big bang theory

[silentriot]

who believes in the big bang theory and whats your opinion on it?

[The Peon]

I do. And to a great extent the evidence backs up the theory greatly. It most likely is fact, and probobly occured practically identically along the lines as science portrays it.

[ydoaPs]

what does teh big bang have to do with evolution?

[Mokele]

This does not belong in this section. The Big Bang is physics, and totally unrelated to evolution.

[DQW]

deleted

[DQW]

what does teh big bang have to do with evolution?

Good point. There's nothing biological in this thread (yet). It probably belongs in Physics or GD.

 

Edit : Mokele's post wasn't up when I started on this...so ignore.

[solidsquid]

I've seen many people associate the Big Bang with evolution simply from a misunderstanding of what evolution covers, not being able to separate the colloquial term from the specific term. This type of thinking also is why people confuse evolution with the origin of life.

[Ophiolite]

But all three (origin of the Universe, origin of life, evolution of life) are linked in the mind of a creationist as being in contradiction with their belief of how the world came to be as it is.

It is also somewhat specious to claim, as Mokele does, that the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. Since it is generally accepted that the fundamental constants were set at the 'time' of the Big Bang, and these constants are critical in determining that life can actually exist, then certainly the Big Bang has everything to do with setting the parameters for evolution.

[Mokele]

It is also somewhat specious to claim, as Mokele does, that the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. Since it is generally accepted that the fundamental constants were set at the 'time' of the Big Bang, and these constants are critical in determining that life can actually exist, then certainly the Big Bang has everything to do with setting the parameters for evolution.

 

True, but what I meant was that they theories are not logically dependent upon each other. The veracity or falsity of one does not necessitate nor imply the same of the other.

 

Mokele

[bascule]

who believes in the big bang theory and whats your opinion on it?

 

Big Bang Theory is awesome, although some would really wonder why the band continues calling itself Styx without founding member Dennis DeYoung, and with only two original members.

[mezarashi]

I guess I need to get myself a copy before I can make a proper critique. This thread sure is financially demanding

[Ophiolite]

True' date=' but what I meant was that they theories are not logically dependent upon each other. The veracity or falsity of one does not necessitate nor imply the same of the other.

[/quote']Absolutely. I was nitpicking because this sort of general statement is often used by Creationists to drive an irrelevant wedge into an otherwise valid argument.

[DQW]

It is also somewhat specious to claim, as Mokele does, that the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. Since it is generally accepted that the fundamental constants were set at the 'time' of the Big Bang, and these constants are critical in determining that life can actually exist, then certainly the Big Bang has everything [/b'] to do with setting the parameters for evolution.

The fundamental constants are critical to the existence of not just life, but matter as we know it. If the numbers were different, you wouldn't have hailstorms, silica, the photoelectric effect, or digital watches. Yet, would you not object if this question were raised in sections devoted to meteorology, glass-blowing, superconductivity or fashion ? The Big Bang has no more to do with evolution of life on earth as it has to do with the color of my shoes.

[Ophiolite]

The questions wouldn't be raised in those sections. The Big Bang, as postulated, has, as noted, everything to do with the origin of life and its subsequent evolution, since the parameters are set by it. You clearly feel this is not the case. I am at a loss to see why you would think this.

Yes, it has also determined the colour of your shoes: I suggest,however, that the colour of your shoes is trivial, whereas you are not. That is the distinction. You can, of course, seek to prove me wrong, by demonstrating that you are also trivial.

[DQW]

The questions wouldn't [/b'] be raised in those sections.

Why not ? By an extension of your argument, the BB has everything to do with those discussions.

 

The Big Bang, as postulated, has, as noted, everything to do with the origin of life and its subsequent evolution, since the parameters are set by it. You clearly feel this is not the case. I am at a loss to see why you would think this.

I'm at a loss to see why you are at a loss to see this.

 

Yes, it has also determined the colour of your shoes: I suggest,however, that the colour of your shoes is trivial, whereas you are not.

In a discussion of the color of one's shoes, the color of one's shoes is not trivial. In fact, it is the most important thing to the discussion.

 

That is the distinction. You can, of course, seek to prove me wrong, by demonstrating that you are also trivial.

You presume that you can make only ONE error in your argument. Check your premises.

[Martin]

But all three (origin of the Universe' date=' origin of life, evolution of life) are linked in the mind of a creationist as being in contradiction with their belief of how the world came to be as it is.

 

.... it is generally accepted that the fundamental constants were set at the 'time' of the Big Bang, and these constants are critical in determining that life can actually exist, then certainly the Big Bang has [b']everything [/b] to do with setting the parameters for evolution.

 

Hello Ophi, DQW, and Mokele,

 

I will try to join in your discussion but first i want to voice a personal opinion.

the thought just occurred to me that this wave of Fundamentalism/AntiScience that is sweeping across the land is like the Black Plague of the middle ages which would jump from country to country and affect a large fraction of the population.

Visitors like "shinbits" who come and start AntiEvo threads are like carriers of some disease and we have to figure out how to cope.

there arent enough trained licensed doctors to handle the sickness and it is an emergency so some of us have to act as volunteer doctors

 

one of the problems is their authoritarianism forces us to break with our own tradition of rational discussion, skeptical suspension of belief, cool neutrality etc. and WE get authoritarian (present company excepted).

