I understand that you believe in God, so my comments are not directed at you, but at the actual "theories" you so conveniently summarize. (That's a compliment, not some veiled shot... :lol: )

 

There is not one theory of universal origins that conforms or operates in accordance with the natural laws as we currently understand them. There is no way the total mass of the universe could possibly separate to form its present degree of order without in some way suspending or operating outside of the natural laws of gravitation and thermodynamics.

 

By known natural laws alone, all the stuff of the universe, once compressed could never "naturally" escape the crushing pull of its own gravitation. It would forever remain the most massive black hole imaginable.

 

Even if we set aside the mystery of where the "stuff" came from to begin with, we still cannot get from point A to today without some type of "supernatural" process or intervention.

 

For atheistic or even agnostic scientists to scoff at those who believe in God for having faith in something science cannot prove, only to turn around and assert that we should believe in a Big Bang that is even more impossible to prove by natural laws is truly absurd. It takes as much or more "faith" to believe their theory than it does to simply believe the God of the Bible.

We just don't get order out of disorder without some type of intelligent intervention.

 

 

 

I'm not sure MoreheadEagle is saying that God isn't the instigator.

 

This might be where the discussion here seems to continue to be in a circle. There are some who hold to the theory of the Big Bang but that God is the lighter of the fire cracker and provider of the gunpowder.

I'm not sure MoreheadEagle is saying that God isn't the instigator.

 

This might be where the discussion here seems to continue to be in a circle. There are some who hold to the theory of the Big Bang but that God is the lighter of the fire cracker and provider of the gunpowder.

In the first sentence of the same post I acknowledge his stated belief in God. :thumb:

 

The sentence you bolded was directed at those whose faith in science alone blinds them to the fact that the natural laws defined by the science they espouse as a "replacement" for God, will not permit the big bang they so want to believe in to have occurred via natural means alone.

 

Something beyond nature (supernatural) had to happen... whether one attributes this to God or random supernatural chance. Either way requires faith.

In the first sentence of the same post I acknowledge his stated belief in God. :thumb:

 

The sentence you bolded was directed at those whose faith in science alone blinds them to the fact that the natural laws defined by the science they espouse as a "replacement" for God, will not permit the big bang they so want to believe in to have occurred via natural means alone.

 

Something beyond nature (supernatural) had to happen... whether one attributes this to God or random supernatural chance. Either way requires faith.

 

Gotca. :thumb:

I'm not sure MoreheadEagle is saying that God isn't the instigator.

 

This might be where the discussion here seems to continue to be in a circle. There are some who hold to the theory of the Big Bang but that God is the lighter of the fire cracker and provider of the gunpowder.

 

Nice summation! :thumb:

In the first sentence of the same post I acknowledge his stated belief in God. :thumb:

 

The sentence you bolded was directed at those whose faith in science alone blinds them to the fact that the natural laws defined by the science they espouse as a "replacement" for God, will not permit the big bang they so want to believe in to have occurred via natural means alone.

 

Something beyond nature (supernatural) had to happen... whether one attributes this to God or random supernatural chance. Either way requires faith.

 

This reminds me of the plot twist in the movie Contact.

So is gravity...

 

Gravity is also a fact and a law. FYI

 

First, there is a fact of gravity. While we cannot actually see gravitational force itself, we do observe the effects of this force every time we drop something.

 

There is also a theory of gravity that addresses the question of how this force we call gravity really works. While we really don't know how gravity works, there are theories that attempt to explain it.

 

Finally there is the well-known law of gravity. This law, first formulated by Isaac Newton, a Bible believing Christian and creationist, is a mathematical equation that shows a relationship between mass, distance and gravitational force.

Gravity is also a fact and a law. FYI

 

First, there is a fact of gravity. While we cannot actually see gravitational force itself, we do observe the effects of this force every time we drop something.

 

There is also a theory of gravity that addresses the question of how this force we call gravity really works. While we really don't know how gravity works, there are theories that attempt to explain it.

 

Finally there is the well-known law of gravity. This law, first formulated by Isaac Newton, a Bible believing Christian and creationist, is a mathematical equation that shows a relationship between mass, distance and gravitational force.

 

We can also see the universe expanding, as a result of the Big Bang.

 

Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces. The strong nuclear force overcomes the electric repulsion between protons in the nucleus of atom, due to the presence of the neutrons. The weak force is responsible for radioactive decay. The electromagnetic force is the force that holds molecules together and is responsible for all contact forces.

 

While there is a Universal Law of Gravitation (Newton), it deals with the factors that affect gravity, not what causes it. It is actually a mathematical formula, but in a nutshell it says this:

1) All objects are attracted to each other by the force of gravity.

2) As the mass of one of the two objects increases, so does the gravity between. Double one of their masses, double the force of gravity. Double both masses, quadruple their gravity.

3) As the distance between the center of the objects increases, the force of gravity between them decrease by an inverse square. (The math here is tricky.) Double the distance and the gravity between the two is cut to 1/4th. Triple the distance and the gravity is cut to 1/9th and so on.

 

That is what we know about gravity.

 

Here's a quote for you: "What I am asking you for is not the name of the thing, but its essence, of which essence you know not a bit more than you know about the essence of whatever moves the stars around...we do not really understand what principle or what force it is that moves stones downward."

 

Galileo (my favorite scientist, by the way) wrote this in response to a statement that "gravity" is why stones fell to the ground.

 

This is the same Galileo that allegedly conducted the "Leaning Tower of Piza" experiment.

 

This is the same Galileo that was put under house arrest (until he died - 20 years later) for publically stating that the Earth was not the center of the universe, nor was it motionless, but instead revolved around the sun.

 

This the same Galileo that received a "pardon" in 1992 by the Catholic church for those beliefs.

 

"Not believing in the truth does not keep it from being true."

Gravity is also a fact and a law. FYI

 

First, there is a fact of gravity. While we cannot actually see gravitational force itself, we do observe the effects of this force every time we drop something.

 

There is also a theory of gravity that addresses the question of how this force we call gravity really works. While we really don't know how gravity works, there are theories that attempt to explain it.

 

Finally there is the well-known law of gravity. This law, first formulated by Isaac Newton, a Bible believing Christian and creationist, is a mathematical equation that shows a relationship between mass, distance and gravitational force.

My point is a Scientific Theory is different than any common theory... I believe in evolution, and I believe in God. I see no reason why God couldn't have just as much of hands-on action with evolution, as he could in a case of Creationism...

Some Big Bang questions for you.

 

I understand that it is badly named and the expansion where everything is moving away from everything else is more easily understood as a loaf of bread rising and expanding.

 

1) What keeps the expansion going? Why don't gravitational forces stop it? I'm guessing that this is a combination of dark matter and the cosmic force that started the Big Bang.

 

2) If you universe is expanding, is everything inside the universe also expanding and moving away from it's center of mass? (Would explain obesity in America.) In other words, is there an equilibruim between mass and expansion? Or are the gravitational forces changing, even at the molecular level?

 

3) What's outside of the expanding universe?

Some Big Bang questions for you.

 

I understand that it is badly named and the expansion where everything is moving away from everything else is more easily understood as a loaf of bread rising and expanding.

 

1) What keeps the expansion going? Why don't gravitational forces stop it? I'm guessing that this is a combination of dark matter and the cosmic force that started the Big Bang.

 

2) If you universe is expanding, is everything inside the universe also expanding and moving away from it's center of mass? (Would explain obesity in America.) In other words, is there an equilibruim between mass and expansion? Or are the gravitational forces changing, even at the molecular level?

 

3) What's outside of the expanding universe?

 

It's more like raisins in a cake. The cake (space time) expands while the raisins (everything inside) stays the same.

 

As for no. 1 it has something to do with dark matter and dark energy and I don't quite understand it.

 

No. 3, there could be other universes outside our own like bubbles in a bubble bath all floating inside of the infinite void.

Some Big Bang questions for you.

 

I understand that it is badly named and the expansion where everything is moving away from everything else is more easily understood as a loaf of bread rising and expanding.

 

1) What keeps the expansion going? Why don't gravitational forces stop it? I'm guessing that this is a combination of dark matter and the cosmic force that started the Big Bang.

 

2) If you universe is expanding, is everything inside the universe also expanding and moving away from it's center of mass? (Would explain obesity in America.) In other words, is there an equilibruim between mass and expansion? Or are the gravitational forces changing, even at the molecular level?

 

3) What's outside of the expanding universe?

 

I'll throw in my two cents worth.

 

Someone else on here said something differently, but I learned that the Big Bang was named, due to a quote of Edwin Hubble's. When the idea of the unnamed idea was first proposed to him, he replyed (I am paraphrasing here), "So, the matter is contained in a very small volume and then all of a sudden there is this "Big Bang" that started it all moving?" The name stuck. Hubble would eventually support the idea and would do research and develop his own law, that the further away a galaxy is from us that the faster it is moving.

 

1) While the Big Bang is not a normal "explosion," consider why an aerosol can thrown in a fire keeps moving outward - it still has momentum left over from the original explosion. Cosmic background radiation is the energy left over from the explosion. Some hypothesize that, if there is enough matter in the universe, gravity will eventually take over and the outward expansion will slow, come to a stop, and reverse. All matter will move inward and possibly undergo another "Big Bang."

 

2) Not all matter is moving away from us. Galaxies in our Local Group (about 28 of these) actually are moving together through the universe. I don't know if that changes the rest of your question/idea.

 

3) Most hypothesize that there is nothing outside the universe...not empty space, nothing.

It's more like raisins in a cake. The cake (space time) expands while the raisins (everything inside) stays the same.

 

As for no. 1 it has something to do with dark matter and dark energy and I don't quite understand it.

 

No. 3, there could be other universes outside our own like bubbles in a bubble bath all floating inside of the infinite void.

 

 

Kind of like in the ending of Men in Black?

It's more like raisins in a cake. The cake (space time) expands while the raisins (everything inside) stays the same.

As for no. 1 it has something to do with dark matter and dark energy and I don't quite understand it.

 

No. 3, there could be other universes outside our own like bubbles in a bubble bath all floating inside of the infinite void.

 

I'm not sure about this. The raisins would move outward, too, like the most galaxies do. The analogy that U use in my class is drawing dots on a balloon. As you blow up the balloon, the dots move away from each other, as the balloon expands.

All of the "evidence" and explanations you give for the Big Bang, common ancestors, and on and on are man's explanations. I choose to believe God's explanation as recorded in the book of Genesis. You have a right to believe as you wish. I also have the same right. I feel like you think you (and everyone else) has to explain everything scientifically or it appears they or ignorant or uneducated. I assure you I am neither ignorant no uneducated. I put my faith in God's explanation and not man's. We will continue to agree to disagree.

No theory in Science is ever meant to be proven. If it is proven, it isn't Science anymore. But if it is a theory, that means that enough evidence has been found and presented to uphold the tenents of the theory, and yes the Big Bang does fit into that mold.

 

:thumb: For scientists to label something as a "theory" they have TONS of evidence supporting it.