Evolution vs Creationism

[Zero Beat]

The problem is in assuming that there was a "bang" in the big bang. If there wasn't a bang

Big Bang is just a name that stuck. There was no bang, as there's no sound in space.

Obviously you know this, but I said it just to make it clear and remind the others.

 

[cF=)]

I love how the highlighted words spell "bang you"

 

[SSBbo]

Most of what you were taught through school is a lie (a white lie, but still a lie).

Time is real and it can be altered by things like gravity and velocity.

-blazed

yeah, time as it was taught to me made relativity hard to understand.

 

[RDK]

Most of what you were taught through school is a lie (a white lie, but still a lie).

Time is real and it can be altered by things like gravity and velocity.

-blazed

This is why you get things like (hypothetical) sleep time dilation in space. You can go through years of ship-time and you'll end up being younger than other people who experienced the same amount of time as you, but Earth-side.

 

[BFDD]

They actually tested the time thing by taking an atomic clock on an airplane, then comparing it to one on the ground. The one in the plane was slightly slower than the one on the ground. Not by much but it was enough to prove that high velocities slow time.

I believe they said that if you lived to exactly 100 years old and lived your entire life on an airplane you would have about one extra hour of life compared to if you lived on the surface. Well at least I think it was an hour it could have been less I don't remember exactly, it was 3 years ago that I saw the video.

 

[snex]

They actually tested the time thing by taking an atomic clock on an airplane, then comparing it to one on the ground. The one in the plane was slightly slower than the one on the ground. Not by much but it was enough to prove that high velocities slow time.

I believe they said that if you lived to exactly 100 years old and lived your entire life on an airplane you would have about one extra hour of life compared to if you lived on the surface. Well at least I think it was an hour it could have been less I don't remember exactly, it was 3 years ago that I saw the video.

if you have a GPS device, it is proof that relativity works. due to the fact that GPS satellites are in space and travel at different relative velocities and experience a different gravitational force, they have to take both special and general relativity into account. if they didnt make these adjustments, you could be off by a few feet per second. not a big deal in your car, but if youre flying an airplane at 500mph thats the difference between landing on the runway or in the lake.

 

[blazedaces]

if you have a GPS device, it is proof that relativity works. due to the fact that GPS satellites are in space and travel at different relative velocities and experience a different gravitational force, they have to take both special and general relativity into account. if they didnt make these adjustments, you could be off by a few feet per second. not a big deal in your car, but if youre flying an airplane at 500mph thats the difference between landing on the runway or in the lake.

Not to mention GPS satellites are all run by an atomic clock that are all still resynchronized every so often (it may be every day but I'm not 100% sure)...

The math in getting around GPS errors can actually become very interesting. I worked in a lab where I handled a lot of analysis of incoming GPS bit data. I was interested and also had to put together a presentation on double and triple differential processes on the stuff...

-blazed

 

[Sudsy86_]

That still violates causality. Whatever caused the big bang must also then have had a cause.

Not necessarily. Supposing a greater force does exist, what reason is there to believe it must not be THEE greatest force in all possible existence? Also, when I say "force" I don't necessarily mean an event-like force, but just a term I'm attributing to God instead of referring to it as a being ( such as "He" or "Him").

Basically, I'm not seeing how it needs a cause. We need an uncaused entity to start everything, as impossible it is to conceive. Otherwise you have a hole extending ad infinitum--which has no reason to exist in the first place.

( Not that it's necessarily more rational to assume this supposed greater force is the greatest entity in existence, but while having no further information[ in this context] than a certain greater being exist, for all we know it IS the uncaused entity--it certainly doesn't have any known qualities making it otherwise.)

The problem is in assuming that there was a "bang" in the big bang. If there wasn't a bang, we don't have any of these silly contradictions we're all so concerned about. Time could just approach the "moment of creation" asymptotically, and never reach it.

. Are we referring to the action that caused the initial expansion, by "bang"? I haven't come across any evidence that points to the universe not having high density of energy and a "bang" as a starting point of time. Surely cosmic microwave radiation isn't a farce? That itself points towards a "bang". Do you have any links that provide evidence towards other models?

It may seem weird intuitively, but the models which describe such a world ARE consistent. Meaning that they do not have any contradictions. It's only a matter of finding out whether that model applies to our universe.

Non-"bang" models, you mean? I won't believe it unless you can provide a more logical explanation for the implications of cosmic microwave radiation.

Honestly, I can't help but feel "scientists" are doing everything in their power to make sure naturalism prevails, even if it means lying to students. Maybe I'm just naive, though.

 

[snex]

you dont prove how things work by sophistry, you prove it with evidence.

there is NO evidence of anything preceding the big bang, so honest people say "i dont know" and keep their mouths shut about it until there is. if you think thats "lying to students to make sure naturalism prevails" then you are missing some screws.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Not necessarily. Supposing a greater force does exist, what reason is there to believe it must not be THEE greatest force in all possible existence? Also, when I say "force" I don't necessarily mean an event-like force, but just a term I'm attributing to God instead of referring to it as a being ( such as "He" or "Him").

Basically, I'm not seeing how it needs a cause. We need an uncaused entity to start everything, as impossible it is to conceive. Otherwise you have a hole extending ad infinitum--which has no reason to exist in the first place.

( Not that it's necessarily more rational to assume this supposed greater force is the greatest entity in existence, but while having no further information[ in this context] than a certain greater being exist, for all we know it IS the uncaused entity--it certainly doesn't have any known qualities making it otherwise.)

Let me ask you this, if you're going to go down the 'infinite uncaused whatever' path, why not just say that the universe itself has always existed and was uncaused and be done with it? Why roof it over with a "God"?

Ultimately however there's no point in that line of reasoning because as far as we know it is impossible to gather information about events "before" the Big Bang directly. The only way we could do so in principle is if a model of the universe with "something" before the Big Bang makes non-generic predictions about the state of the universe today that we could test, i.e. if some parameter of the universe depends on what preceded the Big Bang. But as far as we know there is no such parameter; it seems that the evolution of the universe is entirely independent of events before the Big Bang.