Some Christian consistently bury their heads in the sand and refuse to look at the evidence of the most powerful explanation for the origin and state of the universe. Why this is so, can only be put down to dishonest, stupidity, ignorance or delusion.

The best explanation of the state and origin of the universe is called "Big Bang".  These ignorant Christians characteristically mispresent Big Bang, saying that it explain the origin of life. BB is not an explanation of the origin of life.  For that check out abiogenesis (not evolution).   Nowhere in the Big Bang theory is there any comment for how life came about. (Get this)

What is even more inane is that the objections to Big Bang are not scientific, but theological. As far as can be establish, there is now little or no scientific objections to Cosmic Expansion. Evidently, all objections were brushed away with the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background.

For some of the experts in this area, check out the work of the following;

1) George Smoot, Nobel Laureate on work for CMB,
2) Alan Guth, Originator of the inflationary theory
3) Michio Kaku
4) Neil deGrasse Tyson
5) Alexei Filippenko

6) Steven Weinburg
7) Victor Stenger
8.) Stephen Hawkins
9) Roger Penrose



This is what Wikipedia has to say about what this model is;

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. As used by scientists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day. Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'. The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's General Relativity as formulated by Alexander Friedmann. After Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts, this observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point. The farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.[1] If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in significant confirmation of the theory, but these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant. The observed abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the phrase 'Big Bang' during a 1949 radio broadcast, as a derisive reference to a theory he did not subscribe to.[2] Hoyle later helped considerably in the effort to figure out the nuclear pathway for building certain heavier elements from lighter ones. After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its collective frequencies sketched out a blackbody curve, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some Big Bang scenario must have occurred.

huxley:

Some Christian consistently bury their heads in the sand and refuse to look at the evidence of the most powerful explanation for the origin and state of the universe. Why this is so, can only be put down to dishonest, stupidity, ignorance or delusion.

Thank you, but did you need the vituperations highlighted in yours just to sell your point?

In case we missed it, what is the origin of the matter that gave rise to the Big Bang?

pilgrim.1:

Thank you, but did you need the vituperations highlighted in yours just to sell your point?

Yes absolutely, I needed to spell that out as loudly as I did.  It is about time we stop pussy-footing about and confront the issue head-on

In case we missed it, what is the origin of the matter that gave rise to the Big Bang?

That is indeed a very good question.  But it is not explained by the Big Bang.  It will take another theory to explain that.  As for me, the short answer is that I don't know. But if I remember correctly from material I have read, the relationship between energy and matter as described by Einstein (E=mc²) is at the root of that explanation.

If you really want to know the current state of thinking on this subject, I shall investigate and post details here.

By the way, the Hadron Collider experiment ar CERN is designed to investigate such questions.

pilgrim.1:

Thank you, but did you need the vituperations highlighted in yours just to sell your point?

In case we missed it, what is the origin of the matter that gave rise to the Big Bang?

Pilgrim,

Have you ever looked at the evidence for Cosmic Expansion (Big Bang) and are you convinced by the evidence? If you are, it would be interesting to know why. If not, it would also be interesting to know why.

@huxley,

huxley:

Yes absolutely, I needed to spell that out as loudly as I did.  It is about time we stop pussy-footing about and confront the issue head-on

Aiight, I now know that it were better leaving you to your irrationality. Even when people have to discuss issues, reason would not celebrate such otiose remarks; but it's not in my place to change your ideas if that's what best suits your ideology. Tomorrow, come back and hoot that your worldview is "rational" - we would be indeed convinced by your confirmation here.

huxley:

That is indeed a very good question.  But it is not explained by the Big Bang.

What is there more to say if your theory fails at the very thing suggested by your topic about "Universe Origin"? Thanks very much, though - I see the point in your addressing others the way you did when you don't have answers to the questions you proposed.

Cheers.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

Aiight, I now know that it were better leaving you to your irrationality. Even when people have to discuss issues, reason would not celebrate such otiose remarks; but it's not in my place to change your ideas if that's what best suits your ideology. Tomorrow, come back and hoot that your worldview is "rational" - we would be indeed convinced by your confirmation here.

Miss, get your terminology right.  On this occasion, the worst you can accuse me of is rudeness, impoliteness, etc. But not irrationality.

pilgrim.1:

What is there more to say if your theory fails at the very thing suggested by your topic about "Universe Origin"? Thanks very much, though - I see the point in your addressing others the way you did when you don't have answers to the questions you proposed.

