Question:
"Doesn’t the Big Bang theory disprove the Genesis account of creation?"?
ineed2repent
2006-04-25 08:31:39 UTC
Try to think of any explosion that has produced order. Does a terrorist bomb create harmony? Big bangs cause chaos. How could a Big Bang produce a rose, apple trees, fish, sunsets, the seasons, hummingbirds, polar bears—thousands of birds and animals, each with its own eyes, nose, and mouth? A child can see that there is "grand design" in creation.

Try this interesting experiment: Empty your garage of every piece of metal, wood, paint, rubber and plastic. Make sure there is nothing there. Nothing. Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves. Try it. If it doesn’t appear, leave it for 20 years. If that doesn’t work, try it for 100 years. Then try leaving it for 10,000 years. Here’s what will produce the necessary blind faith to make the evolutionary process believable: leave it for 250 million years.

"New scientific revelations about supernovas, black holes, quarks, and the big bang even suggest to some scientists that there is a ‘grand design’ in the universe." (U.S. News & World Re-port, March 31, 1997)

"The universe suddenly exploded into being...The big bang bears an uncanny resemblance to the Genesis command." Jim Holt, Wall Street Journal science writer
Thirteen answers:
rich
2006-04-25 08:35:14 UTC
Doesn't the Genisis account of creation disprove the big bang theory!
Michael
2006-04-27 23:40:41 UTC
The fact that you think of the big bang theory as an explosion, similar to a bomb (a terrorist one, no less!), just shows that you don't have the foggiest clue what the theory ACTUALLY says.



It has nothing to do with a conventional explosion. Literally, nothing.



The experiment with the Mercedes is equally irrelevant, and honestly just makes you sound like an idiot. Do you really think the greatest scientific minds of the 21st century believe that a car would pop into existence?



No. Of course not. Nobody rational would think that. The problem here is that you seem to think this relates to the big bang theory in any way whatsoever.



Go take a class on it and actually learn the theory -- THEN attack it. (And note that if you are successful in disproving the theory you would win a Nobel Prize and probably a few million dollars).



Good luck.
?
2016-10-20 08:02:50 UTC
The so-observed as massive bang concept does not have adequate in the back of it to negate or threaten something. the priority is that it is going to no longer be able to be examined. we don't even understand what situations existed previously it got here about. in addition to, the "data" is the two appropriate in the direction of "God did it" or "smart layout." Mockery of the theory could no longer replace it or negate it interior the minds of people who settle for it as a danger, any greater than mocking the six- 24-hour day creation innovations many have faith is supported via the Bible will replace their minds. There on no account has been a time whilst the so-observed as massive-bang concept became into universally prevalent -- it has continually had its detractors. And there have continually been credible scientists who've believed in deity being a significant tension interior the universe. the priority is that neither component could be proved via the empirical nature of technology.
bonshui
2006-04-25 08:47:01 UTC
This is not a question. You really just want to make a point, but it's an interesting point nonetheless.



I would have thought that the two accounts are not mutually contradictory. From what I understand, many creationist scholars believe that each 'day' in the Genesis account stands for many millennia.



Fundamentally we must all be open-minded enough to realise that the "blind faith" you mention is neither intrinsically inferior nor intrinsically superior to the blind faith of one who believes the Genesis account.



(Yes, creationists do operate on the basis of blind faith: observing a 'grand design' in nature does not give creationism greater substance than evolutionism)
Maids Moreton
2006-04-25 08:38:46 UTC
The two theories are mutually exclusive.



The only advice I can give is to ask yourself this question:



Did everything take a long time to come into being?



If you think that the universe, the planet earth and everything in and around it took a long, long time - many billions of years - to come about, then the Big Bang theory makes sense. But if, on the other hand, you think that the sum total of everything on earth, and everything on all the billions of planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies and myriad other heavenly bodies all came into existence in seven days, then the theory of Creation is what you should believe.
monkie man6
2006-04-25 09:01:04 UTC
what if the "grand design" was in fact there but was created in the terms of big bang and evolution...i believe in a god and a grand design but it seems odd to me that any being wouldn't be curius about how something starts up. if the big bang did happen there is nothing saying it wasn't intiated by a some form of "god". and by the way for those of you saying "youve been around and havent evolved" read some science before you say stupid stuff like that. evolution takes place when A. needed for survival or is better for survival and B. over hundreds of thousands of years between generations very slooooooowwwwwwllllllyyyyy.
PERSEO
2006-04-25 09:09:40 UTC
You are contradicting yourself.

Start a dilettante letter against science and human knowledge and after quote two paragraphs remarking the divinity of the big-bang. Organize your thoughts.

