Re: Big Bang Theroist's
- From: "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 Nov 2005 01:31:23 -0800
Yokel wrote:
> "Bud Z" <lzimmerman1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:rYzcf.2008$2T3.852@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |I am an amateur astronomer that believes in Creationism.
> | For you that believe in the Big Bang theory, I have a question.
> | I would say ninety percent of astronomer's believe in the Big Bang theory,
> | so kindly tell me if the Big Bang came from a super-super-super massive
> | sphere that exploded. Where and how did this super massive sphere
> originate?
> | After it exploded according to the theorist's it has expanded 14.7 billion
> | LY.
> | With the advance in technology, what are you going to tell us when you
> | discover galaxies or points of light at 15, 20 and 30 billion LY? That you
> | made a mistake in your calculations!
> | After the theory of the Big Bang, supposedly starts the theory of
> Evolution.
> | Let me give you some mathematical facts. For the exact chemicals to
> produce
> | life to come together at the exact same time would be 46 + 56 zero's to 1.
> | I tell you, it takes tremendous faith to believe in the Big Bang and
> | Evolution theory than it does in Creationism.
> | I would sincerely like some of your thoughts.
> |
>
> As I understand it, the "Big Bang" started from ... nothing!
>
> At the instant of the "Big Bang", space, time and matter came into existance
> simultaneously. There is no need to postulate an exploding sphere, because
> there was nothing for the sphere to explode into. Those TV programmes that
> show a blackness with something exploding in it are just plain wrong. Now,
> if they started out with blackness, then an all-pervading brilliant white
> that slowly faded into blackness and then the first stars and galaxies
> appeared, we might be getting somewhere.
>
> The "classical" Big Bang is a super version of creation from the "vacuum".
> It can be shown that there is a finite probablilty of any particle appearing
> from the vacuum, although this probablility is very low and the more
> energetic or massive the particle is, the lower the probability. What
> normally happens is that the particles appear in real- and anti- pairs, but
> annihilate themselves almost at once. This does not have to happen,
> however, and the "Hawking Radiation" that gradually removes the mass and
> energy from black holes is a consequence of these particle pairs appearing
> with one ending up in the black hole and the other escaping into the real
> world.
>
> The chance of all the energy and mass of our universe appearing at random
> from nothing is extremely low - but it is greater than zero. That "greater
> than zero" makes creation possible and science can tell us this much. What
> it cannot tell us, however, is the nature of this creation. And a world
> that is created and ordered by God is no more crazy than a world that only
> exists if there are sentient beings to observe it, which is what some
> aspects of quantum theory state.
>
> Now follow the logic and consider it from your point of view. Thanks to
> quantum effects, nothing in the world is certain and everything is possible,
> even though most of them are extremely unlikely. The Universe is also set
> up in such a way that it is to all intents and purposes impossible for
> beings like us to know enough to predict exactly what is going to happen.
> We cannot even gain enough information to reliably predict the weather on
> our own planet, as a gentleman called Lorenz demonstrated about 60 years
> ago. However, we can gain enough information and knowledge to make sense of
> our world, search for our destiny and use the laws of "nature" to develop
> technology and make civilization.
>
> Science does not - cannot - deny that the Universe was created by a greater
> power. It can easily be shown, however, that the Universe has been about
> since a lot before 4004 BC. As regards evolution, it is impossible from
> where we are to tell whether something that appears to have come about by
> chance is completely unguided or has been directed by the will of the
> Creator. What determines whether "A" happens or "B" happens? Who can say
> whether a particlular sub-atomic particle with a half-life of n seconds will
> decay, or what "makes" it do so at any given time? But we can still use
> this process to date the rocks under our feet, tell how old a star is or
> make a nuclear power station. Blind Evolution versus Intelligent Design is
> actually a "dead" argument, either can produce the world we see around us
> and on the timescales and order revealed by scientific enquiry. Literal
> "Creationism" - the world was created in 6 days at around September in 4004
> BC as worked out by some mediaeval bishop - is another matter.