Cheers.

The theory does not fail.  It has its scope within which it  is applicably. It does not explain things at time zero.  But some time later than that (circa 10 ^-20s or thereabouts).
Just as the scope of atomic theory is atoms, the scope of germ theory is germs, the scope of Big Bang is from time 10 ^-20 s  to now and beyond.  I hope this make it clearer.

@huxley,

huxley:

Miss, get your terminology right. On this occasion, the worst to can accuse me of is rudeness, impoliteness, etc. But not irrationality.

Is it rational to be rude and impolite?

huxley:

The theory does not fail. It has its scope within which it is applicably. It does not explain things at time zero. But some time later than that (circa 10 ^-20s or thereabouts).
Just as the scope of atomic theory is atoms, the scope of germ theory is germs, the scope of Big Bang is from time 10 ^-20 s to now and beyond. I hope this make it clearer.

Thanks for the lecture - as if I'm unaware of anything you're reckoning. I only noticed your topic about "Universe Origin" and have made my observation that you had no answers for the very thing you broached. What more is there to say beyond that?

Modern science has been one of the toughest kids growing up with religion, religion always tries to stifle science and only do this when issues come up that conflict with religion the origin of man being the biggest issue. Science at such a young age is already showing that very soon religion would be the least favourite kid.

The attitude of people to science is shocking and appalling given the fact that even this means of communication was given birth to by science, I am trying to say why do we not all give this little guy a break. Science doesn't have all the answers at least it is honest about that, the answers science have are spot on and stem from methods that are strict, not loose hallucinations. Religion on the other hand is CERTAIN they have all the answers, and I personally think that is a dishonest position. Its no wonder why they are always forcing their beliefs to become reality.

In case we missed it, what is the origin of the matter that gave rise to the Big Bang?

Very valid question, and the honest answer is we don't know, we may never know, if you are certain that God did it give us an evidence in reality that God did it, if you cannot then maybe God did we are not sure, its the certainty that has torn religious people apart, that certainty that they are right and refuse to come down from the top of the tree that is under a mountain to look at issues and evidence.

I feel it is a wrong attitude I mean its like saying to one who invented the plane, why do you want to be a bird God made it that way, my point is even if God made we all have an innate quest inside us to conquer this environment and its only a matter of time before we do.

Some of use are quick to forget what the last 400 years was like, to them then Nairaland would have been just impossible but their quest to conquer the unknown has brought us this far.

If a great modern structure is to be created everyone is excited about it, but if it concerns religion or the origin of man religious apologists begin to cry foul play, but they believe in science, they use wonderful communication in their big churches, take their sick kids to the hospital, hop on a plane when they feel like and even carry and use cell phones.

Lets be honest with our selves we all have confidence in science we do lets stop kidding ourselves.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:

Modern science has been one of the toughest kids growing up with religion, religion always tries to stifle science and only do this when issues come up that conflict with religion the origin of man being the biggest issue. Science at such a young age is already showing that very soon religion would be the least favourite kid.

Your view, and I respect whatever you believe.

However, there are players on both sides of the divide - both in the past and the present. As sadly as was the case that some religious men were opposed to scientific advancement, so it was that some scientific thinkers have been and are still opposed to religion. We see the example every single day in our present world. The point is that those of us who are hooting for either "religion over science" or "science over religion" are the victims of the paradigm and not the thinkers. Why? For the simple reason that we often fail to understand that there are issues which many people often make the serious mistake of considering, which is: science cannot and does not negate supernatural phenomenon and cannot indeed declare it false. For those who are still hellbent on such kinds of ideas, it is such a pity that they are still living in the past of assuming that science answers "everything". . . and as a necessary consequence, "religion" would become unpopular! This is no less the same lyrics that was song by men who declared at one time that "God" was dead! The sad reality is that such men died and "God" is still alive and well.

'Extremum' is not a wise position to adopt in questions about our existence and the realities of our world. Some people may have the overweening and self-congratulatory ideology that it is either their way or none else! But we have to realise that hubris is a sin - both in religion and science; and this attitude is what drives many to make over-stated assumptions when the basic questions are often ignored!