Besides that, as you said, is a theory, a model that tries to explain the wonderful universe we have. May be is the answer, may be not, but today is the only effort of the human mind that can explain with detail and precision, and most important of all with calculations that match observations, what we have around us.
ellie
2006-04-25 08:39:57 UTC
Sometimes I just sit and think about life and it never eases to amaze me... even freak em out a bit because it's so.. there isn't even a word for it. I believe in God and that's my choice so I believe that he made the world but I understand how a lot of people find believing in God hard. But I do think that anyone who believes that everything was created in a sudden bang has to be really quite obtuse and naiive. What was there to start with to bash together to create the earth? What created the universe? When did time start? For me onyl something truly divine and something so unhuman that we cannot eveer fully understand has to be the answer.
Neodiogenes
2006-04-25 08:59:12 UTC
I agree! You've been around X number of years and still haven't evolved the ability to think rationally.



Proof enough for me!
2006-04-25 08:37:59 UTC
The answer is in the question, its a theory
saladspeaks
2006-04-25 08:34:56 UTC
yes
melancholiac
2006-04-25 08:36:00 UTC
This is not a scientific question.
2006-04-25 09:10:19 UTC
In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from an enormously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The Big Bang theory is based on the observed Hubble's law redshift of distant galaxies that when taken together with the cosmological principle indicate that space is expanding according to the Friedmann-Lemaître model of general relativity. Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity (for reporting on some of the more notable speculation on this issue, see cosmogony).



The term Big Bang is used both in a narrow sense to refer to a point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble's law) began — calculated to be 13.7 billion (1.37 × 1010) years ago (±2%) — and in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the origin and expansion of the universe, as well as the composition of primordial matter through nucleosynthesis as predicted by the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory [1].



One consequence of the Big Bang is that the conditions of today's universe are different from the conditions in the past or in the future (natural evolution of universe constantly takes place). From this model, George Gamow in 1948 was able to predict, at least qualitatively, the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) [2]. The CMB was discovered in the 1960s and further validated the Big Bang theory over its chief rival, the steady state theory

The Big Bang theory developed from observations and theoretical considerations. Observationally, it was determined that most spiral nebulae were receding from Earth, but those who made the observation weren't aware of the cosmological implications, nor that the supposed nebulae were actually galaxies outside our own Milky Way[3]. In 1927, Georges Lemaître independently derived the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began with the "explosion" of a "primeval atom"—what was later called the Big Bang[4].



In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided an observational basis for Lemaître's theory. He discovered that, relative to the Earth, the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds directly proportional to their distance from the Earth. This fact is now known as Hubble's law [5]. Given the cosmological principle whereby the universe, when viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, has no preferred directions or preferred places, Hubble's law suggested that the universe was expanding contradicting the infinite and unchanging static universe scenario developed by Einstein.



This idea allowed for two opposing possibilities. One was Lemaître's Big Bang theory, advocated and developed by George Gamow. The other possibility was Fred Hoyle's steady state model in which new matter would be created as the galaxies moved away from each other. In this model, the universe is roughly the same at any point in time[6]. It was actually Hoyle who coined the name of Lemaître's theory, referring to it sarcastically as "this big bang idea" during a program broadcast on March 28, 1949 by the BBC Third Programme. Hoyle repeated the term in further broadcasts in early 1950, as part of a series of five lectures entitled The Nature of Things. The text of each lecture was published in The Listener a week after the broadcast, the first time that the term "big bang" appeared in print. [2]



For a number of years the support for these theories was evenly divided. However, the observational evidence began to support the idea that the universe evolved from a hot dense state. Since the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 it has been regarded as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos. Virtually all theoretical work in cosmology now involves extensions and refinements to the basic Big Bang theory. Much of the current work in cosmology includes understanding how galaxies form in the context of the Big Bang, understanding what happened at the Big Bang, and reconciling observations with the basic theory.



Huge advances in Big Bang cosmology were made in the late 1990s and the early 21st century as a result of major advances in telescope technology in combination with large amounts of satellite data such as that from COBE, the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP. Such data has allowed cosmologists to calculate many of the parameters of the Big Bang to a new level of precision and led to the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. (See dark energy.)



Based on measurements of the expansion of the universe using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of the lumpiness of the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a calculated age of 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years. The agreement of these three independent measurements is considered strong evidence for the so-called ΛCDM model that describes the detailed nature of the contents of the universe.



The early universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and concomitantly huge temperatures and pressures. It expanded and cooled, going through phase transitions analogous to the condensation of steam or freezing of water as it cools, but related to elementary particles.



