the Big Bang theory is the best guess we have, while the Talking Snake Theory of Creation does not rise above the level of a  just-so story (i.e. ad hoc fallacy). There is no discernible difference between your explanation for where the universe comes from and the ancient Greek myth that tried to explain where echoes come from.

Nah. I think ultimately you'll find that the TSToC is the same thing as the BB theory, both being metaphors about genesis through hot hot love... although your dick won't start talking until you're mature enough to handle it. :p And you really want a gene sis for it, doncha? Y you gotta broken chromosome boy? Y that hot chick got 2 whole sexy chromosomes, and you just got the xy? Missin' something?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

"Where did the universe come from?"

The formative event was the Big Bang, which is supported by scientific observation.

"That's speculation."

Where do you think the universe came from?

"It was created by a god."

What's a god?

"A god is what created the universe."

Brilliant!

 

[Malintent]

It is not yet completely understood exactly what happened in the first few microseconds after the Big Bang; therefore the universe was created by the speech of an all powerful but non material entity in seven days about six thousand years ago.

Nope, no flaws or gaps in that logic at all.

You forgot talking snakes. That's the most important part.

No, no.. it's original sin.. THATs the most important part... without it, there would be nothing to save us from and no excuses for all the "mistakes" in creation.

 

[Tars Tarkus]

Wow, for a second I thought rhutchin had returned!

 

[steve_bank]

The BB is a theory that extrapolates far back in tine to a theoretical event for which the initial conditions are unknown.

It is a good theory based on our limited observations in modern astronomy and particle physics. It is not a fact althrough some in science seem to see it that way.

There is no provable explanation of how the universe began. The universe does not need a beginning or end, that is my view.

I doubt the quote literally meant 'the universe should not be here', it is more a manner of speaking in saying that our science is lacking, which I whole heatedly agree with.

 

[steve_bank]

"Where did the universe come from?"

The formative event was the Big Bang, which is supported by scientific observation.

"That's speculation."

Where do you think the universe came from?

"It was created by a god."

What's a god?

"A god is what created the universe."

Brilliant!

The Sun goes round the Earth, this too is 'supported by observation'. Considered fact until there were better observations.

 

[steve_bank]

The Big Wang Theory.

The unverse is the ejaculation of god. The universe was created by the hand of god so to speak.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Sun goes round the Earth, this too is 'supported by observation'. Considered fact until there were better observations.

You may be confusing fact with belief.

 

[steve_bank]

The Sun goes round the Earth, this too is 'supported by observation'. Considered fact until there were better observations.

You may be confusing fact with belief.

There are no and can be no absolutes with science. At this time relativity and the non existence of a preferred or absolute reference frame says that.

All SI units and measurements are relative to arbitrary standards. SI is what science is based on.

Somebody discovers that observation does not match cosmology. Somebody invents dark matter to bring theory in line with observation. That is how science advances. BB radiation a good example.

The idea that BB is absolute truth from our tiny Earth viewpoint, our tiny brains, and our limited technology is high order hubris and arrogance. Theists do have a point, for some 'scientism' takes on a relgious kind of faith and theory is holy scripture.

 

[bilby]

There are no and can be no absolutes with science.

I presume that this is an attempt at humour, because it's one of the funniest things I have read in weeks.

 

[Ephesians]

This article from Live Science: http://www.livescience.com/46478-universe-should-have-collapsed.html

Universe Shouldn't Be Here, According to Higgs Physics

"So if the universe shouldn't exist, why is it here?

"The generic expectation is that there must be some new physics that we haven't put in our theories yet, because we haven't been able to discover them," Hogan said."

So, current knowledge of physics is not up to explaining how the universe began. That doesn't keep scientists from guessing. But we always knew that.

So, let's see here... the universe should have collapsed, appears to be designed, and appears to have come out of not anything.

But no God, amirite fellas? lolol

 

[Keith&Co.]

You apprehend that trial and error is a design process, right?

So, undirected evolution, 'trying' random things,trimming 'errors' by lethal feedback, would produce designed products without being an intended products. It's not a difficulty, or even an anomaly.

But, you know, you lol you.

 

[Ephesians]

You apprehend that trial and error is a design process, right?

Yes.

So, undirected evolution, 'trying' random things,trimming 'errors' by lethal feedback

All you're doing is describing how evolution works while tacking on 'undesigned,' but what you're describing doesn't sound undesigned. It sounds like an ingenious designed process of trial and error, as you put it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You apprehend that trial and error is a design process, right?

Yes.

So, undirected evolution, 'trying' random things,trimming 'errors' by lethal feedback

All you're doing is describing how evolution works while tacking on 'undesigned,' but what you're describing doesn't sound undersigned. It sounds like a designed process of trial and error, as you put it.

No, i offer an example of 'appears designed' which is not compelling evidence that there is any intent behind that design. Design is possible without intelligence.

You just move your desire for a designer back one step as necessary.

 

[Ephesians]

No, i offer an example of 'appears designed' which is not compelling evidence that there is any intent behind that design.

Well, again, you're taking something that looks designed and saying, "Yes, it looks designed, but it really isn't..."

Sorry, bruh.

Design is possible without intelligence.

Atheism is hilarious. God bless you, bro.

You just move your desire for a designer back one step as necessary.

I think you're ignoring the universe appearing to be designed because you're afraid of God.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, i offer an example of 'appears designed' which is not compelling evidence that there is any intent behind that design.

Well, again, you're taking something that looks designed and saying, "Yes, it looks designed, but it really isn't..."

No, that's not at all what i am saying.
I'm saying 'designed' maybe evidence of a process, but not evidence for an intelligent designer.

Sorry, bruh.

Design is possible without intelligence.

Atheism is hilarious. God bless you, bro.

Do i threaten you?

You just move your desire for a designer back one step as necessary.

I think you're ignoring the universe appearing to be designed because you're afraid of God.

I accept the appearance of design. Really.
It just doesn't mean what you need it to mean.

 

[Ephesians]

Do i threaten you?

Look at my profile pic. Now look at my gender. How could you possibly threaten me?

I accept the appearance of design. Really.

So, the universe looks designed, but for some odd reason you won't believe it is. Interesting, lul. Atheism is hilarious.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do i threaten you?

Look at my profile pic. Now look at my gender. How could you possibly threaten me?

And WHHOOOOSH! The point....

I accept the appearance of design. Really.

So, the universe looks designed,

So does the Roman Nose on the side of a cliff near where i grew up. Very clearly Patrician. Very clesrly the result of erosion.
I just don't find that compelling evidence of a prehistoric sculptor.

This one time, I saw a cloud that looked just like a Missile Onload Prism fixture. I accept that for about 40 seconds, there, the cloud appeared designed.

but for some odd reason you won't believe it is.

Words seem hard for you.

Interesting, lul. Atheism is hilarious.

And crearionism is pathetic. Kind of a one-trick pony.