Humans may be primed to believe in creation

[Xaxyx]

The coolest thing about science is that the fact that there's always some new area to explore. . . .

Yet the experts seem to not want to venture down this path.

I'm not sure you it is you're referring to as "experts". An objective scientist is always interested in new facts, new hypotheses, new ideas. Even in areas of science in which we're pretty sure we have all of our facts straight. I for one am delighted to be proven wrong about something. That means that I had my facts wrong previously; but now I have an accurate grasp. When that occurs, I experience gratitude, not resentment.

With regards to the question of what existed before the Big Bang, the answer comes back something like, "It's foolish to ask such a question."

Rubbish, I say. The only foolish question is the question that goes unasked. You tell that so-called scientist that I'm revoking his pocket protector!

Herein I can comment intelligently. The size of an object is not necessarily related to its mass.

But I was talking about matter.

As was I. Only matter has mass. The space that matter occupies, however, is not necessarily related to its mass. Atoms can be compressed into staggeringly small spaces. Compress carbon enough, and it reformed into a denser crystal matrix -- the diamond. Compress hydrogen enough, and it gets crushed into helium in an intense, energy-releasing fusion reaction; that's how the sun works.

In order for the Big Bang to work, one would have to envision how the entire universe could be compressed back into the subatomic singularity from which it all first came from (deconstruction, I believe it's called).

That doesn't seem hard to envision. I can envision that right now. I daresay you envisioned it when you wrote that sentence. Modeling it, on the other hand, may prove vastly more difficult. We've just now begun to experiment with colliding particles and building nuclear fusion generators and the like. Science has a long, long way to go before exploring impressive stuff like creating entire universes.

While I interacted on an astronomy board, we discussed an animated movie based on Treasure Island that took place in outer space. In the movie they were at a safe distance from a sun that "changed" into a black hole. Suddenly there was a gravity increase from where t hey were located, and the ship was pulled into the black hole. They guys who studied this stuff commented that the gravity from their position would have stayed the same, for it would have taken an increase in mass to do so.

That is correct, once again demonstrating that matter's size and shape is not necessarily related to its mass. I do very much prefer science fiction movies that at least try to mimic real life science in some fashion. It makes the scene that much more suspenseful.

[MorningGlory]

Don't know about that one but I AM interested to know what TYPE of scientist is giving expert opinions in this thread. He (xaxyx) also offered to teach OneLight about science. I think it's reasonable to know on what basis he can do this. I asked; I didn't get a straight answer.

My apologies if I was seemingly evasive. I didn't understand I was being asked about my credentials. You asked about my 'bailiwick'; that to me seemed to mean an area of interest, rather than an area of expertise.

So, now that I better understand the question, I'll be... purposefully evasive! I respectfully decline to answer, as I prefer anonymity with regards to my background and experience. My apologies.

If, as alluded, my refusal to provide my credentials nullifies our ability to converse, then I regret that very much. But my stance is firm.

Well, you don't have to disclose your area of study, xaxyx, it's your right to not do so. It simply lends credibility when we know you're a biologist or physicist or whatever. I doubt that keeping that private will make anyone unwilling to converse with you though...and that includes me.

[nebula]

With regards to the question of what existed before the Big Bang, the answer comes back something like, "It's foolish to ask such a question."

Rubbish, I say. The only foolish question is the question that goes unasked. You tell that so-called scientist that I'm revoking his pocket protector!

Here's an example:

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q119.html

What existed in space prior to the Big Bang ?

This is similar to other questions in the Ask the AstronomerBig Bang Cosmology area. The answer is that we do not know. What we don't know, in particular, is whether this question has a meaningful answer. It could turn out to be the same class of questions as 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'It SOUNDS like a sensible question, but in fact its physical basis and foundation may be utterly lacking. . . .

Herein I can comment intelligently. The size of an object is not necessarily related to its mass.

But I was talking about matter.

As was I. Only matter has mass. The space that matter occupies, however, is not necessarily related to its mass. Atoms can be compressed into staggeringly small spaces. Compress carbon enough, and it reformed into a denser crystal matrix -- the diamond. Compress hydrogen enough, and it gets crushed into helium in an intense, energy-releasing fusion reaction; that's how the sun works.

And the compression of all the atoms in millions of galaxies compressed into something that is smaller than a needle point . . . makes sense to you?

