Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, Bots, edit
57,719
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: − + − + Line 26:
Line 26: − + Line 41:
Line 41: − + − + Line 61:
Line 61: − + Line 73:
Line 73: − + Line 93:
Line 93: − + − Line 103:
Line 102: − + Line 112:
Line 111: − + − − − − − + Line 125:
Line 120: − + Line 131:
Line 126: − + − Line 142:
Line 136: − + Line 164:
Line 158: − + Line 172:
Line 166: − + Line 180:
Line 174: − + − + − Line 200:
Line 193: − + Line 207:
Line 200: − + Line 215:
Line 208: − + Line 222:
Line 215: − + Line 257:
Line 250: − +
Spelling, grammar, and general fixes
|location=Oxford, England
|location=Oxford, England
|year=2009
|year=2009
|pages=67-69, 186, 204
|pages=67–69, 186, 204
|url=
|url=
|isbn=978-0-7459-5371-7
|isbn=978-0-7459-5371-7
|quote=Apart from the obvious fact that no one observed [the origin of the universe], scientists think of the Big Bang as a singularity in the past, an unrepeatable event;...}}</ref> and that has no ''natural'' explanation. Most frequently the term is used in connection with the origin of the [[universe]] (so called [[Singularity#The_big_bang_singularity|cosmic or big bang singularity]]) or less frequently with the [[origin of life]] ([[Singularity#Biological_singularity|biological singularity]]) and its field is in general subject of study by [[origin science]]. When scientific principles were first being developed into the [[scientific method]], scientists like [[Francis Bacon]], [[Johannes Kepler]]{{#tag:ref|cf."I commence a sacred discourse, a most true hymn to God the Founder, and I judge it to be piety, not to sacrifice many hecatombs of bulls to Him and to burn incense of innumerable perfumes and cassia, but first to learn myself, and afterwards to teach others too, how great He is in wisdom, how great in power, and of what sort in goodness.(''Harmonies of the World''; in Latin: ''Harmonices Mundi'')"<ref>{{cite web
|quote=Apart from the obvious fact that no one observed [the origin of the universe], scientists think of the Big Bang as a singularity in the past, an unrepeatable event;...}}</ref> and that has no ''natural'' explanation. Most frequently the term is used in connection with the origin of the [[universe]] (so called [[Singularity#The big bang singularity|cosmic or big bang singularity]]) or less frequently with the [[origin of life]] ([[Singularity#Biological singularity|biological singularity]]) and its field is in general subject of study by [[origin science]]. When scientific principles were first being developed into the [[scientific method]], scientists like [[Francis Bacon]], [[Johannes Kepler]]{{#tag:ref|cf."I commence a sacred discourse, a most true hymn to God the Founder, and I judge it to be piety, not to sacrifice many hecatombs of bulls to Him and to burn incense of innumerable perfumes and cassia, but first to learn myself, and afterwards to teach others too, how great He is in wisdom, how great in power, and of what sort in goodness.(''Harmonies of the World''; in Latin: ''Harmonices Mundi'')"<ref>{{cite web
|title=Man of Science, Man of God: Johann Kepler
|title=Man of Science, Man of God: Johann Kepler
|author=Christine Dao
|author=Christine Dao
|url=http://www.icr.org/article/newton/
|url=http://www.icr.org/article/newton/
|access date=22.04.2012
|access date=22.04.2012
}}</ref>|group=note}}, and [[Lord Kelvin|William Kelvin]] distinguished between primary and [[Natural causes|secondary (''natural'') causes]].{{#tag:ref|Adherents of [[Methodological naturalism|methodological naturalism]] such as E.J.Larson often mistakenly portray these scientists from their position as "freely mix[ing] matters of supernatural and natural causation" without recognizing the real difference they made between primary and secondary (natural) causes.<ref>{{cite book
}}</ref>|group=note}}, and [[Lord Kelvin|William Kelvin]] distinguished between primary and [[Natural causes|secondary (''natural'') causes]].{{#tag:ref|Adherents of [[methodological naturalism]] such as E.J.Larson often mistakenly portray these scientists from their position as "freely mix[ing] matters of supernatural and natural causation" without recognizing the real difference they made between primary and secondary (natural) causes.<ref>{{cite book
|author=Edward J.Larson
|author=Edward J.Larson
|title=Evolution:The remarkable history of a scientific theory
|title=Evolution:The remarkable history of a scientific theory
| title = When Skeptics Ask
| title = When Skeptics Ask
| chapter = 10. Questions about Science and Evolution
| chapter = 10. Questions about Science and Evolution
| pages = 213-215
| pages = 213–215
| isbn = 978-0-8010-7164-5
| isbn = 978-0-8010-7164-5
| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=hF24HwAACAAJ&dq=when+skeptics+ask&hl=en&sa=X&ei=imcgT7foFpPU4QS1m5yIDw&redir_esc=y
| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=hF24HwAACAAJ&dq=when+skeptics+ask&hl=en&sa=X&ei=imcgT7foFpPU4QS1m5yIDw&redir_esc=y
| accessdate = 25.1.2012
| accessdate = 25.1.2012
| publisher = Victor Books, Baker Books
| publisher = Victor Books, Baker Books
}}</ref> [[Thomas Aquinas]] in his [[Summa Theologica]] argued that when it comes to [[Cause and effect|''causes'']], it is not possible to go to [[Infinity|''infinity'']] (either there is a first cause or there is no cause at all){{#tag:ref|cf."Seeing an endless row of dominoes toppling before our eyes, would we without pause say that no first domino set the other dominoes to toppling? Really?" in Berlinski: Devil's Delusion, p.67<ref name="Devils"/>|group=note}} and he referred to the first cause as the ''ultimate cause''.{{#tag:ref|cf.[[Max Planck]]: "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."<ref>{{cite book
}}</ref> [[Thomas Aquinas]] in his [[Summa Theologica]] argued that when it comes to [[Cause and effect|''causes'']], it is not possible to go to ''[[infinity]]'' (either there is a first cause or there is no cause at all){{#tag:ref|cf."Seeing an endless row of dominoes toppling before our eyes, would we without pause say that no first domino set the other dominoes to toppling? Really?" in Berlinski: Devil's Delusion, p.67<ref name="Devils"/>|group=note}} and he referred to the first cause as the ''ultimate cause''.{{#tag:ref|cf.[[Max Planck]]: "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."<ref>{{cite book
|title=Where is Science Going?
