Christianity and the 10 Commandments

[Cyberman]

Anytime, Kichi. The development of the Big Bang Theory is a truly fascinating story involving many scientists of wildly varied personalities. For example, George Gamow made two failed attempts to escape the Soviet Union with his wife by kayak. Later, on April 1st 1948, he along with his student Ralph Alpher published a paper on their findings regarding the formation of hydrogen and helium in the early Universe. Inspired by the date, he convinced his friend Hans Bethe to append his name to the paper simply so that it would appear to be authored by "Alpher, Bethe and Gamow" (actually this caused a terrible row between him and Alpher).

And some people think scientists have no sense of humour.

[KichigaiNeko]

They do ...but the plebeians never get the jokes.

[Forsaken]

The Christian creationist just don't get it. The Big Bang's steady-state hypothesis is a conflict between the theory of science and the creationism as perceived by Hinduism. A steady-state theory of the universe, were it to be true, would provide some support for the endless cycles taught by Hinduism. The creation account in the bible doesn't even come close; Genesis is just a hogwash. If creation was ever true, it will certainly be the Hindu version of it.

[Cyberman]

Sorry if it seems like I'm nit-picking, but the Big Bang is pretty much the opposite of a steady-state hypothesis. In fact it was just such a conflict between those two opposing theories that led ironically to the esteemed astronomer Fred Hoyle coining the phrase Big Bang in a BBC interview as a disparaging term: he was trying to denigrate the theory that opposed his own pet steady-state one. Regardless, the Big Bang is an expansion theory, whereas steady-state was constructed in an attempt to balance the expansion rate with an equal rate of newly created matter; until the CMB evidence was discovered, it was essentially a toss-up which side was right.

What you describe in terms of cycles sounds more like an oscillating Universe. Seriously, I'm not trying to be overly pedantic, I just want to make sure there are no loose threads that cretinists can sieze hold of.

[Forsaken]

Sorry if it seems like I'm nit-picking, but the Big Bang is pretty much the opposite of a steady-state hypothesis. In fact it was just such a conflict between those two opposing theories that led ironically to the esteemed astronomer Fred Hoyle coining the phrase Big Bang in a BBC interview as a disparaging term: he was trying to denigrate the theory that opposed his own pet steady-state one. Regardless, the Big Bang is an expansion theory, whereas steady-state was constructed in an attempt to balance the expansion rate with an equal rate of newly created matter; until the CMB evidence was discovered, it was essentially a toss-up which side was right.

What you describe in terms of cycles sounds more like an oscillating Universe. Seriously, I'm not trying to be overly pedantic, I just want to make sure there are no loose threads that cretinists can sieze hold of.

Ops, I need to update myself on this topic. Thanks Stimbo.

[Cyberman]

No worries mate, it gives me an excuse to seem more knowledgeable than I really am

[Zen Badger]

So what is your alternative explanation for why the universe is expanding?
Remembering that the BBT has made testable predictions that proved correct.

First, saying that everything was once together is not explaining why it's expanding. That we don't know. We don't know why it's expanding but we know it is just like we don't know why matter has gravity but we know it does. Second what predictions? That hydrogen is the most abundant element? Sorry, we knew that before the BBT.

I'm sure I pointed out earlier that relativity predicted the expansion of the universe but never mind.

And I'm sure I pointed that the BBT predicted not just the CMB but it's actual temperature. But never mind that either.

I'll ask again, Do you have an alternative explanation to the BBT that makes falsifiable predictions?

And do you have a refutation to this?



My original evidence against a young universe.

[Phil]

Proof that god is a lover of horses....oh wait...my name is Phil and it means lover of horses. Guess I'm god, chiapet I want you to burn all your bibles as it is a sweet aroma to me.

[chi pan]

So what is your alternative explanation for why the universe is expanding?
Remembering that the BBT has made testable predictions that proved correct.

First, saying that everything was once together is not explaining why it's expanding. That we don't know. We don't know why it's expanding but we know it is just like we don't know why matter has gravity but we know it does. Second what predictions? That hydrogen is the most abundant element? Sorry, we knew that before the BBT.

I'm sure I pointed out earlier that relativity predicted the expansion of the universe but never mind.

And I'm sure I pointed that the BBT predicted not just the CMB but it's actual temperature. But never mind that either.

I'll ask again, Do you have an alternative explanation to the BBT that makes falsifiable predictions?

And do you have a refutation to this?



My original evidence against a young universe.

First they did not predict its temperature. They first said 5K then later said as high as 50K. Wow great prediction... And your picture of a galaxy does not prove BBT either.

[LastPoet]

You know, chipan, I was feeling depressed and sad, but reading your claims always makes me laugh and as they say, laughing is the best remedy!