In order for the Big Bang to work, one would have to envision how the entire universe could be compressed back into the subatomic singularity from which it all first came from (deconstruction, I believe it's called).

That doesn't seem hard to envision. I can envision that right now. I daresay you envisioned it when you wrote that sentence. Modeling it, on the other hand, may prove vastly more difficult. We've just now begun to experiment with colliding particles and building nuclear fusion generators and the like. Science has a long, long way to go before exploring impressive stuff like creating entire universes.

For the record, I am not "anti-Big Bang." I just have questions and I like to see how people attempt to answer them.

And I disagree - it is hard for me to envision. Actually, it's impossible for me to envision. That's why I'm asking.

I do very much prefer science fiction movies that at least try to mimic real life science in some fashion. It makes the scene that much more suspenseful.

And an example of such a movie would be. . . ????

[Guest JustusRyan]

With regards to the question of what existed before the Big Bang, the answer comes back something like, "It's foolish to ask such a question."

Rubbish, I say. The only foolish question is the question that goes unasked. You tell that so-called scientist that I'm revoking his pocket protector!

Here's an example:

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q119.html

What existed in space prior to the Big Bang ?

This is similar to other questions in the Ask the AstronomerBig Bang Cosmology area. The answer is that we do not know. What we don't know, in particular, is whether this question has a meaningful answer. It could turn out to be the same class of questions as 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'It SOUNDS like a sensible question, but in fact its physical basis and foundation may be utterly lacking. . . .

Herein I can comment intelligently. The size of an object is not necessarily related to its mass.

But I was talking about matter.

As was I. Only matter has mass. The space that matter occupies, however, is not necessarily related to its mass. Atoms can be compressed into staggeringly small spaces. Compress carbon enough, and it reformed into a denser crystal matrix -- the diamond. Compress hydrogen enough, and it gets crushed into helium in an intense, energy-releasing fusion reaction; that's how the sun works.

And the compression of all the atoms in millions of galaxies compressed into something that is smaller than a needle point . . . makes sense to you?

In order for the Big Bang to work, one would have to envision how the entire universe could be compressed back into the subatomic singularity from which it all first came from (deconstruction, I believe it's called).

That doesn't seem hard to envision. I can envision that right now. I daresay you envisioned it when you wrote that sentence. Modeling it, on the other hand, may prove vastly more difficult. We've just now begun to experiment with colliding particles and building nuclear fusion generators and the like. Science has a long, long way to go before exploring impressive stuff like creating entire universes.

For the record, I am not "anti-Big Bang." I just have questions and I like to see how people attempt to answer them.

And I disagree - it is hard for me to envision. Actually, it's impossible for me to envision. That's why I'm asking.

I do very much prefer science fiction movies that at least try to mimic real life science in some fashion. It makes the scene that much more suspenseful.

And an example of such a movie would be. . . ????

So, if you don't find the evidence for the big bang compelling, what is your scientific evidence that a god created it?

[nebula]

So, if you don't find the evidence for the big bang compelling, what is your scientific evidence that a god created it?

No offense, but I'm having a nice intellectual discussion with Xax.

What you are asking completely misses the point of my questioning. I'm not taking a stance against nor for the Big Bang; I'm simply questioning an aspect of the theory that makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. As i stated, I like to hear how others try to explain it.

[Guest JustusRyan]

So, if you don't find the evidence for the big bang compelling, what is your scientific evidence that a god created it?

No offense, but I'm having a nice intellectual discussion with Xax.

What you are asking completely misses the point of my questioning. I'm not taking a stance against nor for the Big Bang; I'm simply questioning an aspect of the theory that makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. As i stated, I like to hear how others try to explain it.

Yes, I understand you are questioning a hypothesis (not a theory) you don't quite understand. I'm guessing based on your signature that you believe a god created the universe and all I'm asking is what is your evidence for this claim?

[nebula]

Yes, I understand you are questioning a hypothesis (not a theory) you don't quite understand.

I never knew the Big Bang was a mere hypothesis.

I thought it was more solid than that in scientific understanding.

I'd be more impressed if you tried using string theory on me to handle my puzzlement than treating me like a doohockey.

I'm guessing based on your signature that you believe a god created the universe and all I'm asking is what is your evidence for this claim?

Why do you ask?

[Xaxyx]

Here's an example:

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q119.html

What existed in space prior to the Big Bang ?

