Big Bang Theory: Science or Faith?

[seventil]

This was taken out of the "Explanation of the Universe" thread. Here is a short transcript:

As I said, the evidence points to expansion. Period. It is, indeed, interpretation that provides the theory of the big bang, just as interpretation of evidence provides the theory of the earth's orbit, which no one has observed. The question is, should we bother to interpret the evidence?

Believing in the big bang theory takes just as much faith as me believing in God; no scientific evidences here can support the theory because the theory breaks so many (thermodynamics, relativity).

It takes faith? I suppose one must have some degree of confidence in the ability of human thought to make sense of information. Beyond that, there's no "faith" required. You know, it might be helpful if you were to explain this last bit...how is this theory incompatible with thermodynamics and relativity? I bet the astrophysicists have thought about this, and wouldn't have bothered to suggest the idea if it were patently absurd.

[YEC]

Once again, how did matter come from this absence of matter?

ah, er, ....I'll let you work out the rest for yourself

[ENIGMA]

Once again, how did matter come from this absence of matter?

I have no intention of writing something that, in all likelyhood, will not be read.

ah, er, ....I'll let you work out the rest for yourself

Says one who thought something was needed to create an absence of matter..

[QED]

Once again, how did matter come from this absence of matter?

YEC, have you actually followed the progression of this argument? I drew your attention to the findings of spontatneous particle-pair creation in laboratory vacuum. This ex nihilo creation of energy/mass is precisely what you are looking for.

Through the grossest simplification I could think of, I have already suggested here that "the more nothing you start with - the more something you inevitably end up with".

Of course it doesn't appeal to common sense, but you will find that nature has no respect for such human notions when it is studied in detail. Of course I can understand how you might find it very hard to accept that a property of your faith might seem utterly out of place by being reproducable in the laboratry (albeit at a far smaller scale) but the fact remains that there is indeed such a process as this due to quantum fluctuation.

[YEC]

Once again, how did matter come from this absence of matter?

YEC, have you actually followed the progression of this argument? I drew your attention to the findings of spontatneous particle-pair creation in laboratory vacuum. This ex nihilo creation of energy/mass is precisely what you are looking for.

What you presented appeared to be weak at best..not really saying what you claimed it to be saying. How did all of what is in our universe appear in such fashion? You semed to mention the spontaneous creation part.... then forgot the anilhilation part. Did our pre-universe anihilate many times prior to it's formation? Why did our universe not anilhilate.

Now answering your statement that your link was "precisely what you are looking for" The answer is no. It didn't come close. Perhaps you would like to present another link or even explain the link you presented.

[YEC]

Once again, how did matter come from this absence of matter?

I have no intention of writing something that, in all likelyhood, will not be read.

TRANSLATION.... I don't have a clue, so I will try to sound smart by acting is if I really do know something about the topic...but don't want to write about it because no one will read it.

NEXT

[gluadys]

Just as YEC "translates" replies to suit his thinking, readers of this thread may need a translation of YECs comments. From several years of experience in YECese, I offer these translations of his post above.

What you presented appeared to be weak at best..not really saying what you claimed it to be saying.

Translation: Did you really expect me to understand all that science?

Now answering your statement that your link was "precisely what you are looking for" The answer is no. It didn't come close. Perhaps you would like to present another link or even explain the link you presented.

Translation: Since I didn't understand what you presented, I'll pretend it was not what I was looking for and demand something else.

[ENIGMA]

I have no intention of writing something that, in all likelyhood, will not be read.

TRANSLATION.... I don't have a clue, so I will try to sound smart by acting is if I really do know something about the topic...but don't want to write about it because no one will read it.

NEXT

No, just that it is obvious you have perpetually failed to read anything provided to the point of absurdity of asking such inane questions as "Where did the vacuum come from?"

I've done some checking and I must say that your reputation precedes you.

[YEC]

Moderators....do we have to put up with this evo BS and lies all the time?

Will they not answer the questions or do they have to rely on ad-hom post to "win" their debate?

[Jose]

Moderators....do we have to put up with this evo BS and lies all the time?

Will they not answer the questions or do they have to rely on ad-hom post to "win" their debate?

Good point. How about we hereby insist upon the following rules:

1. No lies or BS. This includes posting statements taken from other sources when those statements have already been shown elsewhere to be lies or BS.
2. No questions that have already been asked and answered in this forum or in other venues, except to ask for clarification of the answers.
3. No ignoring of answers, when given. We should all read the answers that are offered, and think about them, rather than just go on as if nothing had happened.
3. We should all answer questions posed to us.

Of course, these rules apply to the YECs as well as the evos.

[QED]

What you presented appeared to be weak at best..not really saying what you claimed it to be saying. How did all of what is in our universe appear in such fashion? You semed to mention the spontaneous creation part.... then forgot the anilhilation part. Did our pre-universe anihilate many times prior to it's formation? Why did our universe not anilhilate.

I did not as you suggest forget the anihilation. On page three I wrote:

In both experiments (lab. & universe) equal quantities of matter and antimatter are produced - in the case of the universe causing almost total annihilation - almost, because there was a slight imbalance favouring matter, which is why we never encounter anti-matter 'in the wild' (except of course in the science lab.)

The suggestion being that in the case of an infinite vacuum, an infinite number if particle-antiparticle pairs would ensue. However, it would only require an infinitely small number of cases where only one of the pair was viable (in the case of our matter based universe it was a bias away from antimatter) to result in a fininte (possibly even infinite through the quirks of mathematical infinities) amount of stuff to have a debate about.

The mere fact that matter and anitmatter are equally producable in the lab. whereas antimatter never persists 'in the wild' is yet another piece of supporting evidence for the big-bang theory as proposed.

Now answering your statement that your link was "precisely what you are looking for" The answer is no. It didn't come close. Perhaps you would like to present another link or even explain the link you presented.

The theory of evolution is not only a complete theory capable of explaining all the features of life we can observe (were it not, evolutionists would be falling over each other to investigate) but it can also be succesfuly applied as an engineering principle for the development of man-made artifacts. The significance of this last statement is that it proves the principle to work perfectly well in practise.

This makes evolution a candidate for the explanation of life - there may indeed be other explanations, which might just leave it to a matter of taste - were it not for other equally valid principles... Nature itslef favours one of these - the 'principle of least action'. A related method commonly used for choosing between competing explanations being Occams Razor:

"one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"

Now I would anticipate any theist regarding this to conclude that divine intervention should therefore win this contest hands-down - requiring but one entity in every case. If that truly satisfies you then you have your answer to everything.

The inquiring mind however will always disqualify god from such contests on the grounds that he can be thus used to explain everything - not just big stuff like the creation but little stuff like the reason you always seem to be left with an odd sock in the drawer. Comforting enough for some though I suppose.