It is always interesting to me that conversations about science and religion at some point tend to veer towards the moment of creation. The reason? Well, I think that this topic is one of the very few left (maybe one of the last?) where the findings of science and the assertions of the Bible seem to converge…at least insofar as trying to use some scientific discovery to give evidential support for God’s existence or the accuracy or trustworthiness of the biblical text. (And, by the way, aside from the fact that interpreting the “Big Bang” theory as evidence for divine creation says nothing about what this “divine” being might be like or not like -- or if, indeed, there is more than one at work). There are those who have consistently tried to make the Creation accounts in the biblical text (i.e., Genesis 1 & 2) match what scientists have discovered over the years, including those who have concocted amazingly outlandish interpretations of the biblical text to do so. There are also those who attack what scientists have discovered or postulate about the beginning of the universe (e.g., young earth-ers). Yet, biblical apologists and many Christians in general, whatever their position on the “Big Bang” theory itself and the age of the universe, seem to put a lot of stock in the idea that the “singularity” had to come from “somewhere” and, thus, some “being” had to start the whole thing rolling. After all, there had to be a *free agent* to start it all since there was nothing material to do so…right? Well, as it turns out, it’s just not that simple. The truth is, you are within your rights to believe that a divine being started it all; but it is just as reasonable to believe that there was a non-divine “cause”. Now, I put “cause” in quotes here because the chain of “cause and effect” we experience in the macro-world is not so clear-cut in the quantum world. In the quantum world, there are effects that are spontaneous and not connected to any particular cause. This phenomenon has been tested and documented many, many times. The “singularity” however gets even weirder since all known laws of physics and quantum mechanics break down at the singularity. Therefore, saying that it is not known what “caused” the singularity or the Big Bang does not automatically default to divine explanations. It simply means that our concepts of cause-and-effect break down at that point so that we have no known reference for understanding it. Far from being a stopping point for scientific discovery, it is the stuff science is made for: challenge, new horizons for discovery, theories, failures, successes, etc… Indeed, there are many new theories on the rise that exploit things known and reach into the unknown, attempting to tie together what is understood with that which is yet not. New ways to test quantum theories and ideas are within reach – theories which could revolutionize our understanding of the universe and where it might have “come from”. My whole point here is not to get into detail about which theories say what, but simply to say that the beginning of the known universe is not a fool-proof argument for either God’s existence or the validity of the biblical text. Actually, based upon the incredible success of natural science over the last few centuries, there is probably more reason to think that there is some natural explanation than a supernatural one for why there is something rather than nothing. That being suggested, belief in God and the divine inspiration of the Bible are purely matters of faith – not science.
|
When you look at the picture you can see the outer layers of light patterns. Imagine those as the outer fringes of the universe. Imagine that those distances are similar to what we see in today's universe mapping (at our present time). Unfortunatly the creators of our universe map don't make it easy for us to find a map showing our relative position on their maps So I don't know and cannot say where we are on this figurative map. All they usually tell us is that all of the farthest galaxies that we can see are around 13-15 billion light years aweay from us. They don't say in which direction, they seem to expect us to already know... LOL.
Now in this picture if we were in one of the innermost "rings" of this explosion we could determine that all events that transpired closer to the center than we were at that time(for instance) ...thus we could use the light from these events to determine what happened in the past for those innermost areas. However events that happened in the furthest rings are actually events that happened further along in the future (compared to areas closer to the center), the only way to see the entire past of those events (further from the center) is to actually be further outside than they are. That way we would actually be seeing light from their past also (as we did in this picture).
But theories of the expansion of space say that since in their light was created possibly closer to the start of the formation of those galaxies that we are seeing events from possibly up to 8-10 billion years ago (in their past, or supposedly about 3-5 billion years after the big bang took place), even though this so called expansion of space puts their distance from us at about 13-15 billion light years away from us now.
Since I believe that the speed of light is constant, the plausability of this so called expansion of space, is ludicrous, to say the least.
P.S. They say that even though these galaxies are 13-15 billion light years away from us as we see them now that the age of the universe is now only 13-15 billon years old also, and that our universe is now approximatly 158 billion light years across. These so called facts are also caused by some trick made by this same so called expansion of the universe.
Actually I agree that this picture is not the best example as I had said ("If this picture were a good example of what could have happened in the Big Bang explosion there wouldn't be quite so many multiple explosion patterns.") I also know it was on a much different scale. But it was the best fairly regular nova explosion picture I could find, showing a good nearly circular pattern.
My biggest problem is with their expansion of space theory. Which by the way they haven't tried to really change or improve upon since they first thought of it to simplify the explaination of redshift. Anyone who decides to use the expansion of space as their theory of choice for this, would be hard pressed to explain why except that it is how everyone explains redshift, and that is how it has been done for so long.
The only real addition to the expansion of space theory is the addition of dark energy causing galactic antigravity as a proposed mechanism for this amazing theory for magical travel. It is like using magic or teleportation to explain how a person walked a short distance because no one actually witnessed the person just walking there.
" Hey vessel, did your mommy drop you on your head or something, holmeboy? You talk a big game holmes and i bet you have no evidence at all. Raiders forever!"
Indisputable even. Nice talking with you.
So, if you want to learn, you can hop over to talkorigins.org and find information and resources on the topic of the origins of life. Otherwise, you can just sit here and make a fool of yourself. Either way, I can't really see how it affects me.
Raiders: if you have a specific question about the origins of life I will try to answer. What you seem to want is the whole of the story. Textbooks are written on smaller topics. Try to be specific about the evidence you want and I will give it to you.