Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
What Is The Difference, Please...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by GwynJ on February 5, 2001 00:04:09 UTC

In trying to learn more about Big Bang vs. Creation, I went to www.cfpa.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html. It was helpful, with its glossary, yet I still have questions. I'll # the paragraphs and refer back, hopefully that'll help. I'm sure it's covered in many places elsewhere, but they seem to have gotten buried and I want to increase my 'chances' of getting a reply.

1)'Cosmology (by their definition) is the study of how the universe MIGHT have formed.

2) it mentioned initially 'a microkernel was a singularity the size of a dime from which the universe was born...'. Since THEIR glossary didn't include 'singularity', I went to infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/hawking.html and it stated that Hawking states 'The existence of the singularity is AN UNEXPLAINED GIVEN.' His quantum cosmology omits the initial simgularity and IMPLIES that it is PROBABLE (to a degree less than one) that the universe begins to exist with a non-singular state of the wave function law. (to be honest, it's description where a guy can be sitting in a chair here and his 'wave' extend to Mars sounds almost Buddhist).

3) Then "Because of photons being large amounts of energy, physical laws as we know them did not exist right after the BB. Some photons became quarks, which then formed protons and neutrons. Eventualy, BB nucleosynthesis produced hydrogen, helium and lithium. Theoretical predictions about the amounts and types of elements formed by the BB have been made and SEEM to agree with observation.

4) Inflation theory(the exaggerated outward expansion right after BB with gravity causing galaxy clumping) is NOT DIRECTLY VERIFIABLE.

5) At deoxy.org/h_kaku2.htm it's stated "The goal facing quantum cosmologists is to VERIFY this CONJECTURE (wave function) mathematically. Showing the wave function of the universe is large for our present universe and vanishingly small for other universes. This would then prove that our familiar universe is in some sense unique and stable. AT PRESENT QUANTUM COSMOLOGISTS ARE UNABLE TO SOLVE THIS IMPORTANT PROBLEM.

6) That site continues 'Perhaps among the billions of parallel universes, only one (ours) had the right set of physical laws to allow life".

7)Moving on to crystalinks.com/cosmicstrings.html for the string theory and trying to find out more about this elusive micro-kernel which appeared out of nowhere, this site informs me that "String theory is a science in progress...whether or not it ACTUALLY describes the universe that we live in IS NOT KNOWN YET. It has remarkable potential to do so.

And now for the bulk of my questions:
A) 1,3,4,5,& 7, in different fields, seem to agree that science admits it just isn't sure (yet) how the universe was made.
B) #2 mentions a singularity is an 'unexplained given', #5 (its alternate, wave function) has yet to be proven.
C)#3 also states 'physical laws as we know them did not exist right after the BB'
D)#6 - it would be interesting to know the mathematical 'probability' of life existing on only one in one BILLION universes.

To conclude:
Findings A-D suggest, to me at least, that science isn't quite sure how the universe was made, it can 'assume' that it came from something the size of a dime that came from--where?--,but it seems to agree the earth is a pretty special place.

So, can someone tell me, what's the difference between SCIENCE's 'I don't know-yets' and a believer's 'I know God invented/engineered it, but I don't know all the details to convey to you'?
And the suggestion that law governed all things, see #3 above again. This REALLY has me curious, especially when there are scientists who DO the experiments and those who read and trust their words withOUT experimenting, just as there are those who LIVE a believing life and those who listen about one. (Please know this is not to negate the work of science at all, we're all just trying to find stuff out, I'm just interested in feedback here). Don't people study because they're sure there's more stuff to learn? Why is it bad to also call that 'faith', that this isn't 'all there is'?

Thanks for your time and patience. gwynj

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins