Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

425 views
FRINGE SCIENCE > The Big Bang Theory - Debunked?

Comments Showing 1-50 of 368 (368 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8

message 1: by James, Group Founder (last edited Mar 02, 2015 04:19AM) (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments The latest science appears to be challenging the notion of the Big Bang Theory as per this article: https://au.news.yahoo.com/technology/...

If a new theory turns out to be true, the universe may not have started with a bang.

In the new formulation, the universe was never a singularity, or an infinitely small and infinitely dense point of matter. In fact, the universe may have no beginning at all.

"Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.

The new concept could also explain what dark matter - the mysterious, invisible substance that makes up most of the matter in the universe - is actually made of, Das added.

Big Bang under fire

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe was born about 13.8 billion years ago. All the matter that exists today was once squished into an infinitely dense, infinitely tiny, ultra-hot point called a singularity.

This tiny fireball then exploded and gave rise to the early universe.

The singularity comes out of the math of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which describes how mass warps space-time, and another equation (called Raychaudhuri's equation) that predicts whether the trajectory of something will converge or diverge over time.

Going backward in time, according to these equations, all matter in the universe was once in a single point — the Big Bang singularity.

But that's not quite true.

In Einstein's formulation, the laws of physics actually break before the singularity is reached.

But scientists extrapolate backward as if the physics equations still hold, said Robert Brandenberger, a theoretical cosmologist at McGill University in Montreal, who was not involved in the study.

"So when we say that the universe begins with a big bang, we really have no right to say that," Brandenberger told Live Science.

There are other problems brewing in physics — namely, that the two most dominant theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, can't be reconciled.

Quantum mechanics says that the behavior of tiny subatomic particles is fundamentally uncertain. This is at odds with Einstein's general relativity, which is deterministic, meaning that once all the natural laws are known, the future is completely predetermined by the past, Das said.

And neither theory explains what dark matter, an invisible form of matter that exerts a gravitational pull on ordinary matter but cannot be detected by most telescopes, is made of.

Quantum correction

Das and his colleagues wanted a way to resolve at least some of these problems.

To do so, they looked at an older way of visualizing quantum mechanics, called Bohmian mechanics.

In it, a hidden variable governs the bizarre behavior of subatomic particles.

Unlike other formulations of quantum mechanics, it provides a way to calculate the trajectory of a particle.

Using this old-fashioned form of quantum theory, the researchers calculated a small correction term that could be included in Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Then, they figured out what would happen in deep time.

The upshot? In the new formulation, there is no singularity, and the universe is infinitely old.


A way to test the theory

One way of interpreting the quantum correction term in their equation is that it is related to the density of dark matter, Das said.

If so, the universe could be filled with a superfluid made of hypothetical particles, such as the gravity-carrying particles known as gravitons, or ultra-cold, ghostlike particles known as axions, Das said.

One way to test the theory is to look at how dark matter is distributed in the universe and see if it matches the properties of the proposed superfluid, Das said.

"If our results match with those, even approximately, that's great," Das told Live Science.

However, the new equations are just one way to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity.

For instance, a part of string theory known as string gas cosmology predicts that the universe once had a long-lasting static phase, while other theories predict there was once a cosmic "bounce," where the universe first contracted until it reached a very small size, then began expanding, Brandenberg said.

Either way, the universe was once very, very small and hot.

"The fact that there's a hot fireball at very early times: that is confirmed," Brandenberg told Live Science. "When you try to go back all the way to the singularity, that's when the problems arise."

The new theory was explained in a paper published Feb. 4 in the journal Physical Letters B, and another paper that is currently under peer review, which was published in the preprint journal arXiv.


message 2: by Faith (new)

Faith (faymorrow) | 309 comments Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

It's the simple truth that I believe in.


message 3: by John (new)

John Austin Fay,
"Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Unfortunately it's not a simple truth: it is not simple and may not be the truth.

E.g. who or what created god? According to Genesis, the universe was created about 6500 BC or something, whereas we know the Universe to be 13.8 billion years old. So Genesis is wrong anyway.

"Who or what is god" is equivalent to the question to which Physics is seeking an answer. The big bang hypothesis assumes quantum mechanics is equivalent to god.

Other hypotheses such as a recycling universe, which is certainly not a new idea, may have a different role for quantum mechanics.

Something that goes on forever (a recycling universe) is unsatisfactory as it doesn't explain how it got there in the first place. Why is there something rather than nothing?

With the big bang, there is a better explanation for reality and god isn't needed. By the Occam's razor principle we can therefore do without him.


message 4: by David (new)

David Elkin | 508 comments and how does the new proposal handle the background radiation issue?

Some sites worth reading:

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Website I think James is quoting:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/technology/...

and we are always being surprised
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ne...


message 5: by Abigail (new)

Abigail I believe that God created the earth. This truth is much easier to believe than other theories because of how intricate everything in this world is! Look at the human body for instance: Every second our brain tells the heart to pump, makes cells and loses them at the same time. Our life could end at any second if our heart didn't beat. Our immune system is fighting off any diseases and we wouldn't even know. How could such intricate order come out of confusion?


message 6: by Faith (last edited Mar 03, 2015 03:26PM) (new)

Faith (faymorrow) | 309 comments Abigail wrote: "I believe that God created the earth. This truth is much easier to believe than other theories because of how intricate everything in this world is! Look at the human body for instance: Every secon..."

I totally agree with you Abigail! Amen.

Exactly!


message 7: by Faith (last edited Mar 03, 2015 03:23PM) (new)

Faith (faymorrow) | 309 comments John wrote: "Fay,
"Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Unfortunately it's not a simple truth: it is not simple and may not be the truth.

E.g. who or what created god? Accord..."


John. To answer the question, "who or what created god?" Nothing and no one created God. God has simply always existed. He was. He is. And He will be.

I believe that according to the Bible the universe is around 6,000 years old. It is certainly not 13.8 billion years old John, that is outrageous. You said Genesis is wrong, well I beg to differ. Genesis is completely true, and accurate, and should be taken literally.

I believe the Big Bang Theory is very ridiculous and requires EVEN MORE FAITH than believing that a loving God created the universe in six days (which is totally the truth, and very simple to accept.) I mean, in summary, the Big Bang Theory is how a tiny speck explodes into an entire universe, right? (I don't know the exact science to the Big Bang Theory but I've got the idea.) No offense, but I find that VERY hard to believe sir. How could a dot, conveniently and perfectly explode into an amazing universe where if the earth was a little closer to the sun then we'd burn up and if the earth were a little farther from the sun then we'd freeze to death.

It's amazing how perfect GOD has made this world and universe, not using a bang.


message 8: by Lance, Group Founder (new)

Lance Morcan | 2818 comments John wrote: "Fay,
"Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Unfortunately it's not a simple truth: it is not simple and may not be the truth.

E.g. who or what created god? Accord..."


John - So we 'know' we the Universe is 13.8 billion years old do we? Not 13.7 or 13.9 billion? Didn't we (scientists included) also 'know' the earth was flat not that long ago?

Regarding the Big Bang...I guess Christians may suggest if that's how God chose to get things underway in this neck of the woods (i.e. the Universe as we 'know' it) then so be it...


message 9: by James, Group Founder (last edited Mar 03, 2015 03:54PM) (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments Fay wrote: "I believe that according to the Bible the universe is around 6,000 years old. It is certainly not 13.8 billion years old John, that is outrageous. You said Genesis is wrong, well I beg to differ. Genesis is completely true, and accurate, and should be taken literally...."

I gotta go with John on this one, guys.
He's right - the Earth is very, very old.
And keep in mind most modern Christians do not state the world is 4-6,000 years old anymore. Most accept that the Earth is billions of years old as per science's findings. The belief that it's only a few thousand years old is now about as popular a Christian belief as the old Biblical viewpoint that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Certainly some Christian sects and other minority offshoots (e.g. Seventh Day Adventists) push the old 4,000 year old Biblical belief, but not mainstream Christianity as a whole.

I'm not a Christian, but these are my observations.

FYI, the Aboriginal (native) people here in Australia are estimated to go back to around 50,000 years.

The Big Bang theory, which is what this post was all about, is a different subject and I'm on the fence on that. However, to believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old is to ignore virtually all of science in order to fit that into an old religious book (which has been proven to be wrong about many other things).

And please don't misinterpret this post as me suggesting I am anti the Bible. On the contrary, you'll find many other posts from me in this group that mention little known facts I believe were included in the Bible (e.g. the possible truth about the flood or Genesis possibly verifying Ancient Aliens).
But I just think there's a time where you gotta call a spade a spade and the bottom line is the Bible was written by men (not any supernatural entity) and written in a time when people had little scientific understanding...


message 10: by Laureen (new)

Laureen (laureenandersonswfcomau) | 478 comments Thanks for the reality check here James. I totally agree.


message 11: by Abigail (new)

Abigail James,
Just because many Christians are now agreeing with Evolutionists doesn't mean anything. Christians are taught to stand for the Bible even more when the majority don't. And also the Bible was Not written by men. It was spoken through men but God-breathed (God spoke it it to them or supernaturally showed them what to write). Because you think the Bible is by men this will obviously change your world-view to agree with Evolution. I mean if I thought the Bible was by men I would think the same thing. Many Creationists have found evidence of showing that the earth is only about 6000 years old.


message 12: by James, Group Founder (last edited Mar 03, 2015 05:53PM) (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments Abigail wrote: "James,
Just because many Christians are now agreeing with Evolutionists doesn't mean anything. Christians are taught to stand for the Bible even more when the majority don't. And also the Bible wa..."


Abigail, you are assuming things about my beliefs and putting words in my mouth here.
Nowhere did I say I believe or disbelieve in Evolution or Creation or a combination of the two.

Any Christian scholar will inform you the Bible was most certainly written by men. Afterall, nobody is saying the books that formed the Bible fell out of the sky already written. Each book in the Bible had authors - hence the Book of Job, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew etc, etc. Furthermore, it's historically proven many or all of these books were edited at later dates (e.g. the Council of Nicea biblical edits in 353AD conducted by the Romans). Now whether you or anyone else believe these men (the various authors and editors) were directly inspired by God when they wrote/edited these books is also something I have no comment on as it's a matter of faith and interpretation. It's a personal thing and up to each person to make up their own minds after researching for themselves.

But the fact remains that mainstream Christianity has as a whole moved away from the scientific viewpoint expressed in the Bible that the world is only a few thousand years old. I think that's in the face of overwhelming scientific research and an acknowledgment that the authors of the Bible did not have access to that knowledge at the time of writing.


message 13: by James, Group Founder (last edited Mar 03, 2015 07:27PM) (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments There are various other scientific inaccuracies in the Bible...For example many descriptions of insects and animals have been proven to be anatomically wrong.
Also a lot of errors regarding the planets and stars, especially Earth.
And another example, in Genesis, the moon is referred to as a "light" but a "lesser light" than the sun. However, we now know the moon only reflects the sun's light and produces no light of its own. Obviously at the time of writing the desert peoples would have naturally assumed the moon was producing its own light...

No doubt John would be able to point out a lot more scientific inaccuracies in the Bible than I can.

However, these inaccuracies (for me at least) do not invalidate the book as a whole and I still think it contains many secrets about the ancient history of the Earth and the Universe.


message 14: by Abigail (new)

Abigail Well, James, I'm sorry for taking you wrong but I still stand on the fact that the Bible is God inspired, though written physically by men.


message 15: by Faith (last edited Mar 03, 2015 07:49PM) (new)

Faith (faymorrow) | 309 comments Abigail wrote: "Well, James, I'm sorry for taking you wrong but I still stand on the fact that the Bible is God inspired, though written physically by men."

Agreed, Abigail. And I know for one that Ms. Abigail and me here both believe that the earth is only about 6000 years old. We are not "mainstream" Christians that believe in the possible age of the universe being billions of years old (in fact I've never met someone yet who is a Christian and believes in such an absurdly old age of the earth, I'm sure I will though). If you mathematically add up genealogy ages from the beginning of time, (Starting with the first human being ever, Adam), and working your way up adding through B.C. and then adding around the 2000 years of A.D. then you get roughly 6000 give or take.


message 16: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments Abigail wrote: "Well, James, I'm sorry for taking you wrong but I still stand on the fact that the Bible is God inspired, though written physically by men."

By all means, Abigail, keep believing in whatever makes the most sense for you.
And remember, I am still figuring things out myself ;)
Our existence remains a big mystery in my mind so I'm not pretending to have any answers to life's big questions.


message 17: by James, Group Founder (last edited Mar 03, 2015 07:55PM) (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments David wrote: "and how does the new proposal handle the background radiation issue?
..."


There are actually various other scientific theories that have been proposed regarding the background radiation.
For example, Japanese scientist and member of this group Takaaki Musha has proposed that the cosmic background radiation is not due to the after-glow of a Big Bang, but rather it's due to the Cherenkov radiation from tachyon pairs created from a ZPF vacuum.

Takaaki's theory was published in detail in the Journal of Space Exploration and other scientific journals...Essentially his theory says the ZPF vacuum radiates everlasting energy.

There are numerous other scientists who also propose that the Big Bang theory is not true. They remain in the minority for now, but possibly this may change in years to come especially given the latest research.


message 18: by James, Group Founder (last edited Mar 03, 2015 08:13PM) (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments Fay wrote: "We are not "mainstream" Christians that believe in the possible age of the universe being billions of years old (in fact I've never met someone yet who is a Christian and believes in such an absurdly old age of the earth, I'm sure I will though)..."

Hi Fay - I have loads of Christian friends who see no conflict with science's latest findings and believe the Earth and Universe are billions of years old.
There does not necessarily have to be a conflict between Evolution and Creation - why can't something have been created and then evolve?

Carbon dating is not an exact science, but it's pretty accurate. Likewise with other scientific measuring systems concerning dates. So if John and other renowned scientists are wrong about the Universe being 13.8 billion years, they could be out by maybe a few hundred million years, but that's probably about it.

To revert back to the dated idea (no pun intended) that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is to ignore virtually every bit of science available...And it's also to ignore history and archaeology - stuff like the Australian Aborigines and the pyramids not to mention the dinosaurs - all have to be conveniently ignored in my opinion...


message 19: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Even if one is a Christian who believes in the Bible as fact and that we're 6000 years old, which I'm not, it's worth remembering that when the Bible says, "God created the earth and heavens", that 'heavens' simply meant 'sky'. In which case, the Bible tells us nothing whatsoever, one way or the other, of what was there before.

The Hopi, for one, believe there were four ages/four earths before this one.

Just a thought.


message 20: by John (new)

John Austin James,
You're doing a good job there pointing out some of the inaccuracies of the bible.

There may be more inaccuracies, but I don't take the trouble to read in detail something that I know to be false in many respects. We might as well get a chemistry lesson from the Harry Potter books! [I haven't read them either!]

The bible served its function 2000 years ago when people wanted answers to simple questions. Instead of admitting ignorance (the modern way) the priests of the time simply wrote down the unexplained as the word of a mythical creature knowing that they could never be contradicted. It increased their power as they were the ones with a hot line to god. I just think it's sad that modern humans have persisted in thinking that the mythologies have literal truth.

If there were real truth in these works, then all religions would come to some agreement. But they don't. The muslims have the Koran which has its own mythology. Everybody can't be right, so the natural conclusion is that all these mythologies are wrong.

Ultimately, we have a brain so we might as well use it to ask questions about the world. When things get too difficult, Christians give up and say something is the will of god. The persecution of scientists by the Christian church over the centuries just shows how desperate these priests were to cover up the truth, and protect their own interests. Nothing to do with any mythical creature. Modern Christian priests are pilloried if they are seen to be too critical, so they try to keep a distance. What they fail to acknowledge, however, is that science is not just information collected about the physical world, but a whole philosophy of enquiry ("the scientific method") which can be applied to any problem. It can even address the question "does god exist", a question that religion itself dodges for good reason.

Back to the point about the universe possibly recycling. Didn't Hubble himself have that idea? Wasn't he the one who thought up the phrase "big bang" as a frustrated way of saying how silly the whole idea was? Of course science is full of silly ideas that ultimately survive the full test of scientific enquiry, such as evolution itself.

It will probably take a long time to dismiss the "big bang" theory [no pun intended!]. We can get very close to the point when the current universe began --- a tiny fraction of a second. After this point the laws of physics as currently known can work to produce the universe as it is. However close we can get we may never know for sure how the universe began. My favourite choice is that initially there was nothing except the laws of physics (much more satisfactory than a mythical creature), but the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics forbids this. So the universe may be a random fluctuation about a zero mean state. You may have seen the T-shirt: The universe --- the ultimate free lunch!

Other ideas such as parallel universes appear to be untestable. If something is untestable it might as well not exist.

So, back to god. All religions appear to be constructed on the principle of god wanting to rely on faith rather than on evidence. Why faith is supposed to be better that rationality confuses me, as the very thing that makes us higher animals is our ability to reason. This is a very cunning construction tantamount to exploiting an important mathematical principle called Goedel's theorem: In all systems there are unverifiable statements.


message 21: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments I don't mean to nit-pick, as you make some valid observations John. It all comes down to how rational a thinker one is. For some, like me, the irrational can actually be more rational.

I'm not religious but I am spiritual, so when you say, "Everybody can't be right, so the natural conclusion is that all these mythologies are wrong," I can't help but want to reply: that's not my rational, logical conclusion at all. Surely a better conclusion would be that all these different religions and philosophies of different cultures, with all so many similarities, all began as one truth that we've forgotten, as it's been watered down throughout the ages.


message 22: by James, Group Founder (last edited Mar 04, 2015 06:25AM) (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments John wrote: "This is a very cunning construction tantamount to exploiting an important mathematical principle called Goedel's theorem: In all systems there are unverifiable statements.
..."


Never heard if Goedel's theorem - interesting.

I see I've kinda opened up a can of worms here with this Big Bang Theory analysis. Was hoping it'd just be a scientific debate strictly about whether the event occurred or not and that we could keep religion out of it...But I guess the Big Bang theory is so intertwined with subjects beyond science like religion and philosophy that it was inevitable.

Personally, I'm just interested in hearing ideas from scientifically savvy people more learned than me about whether they think the Big Bang occurred or not. And I wonder in 10-15 years or so whether it will still be a commonly held scientific belief or whether it'll be open to serious debate with competing theories emerging? Could the background radiation theory have been misinterpreted?

Before the Big Bang Theory what did scientists believe and theorize about the origins of the Universe? When did the Big Bang become commonly accepted as fact?

And has anyone heard of the theory that the Universe is actually infinite? Infinite in terms of space and time, I mean...I read a Quantum Physicist proposing the Universe is actually an inifinite holographic loop...

Reminds me of a joke or riddle I heard which said a man invented a telescope that could see to the very end of the Universe...And when he looked into the telescope at the end of the Universe he saw the back of his hand holding the telescope...


message 23: by John (last edited Mar 04, 2015 07:22AM) (new)

John Austin James,

There may indeed be a few ideas going around such as parallel universes and/or holographic loop, but these don't seem testable. This makes it unsatisfactory.

I can't possibly see how the universe could be physically infinite. Closed, certainly. In other words if we keep racing for the exit then we can't get out, even after an infinite time. This is because ultimately space curves in on itself according to principles of general relativity. Light does as well, so there is likely some element of truth in the telescope riddle that you mentioned!

In principle the universe could be infinite in time both in the past and future. To me, this is unsatisfactory as it may contradict an important physical principle: the entropy of the universe always increases. In fact we're hard pressed to define what time really is. I pointed out some of the issues in my book "Measuring the World", but, essentially we measure time by its effect on some other process, such as the ticking of a clock or the vibration of an atom (hence the atomic clock). Instead, we could define time in terms of entropy of the universe, although how we measure time this way I don't know. Suffice to say that time is the highest precision measurement we can make: 1 part in 10 trillion or something, compared with only a few parts per billion for mass. Yet we understand time less than we understand other things like mass.

I don't know the history of the big bang, but I think about 50 or 60 years ago, the steady state universe was more popular. This was favoured by Hubble, I think, and others. I'm not much of a scientific historian, but I think Hubble himself provided some of the very first data showing that the galaxies were moving apart. This was later interpreted as all the galaxies originally starting out at a single location.

Over the decades measurements have been made more precise so that we can be fairly certain that our current universe began 13.80 billion years ago, give or take 0.04 billion years. The solar system has been present for about 4.57 billion years, slightly longer than the 6000 years that it apparently took (according to god) to create the Earth. As I mentioned earlier, the details of the first fraction of a second are a bit hazy. One possibility is certainly of a recycling universe, where a big bang is followed eventually by a big crunch at the end of our current time. however, this requires the universe to be "closed". In other words, eventually, gravity would need to win over the initial explosive energy of the big bang to bring everything back together again. If the universe were "open", the initial bang would be too great for gravity to work and so the expansion of the universe would occur forever. Another alternative would be a "flat" universe in which the expansion continues but eventually stops and the universe reaches steady state. Measurements of the mass of the individual galaxies suggest that the universe is somewhere near the "flat" region, but it is obviously a difficult calculation.

Scientists are obviously trying to address these problems. Another issue is that in principle, gravity should be decelerating the expansion of the universe. Yet measurements suggest that the expansion rate is increasing. This doesn't make any sense, and there are hypotheses such as the presence of "dark matter" to try to explain it. Until there is some detection of dark matter we'll be left in the dark in answering this question!


message 24: by John (new)

John Austin Of course it would take a lot to shake the theory of the "big bang". There is so much data in support of it now, receding galaxies etc. and there is a whole explanation of what occurred in the universe from a fraction of a second after the big bang.

Any new theory would need to explain that as well.
Not much will happen in the next 10-15 years is my guess, so cosmology is safe for a few decades.


message 25: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments John wrote: "Until there is some detection of dark matter we'll be left in the dark in answering this question!
..."


Ha ha!
I for one am in the dark, for sure.
Thank for explaining all that re the Universe to a layman - appreciated.

It's fascinating stuff for sure.

So if the Big Bang occurred then I'm trying to wrap my head around it...I cannot conceive of something being created out of nothing...There must have been one atom at first, is that correct? Then it exploded and the Universe grew out of that? But did this Big Bang occur in a space itself? Surely it needed room to occur? If so, what was the space it happened in? Was it a mini universe or a temporary universe? Or am I approaching this all wrong?

Is it possible there are multiple universes? Do any mainstream scientists consider this a possibility?

If the Universe is really 13.8 billion years old, then what was going on 13.9 billion years ago? Or 15 billion years ago? Nothing I assume?? And then if the Big Crunch occurs at the end of time, then nothing will exist after that?

So basically my equation for all this is as follows:

NOTHING + Something = NOTHING AGAIN

Hmmmm...
I'm starting to sense science perhaps shares a little in common with religion ;)


message 26: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments Krishna wrote: "James, as i have mentioned earlier, the total positive and negative masses and forces can sum up to 0.
..."


So what does that mean in English (or Hindi)?
remember I suck at maths and science...


message 27: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments Krishna wrote: "I didn't get it"

I just mean what does your statement (the total positive and negative masses and forces can sum up to 0) mean in relation to the Big Bang and/or the origins of the Universe?


message 28: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments Krishna wrote: "I have posted that earlier. And moreover u told that nothing + something = nothing."

Okay sorry, I missed what you wrote previously and now understand.

I think I'm leaning toward the universe as a hologram idea. Just a gut feeling...


message 29: by John (new)

John Austin James,

Goedel's theorem in mathematics is very interesting by the way, although you already intuitively know it.

For centuries, mathematicians used to think that their subject was complete in a particular technical way, but in the early 20th century, so quite recently really, Goedel's demonstrated that not all systems could be consistent and complete. Take the English language, which is just a mathematical system with a different name. Now explore the sentence:

"This sentence is a lie."

It is unverifiable: you cannot say whether it is true or untrue. In other words, the English language contains unverifiable statements. By the language of mathematics the English language is incomplete.

Now take religion with the premise that "belief in god requires faith". As far as I know, all religions are constructed with this premise. Therefore similarly this is an unverifiable statement as Goedel would have recognised it.

However, science has no faith in anything so this doesn't stop scientists from concluding that the probability of the existence of god is very low. Of course science can't prove anything as it is not mathematics, but it can put a general probability on many things. I'm sure Dawkins would do a better job than me.

For example, I might be perverse and say that I think there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars. Not a single person can contradict me, despite my apparent perversion. I challenge you! If you get difficult by saying that you're going to focus the best telescope on the region, then my retort is to say that the teapot is too small to be seen by telescopes from Earth.

You don't believe in my china teapot but some people believe in a god, who is equally unobservable, by the very rules that religion dictates (belief in me requires faith etc.). Yet the argument is the same.

This is the Russell argument for atheism and to get the full picture you need to look it up.


message 30: by Sarah (new)

Sarah (lamarythefirst) John wrote: "James,
You're doing a good job there pointing out some of the inaccuracies of the bible.

There may be more inaccuracies, but I don't take the trouble to read in detail something that I know to be..."


Oh dear John (haha ha ha. Get it! No puns intended guys. I thought that's what we were doing here?)
Anyway, I agree with our friends Faith and Abigail here about the Bible (see that, capitalized?) and ALL of its TRUE TRUTHS. Just wanted to make that clear.
Also, I'm calling you out on your grammatical errors. It's evident that you wrote "bible" instead of "Bible" and "god" rather than "God" to emphasize the fact that you don't believe those things. Those are word crimes for your information. Don't worry, I'm not saying you're not allowed to not believe those things (that's your problem). But, I'm just saying, I know what you're trying to convey.
Also, when you were talking about the Muslim book of religion, the Quran (see, capital Q) you spelled it wrong. Just thought I'd tell you that, too.


message 31: by Faith (new)

Faith (faymorrow) | 309 comments James wrote: "David wrote: "and how does the new proposal handle the background radiation issue?
..."

There are actually various other scientific theories that have been proposed regarding the background radia..."


God cannot have created the Earth and then have it evolve, it simply did not occur. God created humans and life and the Earth and it was perfect, no sin in the world, and then BAM! Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and into darkness and sin we plunge. We (humans) did not evolve, becoming better organisms in different stages of life evolving. Nope. In fact humans have deteriorated, for example we have a short life span then when humans were first created. Adam lived well into his 900's and then after sin, life spans kept getting shorter and shorter.

And my opinion of carbon dating is that it is not accurate most of the time. I remember a fellow scientist once spoke where I was and he showed us a rock that was taken from a volcano and told us that he knew for a fact it was a couple decades old. Then he told us that he did a carbon dating test on it and it said that the rock was thousands of years old! I do not trust carbon dating.

And I do not mean to be rude but did you not read what I had written before? About how adding ages from Adam to A.D. would give us around 6000 years? I am not disregarding scientific evidence, or historical evidence James.


message 32: by Faith (new)

Faith (faymorrow) | 309 comments Sarah wrote: "John wrote: "James,
You're doing a good job there pointing out some of the inaccuracies of the bible.

There may be more inaccuracies, but I don't take the trouble to read in detail something that..."


Agreed Sarah. Totally some Word Crimes ('Weird Al' Yankovic) going on there.


message 33: by Abigail (new)

Abigail Fay wrote "agreed Sarah there are some word crimes." Wow Faith Wow


message 34: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments Lordy...


message 35: by James, Group Founder (last edited Mar 04, 2015 10:41PM) (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments Okay, so carbon dating not an exact science but 13.8 billion years vs 6,000 years is quite the difference!