Now, please understand me - I'm not trying any measure of verbal karate on you; and I noticed what you stated later on in your reposte:

Chrisbenogor:

The attitude of people to science is shocking and appalling given the fact that even this means of communication was given birth to by science, I am trying to say why do we not all give this little guy a break. Science doesn't have all the answers at least it is honest about that, the answers science have are spot on and stem from methods that are strict, not loose hallucinations. Religion on the other hand is CERTAIN they have all the answers, and I personally think that is a dishonest position. Its no wonder why they are always forcing their beliefs to become reality.

In part I may agree with you; however, I think you're adopting a very extreme position that does not serve a balanced outlook on this issue. Neither science nor religion have all the answers to all of life's possible questions - they both have particular references of our experiences that they seek to provide answers for; and we know that many household names in science are actually deeply religious men! So for someone to assume that "religion" is so certain without looking the other way of the scientists who declare the same thing is to fail to realise the presumption of these men on the planet! When you ask these same scientists what they believe but cannot prove, one would have to be aghast at the hypocrisy of such men who have a disdain for religious honesty and yet relish their adventures on the same grounds! Who then is hallucinating?

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:

Very valid question, and the honest answer is we don't know, we may never know,

Which was why I mentioned hubris and extremum in my penultimate reposte. Cheers.

@pilgrim
Me I understand you sha, but I think you get what I am trying to say with words, lets be honest that's what I am for. Not to be partial but I think religious apologists are the ones who are most often found in a dishonest position, I do not know if there are any true scientists around here on nairaland but I like to believe we are all just analysing. Take evolution for instance I do not know the technical workings thoroughly but do they have a case yes I think they do, nature naturally seeks stability, is this evidence that there is no God not at all, it is evidence though (if they can finally tie up the loose ends) that God is not the way he has been potrayed in holy book. That would be the final nail in the cross for religion but until then we can only be honest and say we do not know, I mean how hard is that?

The fact that science does not have answers to everything does not mean that there are things for which it has no answers.

Pilgrim, can your say what best explains the following;

1) The Cosmic Microwave Background. (In fact, on a good day, you common radio or TV set cam receive these signals

2) The observed expansion and acceleration of the universe.

These are facts for which there is no dispute amongst cosmologist. How would you explain this?

@Chrisbenogor,

I should actually not want to make any further comments, but for some serious mishap in your reposte.

Chrisbenogor:

@pilgrim
Me I understand you sha, but I think you get what I am trying to say with words, lets be honest that's what I am for. Not to be partial but I think religious apologists are the ones who are most often found in a dishonest position, I do not know if there are any true scientists around here on nairaland but I like to believe we are all just analysing.

Hmm, I think it all depends on the exposure we have experienced: your part of the world depicts that religious apologists are the ones who are often found in a dishonest position; while mine says the direct opposite. Why is this so? I think for the simple reason that we have not looked these men square in the face and ask them to truly stand up and be men with convictions! On other side of the paradigm, we find so many of such dishonest minds and manipulators (and I'm not assuming you're new to frauds in science); but when the seiving has been done, we intelligently lay our chalk on our desks and simply be students and not victims of extremum.

Chrisbenogor:

Take evolution for instance I do not know the technical workings thoroughly but do they have a case yes I think they do, nature naturally seeks stability, is this evidence that there is no God not at all, it is evidence though (if they can finally tie up the loose ends) that God is not the way he has been potrayed in holy book. That would be the final nail in the cross for religion but until then we can only be honest and say we do not know, I mean how hard is that?

Lol, I think you're trying to say something but actually imploding your submissions. I wonder, if evolution or any other model of scientific enquiry wakes up to say that "God is not the way he has been portrayed in holy book", that is not saying that "God does not exists". If you're arguing that evolution would soon nail religion by declaring that it "found" that God does not exists (rather than being portrayed in a different way), then that would be the day indeed - to the dismay of the evolutionary theorists. Like I said, I would like to be a disciple of my own convictions by not assuming hubris or extremum: and I have the faith that someday soon we shall all have humble heads to reason . . . I mean, truly "reason".

Cheers.

@huxley,

huxley:

The fact that science does not have answers to everything does not mean that there are things for which it has no answers.

Pilgrim, can your say what best explains the following;

1) The Cosmic Microwave Background. (In fact, on a good day, you common radio or TV set cam receive these signals

2) The observed expansion and acceleration of the universe.