>
> Science does not deny that miracles occur. Oddly enough, it used to, but
> since the days of relativity and in particular quantum mechanics, we now
> know that anything can happen - the only issue is its probability. And, of
> course there are many things which used to be considered miracles, but which
> scienctific knowledge now explains. But if someone is cured of cancer, is
> it any more or less miraculous whether they are cured by a wonder drug
> developed by scientific enquiry or by the laying on of hands by people of
> faith? I believe, as do many others, that God gives both these things.
>
> There are many people like myself who are both scientists and religious.
> They are not exclusive - they address different facets of the same world.
> When I look at pictures from the Hubble telescope and reflect on the amazing
> times and distances involved, this says much more to me about the glory of
> God than to believe he only created our own local world and in only a short
> time period. One must also remember that the creation accounts - there are
> at least two - in the Bible date from the Bronze Age and the glory and
> wonder of the Universe we now know would have been incomprehensible to the
> original readers / hearers. I believe - as do many other Christians - that
> the first two chapters of Genesis tell of God's care for his creation - each
> "day" he affirms his work is good - and Man's relationship with it. They
> are not to be read as a science text book to the exclusion of all further
> knowledge - else what was the point of God giving us inquiring minds?
>
> What I see is a world of wonder, set up / created / whatever by a Purpose
> far beyond our full understanding. This theme runs through every society
> there has ever been on this planet - a secular world with no God is a
> largely modern invention. God has set us in a world which is ordered and
> has given us the tools to make sense of it and exercise the responsibilities
> laid on us as per those first two chapters of Genesis. But, as students of
> quantum mechanics have discovered, God has also left himself space to work
> miracles without violating the nature of the world he has created. And some
> of the efforts I have read of to make sense of the quantum world are more
> crazy and harder to believe than any of the "mainstream" religions.
> --
> - Yokel -
> B.Sc. (Hons) Physics/Meteorology (University of Reading 1979)
> Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society
> Methodist Local Preacher
> Elder in the United Reformed Church
> oo oo
> OOO OOO
> OO 0 OO
> ) ( I ) (
> ) ( /\ ) (
>
> "Yokel" now posts via a spam-trap account.
> Replace my alias with stevejudd to reply.
The investigation of natural phenomena will always be a facet of
Christian belief for anyone who misses the point of faith will hardly
be capable of commenting on the outwards forms of creation.The fact
that the creationists have evolved to roll the empiricists demonstrates
that there must be another way of approaching faith and the
investigation of natural phenomena.
The easiest part to comprehend is the actual structure of Genesis and
the chronology left behind by the Hebrew authors,while you tend to cite
the first two chapters of Genesis,the actual structure is a seamless
narrative that is inclusive of the creation of Adam to the first drop
of rain of Noah's flood.The autheors then shade off into Biblical
pre-history and on to the story of the Hebrew race.
So Genesis 1 is linked to Genesis 5 through the narrative of Adam being
part of the structure of the seven days of creation and as a link in
the genealogical chain from Gen 5 to Gen 7. The Hebrew author
deliberately introduced the formula 'evening came and morning followed'
in Gen 1 in order to have an overlap with the genealogical
chronology'.Anyone who grasps the cleverness of the author would notice
that Adam is created on the 6th day thereby preventing anyone from
tampering with a day of the genealogy or basically treating the
creation narrative as one thing and the genealogical structure as
another.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P3.HTM
The real clue to the mathematical facet of Gen 1 - 7 is in the
timespan of Enoch and the departure from another narrative formula -
"Then he died" .
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P7.HTM
The 365 years is that wonderful little invitation to take a closer
inspection and what a jewel unfolds with a little bit of effort.
There is absolutely nobody I would care to discuss this matter with,the
only two people - Julius Oppert who originally recovered the outlines
of the structure and Joseph Campbell who promoted it are long since
dead.What is left is a miserable mediocrity bounded by empiricists on
one side and creationists on the other,neither fit to handle matters of
faith or creation.
.
- References:
- Big Bang Theroist's
- From: Bud Z
- Re: Big Bang Theroist's
- From: Yokel
- Big Bang Theroist's
- Prev by Date: Re: Confusion over dusk planets tonight
- Next by Date: For Sale: Olympus OM1 + accessories
- Previous by thread: Re: Big Bang Theroist's
- Next by thread: Re: Big Bang Theroist's
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