Approximately 10-35 seconds after the Planck epoch a phase transition caused the universe to experience exponential growth during a period called cosmic inflation. After inflation stopped, the material components of the universe were in the form of a quark-gluon plasma (also including all other particles—and perhaps experimentally produced recently as a quark-gluon liquid [3]) in which the constituent particles were all moving relativistically. As the universe continued growing in size, the temperature dropped. At a certain temperature, by an as-yet-unknown transition called baryogenesis, the quarks and gluons combined into baryons such as protons and neutrons, somehow producing the observed asymmetry between matter and antimatter. Still lower temperatures led to further symmetry breaking phase transitions that put the forces of physics and elementary particles into their present form. Later, some protons and neutrons combined to form the universe's deuterium and helium nuclei in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis. As the universe cooled, matter gradually stopped moving relativistically and its rest mass energy density came to gravitationally dominate that of radiation. After about 300,000 years the electrons and nuclei combined into atoms (mostly hydrogen); hence the radiation decoupled from matter and continued through space largely unimpeded. This relic radiation is the cosmic microwave background.



Over time, the slightly denser regions of the nearly uniformly distributed matter gravitationally attracted nearby matter and thus grew even denser, forming gas clouds, stars, galaxies, and the other astronomical structures observable today. The details of this process depend on the amount and type of matter in the universe. The three possible types are known as cold dark matter, hot dark matter, and baryonic matter. The best measurements available (from WMAP) show that the dominant form of matter in the universe is cold dark matter. The other two types of matter make up less than 20% of the matter in the universe.



The universe today appears to be dominated by a mysterious form of energy known as dark energy. Approximately 70% of the total energy density of today's universe is in this form. This component of the universe's composition is revealed by its property of causing the expansion of the universe to deviate from a linear velocity-distance relationship by causing spacetime to expand faster than expected at very large distances. Dark energy in its simplest formation takes the form of a cosmological constant term in Einstein's field equations of general relativity, but its composition is unknown and, more generally, the details of its equation of state and relationship with the standard model of particle physics continue to be investigated both observationally and theoretically.



All these observations are encapsulated in the ΛCDM model of cosmology, which is a mathematical model of the Big Bang with six free parameters. Mysteries appear as one looks closer to the beginning, when particle energies were higher than can yet be studied by experiment. There is no compelling physical model for the first 10-33 seconds of the universe, before the phase transition called for by grand unification theory. At the "first instant", Einstein's theory of gravitation predicts a gravitational singularity where densities become infinite. To resolve this paradox, a theory of quantum gravitation is needed. Understanding this period of the history of the universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics.



As it stands today, the Big Bang is dependent on three assumptions:



The universality of physical laws

The cosmological principle

The Copernican principle

When first developed, these ideas were simply taken as postulates, but today there are efforts underway to test each of them. Tests of the universality of physical laws have found that the largest possible deviation of the fine structure constant over the age of the universe is of order 10-5[7]. The isotropy of the universe that defines the Cosmological Principle has been tested to a level of 10-5 and the universe has been measured to be homogeneous on the largest scales to the 10% level[8]. There are efforts underway to test the Copernican Principle by means of looking at the interaction of galaxy groups and clusters with the CMB through the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect to a level of 1% accuracy[9].



The Big Bang theory uses Weyl's postulate to unambiguously measure time at any point as the "time since the Planck epoch". Measurements in this system rely on conformal coordinates in which so-called comoving distances and conformal times remove the expansion of the universe, parameterized by the cosmological scale factor, from consideration of spacetime measurements. The comoving distances and conformal times are defined so that objects moving with the cosmological flow are always the same comoving distance apart and the particle horizon or observational limit of the local universe is set by the conformal time.



As the universe can be described by such coordinates, the Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe; what is expanding is spacetime itself. It is this expansion that causes the physical distance between any two fixed points in our universe to increase. Objects that are bound together (for example, by gravity) do not expand with spacetime's expansion because the physical laws that govern them are assumed to be uniform and independent of the metric expansion. Moreover, the expansion of the universe on today's local scales is so small that any dependence of physical laws on the expansion is unmeasurable by current techniques.

Observations of distant galaxies and quasars show that these objects are redshifted, meaning that the light emitted from them has been shifted to longer wavelengths. This is seen by taking a frequency spectrum of the objects and then matching the spectroscopic pattern of emission lines or absorption lines corresponding to atoms of the chemical elements interacting with the light. From this analysis, a redshift corresponding to a Doppler shift for the radiation can be measured which is explained by a recessional velocity. When the recessional velocities are plotted against the distances to the objects, a linear relationship, known as Hubble's law, is observed:





where



v is the recessional velocity of the galaxy or other distant object

D is the distance to the object and

H0 is Hubble's constant, measured to be (71 ± 4) km/s/Mpc by the WMAP probe [10].

The Hubble's law observation has two possible explanations. One is that we are at the center of an explosion of galaxies, a position which is untenable given the Copernican principle. The second explanation is that the universe is uniformly expanding everywhere as a unique property of spacetime. This type of universal expansion was developed mathematically in the context of general relativity well before Hubble made his analysis and observations, and it remains the cornerstone of the Big Bang theory as developed by Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...