This is similar to other questions in the Ask the Astronomer Big Bang Cosmology area. The answer is that we do not know. What we don't know, in particular, is whether this question has a meaningful answer. It could turn out to be the same class of questions as 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'It SOUNDS like a sensible question, but in fact its physical basis and foundation may be utterly lacking. . . .

This person isn't saying it's foolish to ask the question. He's saying that the question can't be answered meaningfully. He's not saying it very well, but that's the point he's driving at.

Questions of similar ilk might include, "What's outside of the universe?" or "What happened before the Big Bang?" As we lack a frame of reference to even describe these environments or continuums or what-have-you, it's not possible to answer them meaningfully. But that doesn't ever preclude us from asking.

And the compression of all the atoms in millions of galaxies compressed into something that is smaller than a needle point . . . makes sense to you?

Yes it does. The result is a singularity. The most compact, the most compressed, the most super-duperest of squished-up, black-holesque material.

There's many things in science that make sense, from an abstract perspective, even if those things end up being counterintuitive relative to how we perceive the world. Looking up into the sky, it would seem perfectly plausible to me that the sun revolves around the Earth, and unnatural to think the reverse. Yet science would indicate otherwise. Peering through a telescope, stars seem tiny and in configurations relative to their location. Science instead holds that they're enormous, as big or bigger than our sun; and nowhere near one another, despite our cutesy constellations. Indeed, when we look up into the sky, we're not even looking at the stars. We're looking at light emitted by those stars thousands upon thousands of years ago. Counterintuitive indeed. But nevertheless, demonstrable, by scientific inquiry.

For the record, I am not "anti-Big Bang." I just have questions and I like to see how people attempt to answer them.

Sounds like fun to me.

And I disagree - it is hard for me to envision. Actually, it's impossible for me to envision. That's why I'm asking.

Perhaps we simply mean different things when we use the word "envision". To me, if one is capable of describing something, then one must necessarily be capable of envisioning it. That's different from "believe," i.e., actually accept the premise as a possibility. I can envision flying, purple unicorns. I don't believe that they exist, or even can exist.

I do very much prefer science fiction movies that at least try to mimic real life science in some fashion. It makes the scene that much more suspenseful.

And an example of such a movie would be. . . ????

Off the top of my head... Space Cowboys wasn't completely outlandish.

[nebula]

This person isn't saying it's foolish to ask the question. He's saying that the question can't be answered meaningfully. He's not saying it very well, but that's the point he's driving at.

Questions of similar ilk might include, "What's outside of the universe?" or "What happened before the Big Bang?" As we lack a frame of reference to even describe these environments or continuums or what-have-you, it's not possible to answer them meaningfully. But that doesn't ever preclude us from asking.

OK, I can buy that - well spoken!

And I disagree - it is hard for me to envision. Actually, it's impossible for me to envision. That's why I'm asking.

Perhaps we simply mean different things when we use the word "envision". To me, if one is capable of describing something, then one must necessarily be capable of envisioning it.

I mean I can't picture it.

I know subatomic particles are incredibly tiny . . . but piling gazillions upon gazillions of them together still doesn't get any bigger than a singularity?

That's different from "believe," i.e., actually accept the premise as a possibility. I can envision flying, purple unicorns. I don't believe that they exist, or even can exist.

I'm not jumping to belief or disbelief on this.

I'm just not getting how all the matter on Earth, the Solar System, the Milky Way, the Local Group of galaxies, and every other galaxy in the universe all came from a singularity.

I do very much prefer science fiction movies that at least try to mimic real life science in some fashion. It makes the scene that much more suspenseful.

And an example of such a movie would be. . . ????

Off the top of my head... Space Cowboys wasn't completely outlandish.

Hmm . . . I missed that one.

[Guest JustusRyan]

Yes, I understand you are questioning a hypothesis (not a theory) you don't quite understand.

I never knew the Big Bang was a mere hypothesis.

I thought it was more solid than that in scientific understanding.

I'd be more impressed if you tried using string theory on me to handle my puzzlement than treating me like a doohockey.

I'm guessing based on your signature that you believe a god created the universe and all I'm asking is what is your evidence for this claim?

Why do you ask?

I would say that the big bang is not a solid theory yet, we have evidence that points to it, but not enough as we do for evolution. So, can you give any evidence as to why you think christianity's version of creation is correct?