So to amuse myself and hopefully others, let me ask those who take the Bible 100% literally and always right in all matters a few questions...As I'm seriously confused by the logic here...But I'm not judging, just trying to get an insight on the thought patterns, given that religion has somehow become a big talking point in a scientific discussion thread...

So, if the world is only 6,000 years old...And Adam was there at the beginning and lived like a thousand years or 900 or whatever, then he lived one-sixth of the Earth's existence, right? And also in this belief system or biblical interpretation where do the dinosaurs fit in? Was Adam meant to have been running around with those creatures? The Bible makes no mention of the dinosaurs though, does it? Or only brief obscure references perhaps? Were the dinosaurs not covered because people at the time did not know about them, or was it because they aren't important in the creation stories?

On a separate matter (but possibly interrelated in terms of beliefs that have no scientific backing...), someone recently sent me this link on the Flat Earth Society which is still alive and kicking: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
They even have their own podcast...:)


message 36: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments Krishna wrote: "James, there r different stories in different religions. But the story of creation has to be one. So those who think that earth is 6000 years old, must have in mind about the Egyptian or Mayan civi..."

Yeah, I know, Krishna.


message 37: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments At the risk of stirring things up further, I just came across this article on a the discovery of a 2.8-million-year-old human jawbone in Africa... https://au.news.yahoo.com/technology/...


Is this the missing link in human evolution?

The discovery of a 2.8-million-year-old partial jawbone in Africa could rewrite the history of human evolution.

An international team of researchers found the lower jawbone, complete with teeth, at the Ledi-Geraru site in the Ethiopian Rift Valley, and published the finding in a report today in the journal Science.

The primitive jawbone is approximately 400,000 years older than Homo habilis, also known as Handy Man, which is the earliest-known species in the Homo lineage that led to modern humans.

Together with another study that examines the evolution of Homo habilis, the find could answer a gap in the fossil record that has frustrated scientists for nearly half a century.

"The fossil record for humans between two million and three million years ago is just very poor and has long been known as a gap in human evolution," said lead author and anthropologist Dr Brian Villmoare, from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

The fossil provides clues to changes in the jaw and teeth in Homo only 200,000 years after the last known occurrence of the Australopithecus genus that includes the fossil Lucy from the nearby site of Hadar.

While the front of the jawbone is very primitive — suggesting it comes from the Australopithecus — the back of the jawbone and teeth resemble those of Homo habilis.

"It does have some more primitive traits that come from Australopithecus, the more than three-million-year-old group, but also has a lot of traits that link it with the species that we see around two million years ago," Dr Villmoare said.

The teeth found in the jawbone suggest a change in diet from the mainly fruit-eating Australopithecus towards a more meat-based diet that would also have required the use of tools.

"At three million years ago, you have a very ape-like creature with long arms, living in the forest, probably eating fruit," Dr Villmoare said.

"And then at two millions years ago you have Homo with the tools and large brain and more modern body plan with shorter arms.

"The big gap between those two is really interesting because something must have happened that led to the evolution of us."

Homo habilis more primitive than first thought: researchers

A H. erectus skull discovered in 2000 near lake Turkana. This was unveiled to the worlds media on 09 August 2007 at the National Museum of Kenya in Nairobi. New research based on the latest find shows the human family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors. Source: AAP

The gap between Homo and Australopithecus was also of interest to another team of researchers, who set out to digitally reconstruct the jawbone of the original Handy Man skull discovered by Louis Leakey in 1964.

They used CT scanning to carefully piece together a digital version of the damaged mandible in an attempt to clarify the key features that distinguish Homo habilis from its ancestors.

The scans show the mandible is far more primitive than first thought.

"In outline — not necessarily in exactly the details of what the teeth looked like — it was actually pretty similar to what you would see in the species [Australopithecus afarensis] that Lucy belonged to," said Fred Spoor, who works for the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology and is a professor of evolutionary anatomy at University College London.

The findings, published today in Nature, challenge the existing model of how genus Homo evolved and displace what was previously thought to be the ancestor of Homo habilis.

"It became interesting to ask the question, what would the true ancestor look like?" Professor Spoor said.

"We were musing about it, and at that moment, we heard from a colleague that they found this new lower jaw in Ethiopia."

The jawbone described in the Science paper is the "perfect missing link", Professor Spoor says.

Anthropologist Professor Colin Groves, who works in biological anthropology at the Australian National University, says the work by Professor Spoor and colleagues "really upsets the apple cart" in terms of the understanding of how all the Homo species fit together.

"What the authors have done is to just pick up all these individual specimens and toss them back into the mixing bowl, so we just don't know how many species there were, which belong to which," Professor Groves said.

While the new jawbone finding provides a nice intermediate specimen between Australopithecus and Homo, Professor Groves says the implications of the Homo reconstruction will take some time to digest.


message 38: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments Fay wrote: "God cannot have created the Earth and then have it evolve, it simply did not occur. God created humans and life and the Earth and it was perfect, no sin in the world, and then BAM! Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and into darkness and sin we plunge. We (humans) did not evolve, becoming better organisms in different stages of life evolving. Nope. ..."

I know where you're coming from Fay, but don't agree that something could not be created and then evolve from there. I realize certain figureheads in the various faiths that believe in the Bible (e.g. Judaism, Christianity and various other sects) promote these things as fact. But if you take an independent and unbiased look at the Bible, nowhere does it say things cannot evolve from the original creation.
Again, I would argue, these are simply interpretations of religious texts that are ambiguous in places...


message 39: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Seeing as the thread's moved on a bit in topic, I thought I'd stick my snout in.

Simply: we all know there are tons of contradictions/mistakes in the Holy Bible, whether it be: the differing accounts in the gospels as to how Jesus dies- in one, he's crucified on a cross, in another he's strung up on a tree. Or the fact that the singularity of God is changed to the plural on the very first page of Genesis, where God said: "Let us make Man in OUR image, after OUR likeness."

Honestly, I'm not trying to nit-pick (and we'd be here all day) and I respect everyone's beliefs and have some good Christian friends, but I highlight it to show how things like adding up the ages of everyone in the book can be just as much a fallacy as much of the rest- or, indeed, carbon dating, in the views of some Christians.


message 40: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments Yeah it's amazing how in Genesis it mentions "Gods" and "the old Gods".


message 41: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments And when you take into account the number of translations over the years, it should become even more obvious that one cannot rely on any interpretation as an absolute truth. I recently read some of a very modern Holy Bible- to give it its correct name- and was actually quite shocked at how many words had been liberally changed from the century old copy I own- which, in itself would have been through various translations and interpretations.


message 42: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Krishna wrote: "But gods used to stay in a ready made area. Right? Now who had created that?"

Not sure I get you there Krishna. Do you mean an area like Zeus and Mount Olympus? I don't think there's reference to that sort of thing in the Bible. But 'If God exists then who created God?' is of course a time old philosophical question.

Personally, I'm most interested in wanting to know what God IS.


message 43: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments And then when you research the official biblical edits the Romans did to the New Testament in the 4th Century, the Bible becomes even murkier..,it is historical fact that they edited out many books from the Bible e.g. the Gospel of Thomas. these books have been nicknamed the "forbidden books of the bible" yet they were no less than the other books that survived the Roman's edits...If you look up the oldest Bible ever found it's called the Sinai Bible and written on donkey skins. It is a 2nd or 3rd century bible and is in a museum somewhere and its contents are radically different to the post Roman bible we know today...


message 44: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments James wrote: "And then when you research the official biblical edits the Romans did to the New Testament in the 4th Century, the Bible becomes even murkier..,it is historical fact that they edited out many books..."

The Nag Hammadi... The Dead Sea Scrolls... All that was lost in the burning of the Alexandrian Library and more...


message 45: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Krishna wrote: "No no not mount Olympus ,those r on earth only I was talking about any place. U know gods need a place to live. I am asking that who created that?"

I don't think there's anything mentioned in the Bible, but, yeah, there are lots of interesting questions like that when looking at theology. Does God need an apartment?


message 46: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments It is very sad. And destroying ancient cultures' art and writings is STILL going on today. ISIS and others have destroyed much, particularly in Iraq very recently.


message 47: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments So I still don't understand the Big Bang and Big Crunch...
This is my limited understanding:

First there was nothingness (pre Big Bang)

Then life and the universe were all created from nothing in an instant (Big BANG)

And then one day all life and the universe will be destroyed (Big Crunch) and there will only be nothing again


message 48: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments Could it be there is something in the nothing?


message 49: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments James wrote: "So I still don't understand the Big Bang and Big Crunch...
This is my limited understanding:

First there was nothingness (pre Big Bang)

Then life and the universe were all created from nothing in..."


Very well swerved back to the thread mate. :)

Human beings can only experience an either/or attitude. We live in a world of opposites. We've never been clear in understanding: how can there be nothing? How can something come from nothing? How can there be something without nothing? and so on, whether looking at it religiously, philosophically or scientifically. Human design prevents us from seeing the truth that lies in between the two sides of the coin. Some call that truth infinity, others call it God.

If there was/wasn't the Big Bang, it still doesn't answer those fundamental questions, like: how is life possible?


message 50: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11245 comments Where is John when we need him?


« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8
back to top