 

what I like in Ophi post i quoted is that he is focussing on understanding the Sickness

 

(Mokele and DQW may have a clearer understanding of the 3 models: expanding universe, chemical origin of life, development of complex forms. these can be logically related or they can be studied and tested separately, as they deal with different data and make different sorts of predictions).

 

Ophi you seem to be trying to EMPATHIZE (buzzword) with some poor soul who sees all three or howevermany scientific theories as a COMPOSITE ENEMY on which he blames the breakup of social fabric, the anxiety he feels, the confusion, the hatred and mistrust he feels for his neighbors the Libruls, the disturbing behavior of adolescents, the flood of Chinese imports, the loss of jobs, racial tension in his city and so on.

 

Or whatever, I don't understand the guy, but you know him and he has gotten into a vicious ANTISCIENCE frame of mind and his fundamentalism is CATCHING. It could be Arab fundamentalism or Jewish or Hard-shell (I believe the term is) Baptist or whatnot. And the hardshell-ness spreads as one group impacts the other and people's murderous tribal instincts are aroused. And eventually it can even effect scientists and they can even bcome DOGMATIC NATURALISTS.

 

However in one sense this plague is a very nice one because nobody has to break out with bubons and sweat and die, like with the real Plague Plague. We have it better than the Middle Ages did. We only have to get unpleasant.

 

It is actually, when you back off slightly, a little funny-----except when people do really weird stuff.

 

Anyway let's study these people that come here and start Antiscience threads. how do they think? what inspires them to challenge basic features of the scientific World-story? They may LOOK LIKE TROLLS because they act in many ways like cliche internet trolls. but they think they are different. they probably think they are bearing Witness to their Beliefs, or are fighting the good fight as Soldiers of the Covenant or whatever BS.

 

Templeton Foundation money has corrupted a lot of prominent scientists and put them in a compromised light------where they drink the same tea and eat the same cookies as people who are out to undermine the 400 year old tradition of empirical science.

 

And these compromised leading lights give these guys high morale and they come swarming in here spouting nonsense or asking sly questions. It is actually interesting and fun to watch. I have no clue myself as to what to do, besides what the SFN people already do by way of monitoring and moderating.

 

Do you Ophi? Or Mokele and DQW. Any preferred ideas of what could be done that is not already tried. Some new insecticide or deodorant spray?

Some new ax guaranteed to cleave the skull of Reaction?

 

maybe just stay cool and have fun.

 

hopefully,

M

[Martin]

BTW Ophi, about the fundamental constants being set at the moment expansion started-----this is a grey area.

 

I used to think that exact same thing, and I believed that time started at the moment of the classical Gen Rel singularity----with all the constants like 1/137 right there all of a sudden.

 

But in science the models evolve like everything else and since from way back, before 1970 for sure, smart people have recognized the classical singularity as a problem, a flaw, that would go away if Gen Rel could be quantized.

 

and finally in 2001 the basic cosmology model (Friedmann equation model) was quantized well enough that the SINGULARITY WENT AWAY. The Friedmann equation dates back to like 1925 and it was quantized in an apparently successful way by Bojowald in 2001, who was at Penn State at the time.

 

this still has to be tested----there is a postdoc at Penn State named Parampreet Singh who is an expert on the current status of the testing, if necessary one can write him and see how far it has gone to date.

 

Now there are many many papers by many quantum cosmologists working on this. maybe the theory will survive testing maybe not, but a lot of people see it as very promising.

 

so putatively time (and the fundamental constants) do not necessarily all start abruptly at the moment expansion begins 13.7 billion years ago. maybe that moment was preceded by a period of contraction.

 

(space cant just stay put, it has to be doing one or the other, according to Gen Rel---and the Friedmann model derived from it)

 

the quantum theory does not allow the density to go to infinity or a finite volume to shrink to zero, or curvature to go to infinity-------Heisenberg Uncertainty or some surrogate for that takes over and things get quantum-fuzzy before that can happen.

 

so it looks more and more as if things didnt actually begin with a Bang------maybe there was a prior contraction, maybe there was an accidental fluctuation in something, maybe the fundamental constants only CHANGED a little bit from what they were prior----it looks less and less like an absolutely fresh start. I dont think anybody can say so we are in the delightful position of having to wait for more information----which position should by now be very familiar to anyone who has been watching any kind of science.

 

the upshot is that there must surely be SOME linkage between

1. expansion cosmology

2. chemical bio-origin

3. development of complexity by natural selection

 

and the fundamental constants (which we dont really know what determines or which are really constant) are a theme that runs thru it all

 

but probably we cant put all this stuff together in a single hard and fast way

==================

 

models are meant to TEST

not to believe in

I really like 1. 2. and 3. but what I want to do is see them make predictions and be tested. I dont want to be put in position of having to defend them

because they interfere with someone's untestable faithbase creed.

screw all creeds of any kind whatever.

 

====================

however somebody like Whosis puts it all together paranoid-style and it is the Enemy. Because of course it is naturalism and doesnt give the "God" idea much prestige or leeway or room for maneuver. Whatever it is, he knows he doesnt like it.

[Hellbender]

Not to break up the discussion, but why hasn't this thread been moved yet?