These are facts for which there is no dispute amongst cosmologist. How would you explain this?

Actually, I had hoped you would answer the basic question that is still ignored by you:
___________________________________

Is it rational to be rude and impolite?
___________________________________

Of course, you don't have to answer that question if you choose not to - but I only wondered if you would like me to be rational or ir[/b]rational in my answers to you.

However, I haven't seen how you have addressed the other basic concerns in my direct enquiry. Rather, I only see an admission of the fact that science does not have answers to everything - one of which is the question of the Origin of the Universe (or Universe [b]Origin). I haven't claimed anything; and that is why I have often and again shared with Chrisbenogor that hubris and extremum are not quite the elements in my style of approaching issues.

Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

@Chrisbenogor,


Lol, I think you're trying to say something but actually imploding your submissions. I wonder, if evolution or any other model of scientific enquiry wakes up to say that "God is not the way he has been portrayed in holy book", that is not saying that "God does not exists". If you're arguing that evolution would soon nail religion by declaring that it "found" that God does not exists (rather than being portrayed in a different way), then that would be the day indeed - to the dismay of the evolutionary theorists. Like I said, I would like to be a disciple of my own convictions by not assuming hubris or extremum: and I have the faith that someday soon we shall all have humble heads to reason . . . I mean, truly "reason".

Cheers.

Well maybe, I am fully aware that scenario would mean that there is a supernatural being but it would become obvious to us that maybe for instance this being does not care about us, maybe they would be able to build machines that will go to other galaxies to explore other Suns, maybe andromeda and then find life on a planet there. I am saying if there is a God and he doesn't care what we do that all but nullifies 90% of religions dont you think

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

Actually, I had hoped you would answer the basic question that is still ignored by you:
___________________________________

Is it rational to be rude and impolite?
___________________________________

It is neither rational nor irrational.  To be rude does not violate any known laws/rules of logic or reasoning.

pilgrim.1:

However, I haven't seen how you have addressed the other basic concerns in my direct enquiry. Rather, I only see an admission of the fact that science does not have answers to everything - one of which is the question of the Origin of the Universe (or Universe Origin). I haven't claimed anything; and that is why I have often and again shared with Chrisbenogor that hubris and extremum are not quite the elements in my style of approaching issues.
Cheers.

I thought this was addressed earlier.  I used "Big Bang" to loosely mean the universe origin.  For all practical purposes this may be seen as the origin, although scientist postulate that there are certainly earlier times than that.

The fact that science does not have answers to everything does not mean that there are things for which it has no answers.

Pilgrim, can your say what best explains the following;

1)  The Cosmic Microwave Background. (In fact, on a good day, you common radio or TV set cam receive these signals

2)  The observed expansion and acceleration of the universe.

These are facts for which there is no dispute amongst cosmologist.  How would you explain this?


[size=18pt]Are your objection to the Big Bang scientific or theological?[/size]

@huxley,

huxley:

It is neither rational nor irrational. To be rude does not violate any known laws/rules of logic or reasoning.

I'm not that dilettantish as to be polarised at two extremes. It is either you expect me to be rational with you or otherwise [b]ir[/b]rational, rather than pretend it so abstractly. Like I said, you really don't have to answer the question; but at least don't pretend this issue with ideas of "logic". Logic or no logic, I already hinted that . . .

pilgrim.1:

. . . it were better leaving you to your irrationality.

- if that is what best suits your ideology. So you can at least excuse me the prerogative to choose to be rational and not both at the same time.

Cheers.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:

Well maybe, I am fully aware that scenario would mean that there is a supernatural being but it would become obvious to us that maybe for instance this being does not care about us, maybe they would be able to build machines that will go to other galaxies to explore other Suns, maybe andromeda and then find life on a planet there. I am saying if there is a God and he doesn't care what we do that all but nullifies 90% of religions don't you think

You sound more inclined to the deistic worldview - which concisely does not rule out belief in the supernatural. The question you seem to be more focused on is about the way God relates with His creation, and not about His existence.

Anyhow, do have a wonderful evening.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

I'm not that dilettantish as to be polarised at two extremes. It is either you expect me to be rational with you or otherwise [b]ir[/b]rational, rather than pretend it so abstractly. Like I said, you really don't have to answer the question; but at least don't pretend this issue with ideas of "logic". Logic or no logic, I already hinted that . . . - if that is what best suits your ideology. So you can at least excuse me the prerogative to choose to be rational and not both at the same time.

Cheers.

What the deuce is this?.  Putting words together, however hifalutin they may be, may sometimes result in nonsense.

Ok,  let me humour you.   If you think rudeness amounts to irrationality, can you demonstrate that within the standardly accepted rules of logic?

huxley:

Ok, let me humour you. If you think rudeness amounts to irrationality, can you demonstrate that within the standardly accepted rules of logic?

You've already done so, thank you. See below:

huxley:

What the deuce is this?. Putting words together, however hifalutin they may be, may sometimes result in nonsense.

pilgrim.1:

You've already done so, thank you. See below:

Well, it is clear you have no arguments, as is your wont.

Mark you, this thread was about Big Bang and the Christian response to it. I reserve the right to be rude, polite or not (as the case may be).

I am not altogether surprise that you could not muster a scientific argument against Big Bang, considering how mired you are in the cesspit of superstitious. If When you get your mind out of this stinky stuff you might just about begin to understand exactly how we (humans) fit in the cosmic scheme of things.

In the meantime, go and give testimonies, quote bible passage, preach and have equally ignorant fans fawning over you

huxley:

Mark you, this thread was about Big Bang and the Christian response to it. I reserve the right to be rude, polite or not (as the case may be).

Nothing new.

huxley:

In the meantime, go and give testimonies, quote bible passage, preach and have equally ignorant fans fawning over you

Many thanks again. Cheers.

the simple question - how does the big bang explain the presence of matter outside of time?
When did time begin?
How did the big bang create life and biological order?

These are valid scientific questions.

Infact why am i bothering?

davidylan*:

the simple question - how does the big bang explain the presence of matter outside of time?
When did time begin?
How did the big bang create life and biological order?

These are valid scientific questions.

Infact why am i bothering?

Your dishonesty knows no bounds.  I shall refer you to what I said earlier, viz;

The best explanation of the state and origin of the universe is called "Big Bang".  These ignorant Christians characteristically mispresent Big Bang, saying that it explain the origin of life. BB is not an explanation of the origin of life.  For that check out abiogenesis (not evolution).   Nowhere in the Big Bang theory is there any comment for how life came about. (Get this)

And you have consistently failed to redeem yourself by answering the challenge - "Where in the definition of Big Bang is there a description of the origin of life?"

if you show that evidence, i shall never post ant comments critical of christianity again on NL. would that not be a win-win all round?

The angels of Allah should give the initiator of this "big bang" a big bang on the head.

Frizy:

The angels of Allah should give the initiator of this "big bang" a big bang on the head.

Yet another ignorant religionist enters the fray,

hmmmn. . .

huxley:

Your dishonesty knows no bounds. I shall refer you to what I said earlier, viz;

The best explanation of the state and origin of the universe is called "Big Bang". These ignorant Christians characteristically mispresent Big Bang, saying that it explain the origin of life. BB is not an explanation of the origin of life. For that check out abiogenesis (not evolution). Nowhere in the Big Bang theory is there any comment for how life came about. (Get this)

And you have consistently failed to redeem yourself by answering the challenge - "Where in the definition of Big Bang is there a description of the origin of life?"

this post wins the stupidity award of the yr. What then did the big bang create? Ordered planets in the absence of time?
Did you know that abiogenesis itself is also a theory WITHOUT ANY SHRED OF PROOF?

davidylan*:

this post wins the stupidity award of the yr.

This was why I simply left the thread jeje. When someone is determined to substitute irrationality for intelligence, what is left at the end of the day?

I was just wondering the gap in this wide berth:

(A)

huxley:

The best explanation of the state and origin of the universe is called "Big Bang".

(B)

huxley:

That is indeed a very good question. But it is not explained by the Big Bang.

On the one hand, (A) the "origin of the universe" is best explained by the Big Bang;
but on the other hand, (B) the same "origin of the universe" is not explained by the Big Bang!

The confusion may be best explained by this presumption:

huxley:

These ignorant Christians characteristically mispresent Big Bang, saying that it explain the origin of life.

In honest and very simple terms, where did Christians say what you have attributed to them?