|title=Where is Science Going?
|author=Max Planck; James Murphy
|author=Max Planck; James Murphy
|location=Seattle, USA
|location=Seattle, USA
|year=2009
|year=2009
|pages=226-228
|pages=226–228
|chapter=Was there a Big Bang?
|chapter=Was there a Big Bang?
|isbn=978-0-9790141-2-3
|isbn=978-0-9790141-2-3
|location= Carlisle, PA, USA
|location= Carlisle, PA, USA
|year= 2010
|year= 2010
|pages=93-94, 101, 121
|pages=93–94, 101, 121
|isbn=978-0-85234-707-2
|isbn=978-0-85234-707-2
|url=
|url=
|publisher=PhysLink.com
|publisher=PhysLink.com
|url=http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae251.cfm
|url=http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae251.cfm
|quote=You can imagine the problems though -- how do we interpret an infinite mass or infinite energy or infinite force? Usually we assume that there is some new set of laws or some new way of looking at the problem that makes the apparent singularity go away. ...Most people worry about singularities involving general relativity: two examples being a black hole and the singularity that classical general relativity predicts was our universe at the moment it began. If you try to apply the laws of general relativity in these situations you will inevitably find the same 1/x singularities I've been talking about. How are we going to resolve these singularities? We expect quantum mechanics to do the job, since it is the theory that correctly describes physics at small distance scales. Unfortunately, while we have good theories of atomic physics, we don't real have a good theory of quantum gravity. Many of us think string theory will ultimately provide the resolution to these problems.
|quote=You can imagine the problems though -- how do we interpret an infinite mass or infinite energy or infinite force? Usually we assume that there is some new set of laws or some new way of looking at the problem that makes the apparent singularity go away. ...Most people worry about singularities involving general relativity: two examples being a black hole and the singularity that classical general relativity predicts was our universe at the moment it began. If you try to apply the laws of general relativity in these situations you will inevitably find the same 1/x singularities I've been talking about. How are we going to resolve these singularities? We expect quantum mechanics to do the job, since it is the theory that correctly describes physics at small distance scales. Unfortunately, while we have good theories of atomic physics, we don't real have a good theory of quantum gravity. Many of us think string theory will ultimately provide the resolution to these problems. In short then, a singularity represents an infinity and we generally don't think nature is infinite. The problem arises from not having some kind of 'floor' built into a theory that keeps you from taking the limit of 1/x as x goes to zero. The way out is to apply a new theory that has such a floor, such as quantum mechanics or string theory (quantum gravity).}}</ref> According to C.J.S. Clarke, no final satisfactory statement emerges of what a singularity really is like.<ref>{{cite book
In short then, a singularity represents an infinity and we generally don't think nature is infinite. The problem arises from not having some kind of 'floor' built into a theory that keeps you from taking the limit of 1/x as x goes to zero. The way out is to apply a new theory that has such a floor, such as quantum mechanics or string theory (quantum gravity).}}</ref> According to C.J.S. Clarke, no final satisfactory statement emerges of what a singularity really is like.<ref>{{cite book
|author=C.J.S. Clarke|title=The Analysis of Space-Time Singularities|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge, UK|year=1993|page=152|pages=175|isbn=0-521-43796-2|url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=Mh9sT9moNM-Sswa6g5XQAg&id=aeUADsSiC1QC&dq=Clarke+The+analysis+of+space-time+singularities&q=final+satisfactory+statement#v=snippet&q=final%20satisfactory%20statement&f=false|quote=It is perhaps one of the disappointments of the subject of time-space singularities, as it was established by the definitive work of Hawking and Penrose in the early 1970s, that no final satisfactory statement emerges of what a singularity really is like.}}</ref> This is in fact just other way of saying and acknowledging that contemporary modern science has no satisfactory explanations on the origins of the universe, matter and life (i.e. physical existence) despite many scientists try, by using bluff, to make general public to think otherwise.<ref>{{cite web |title=About Deniable Darwin|url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/deniable-darwin/about.php|accessdate=June 22, 2013|quote=When it comes to some of life’s most profound questions—the origins of life, of matter, of the universe itself—does modern science already have everything all figured out? Many scientists would like us to think they are mere steps away from solving all the deep enigmas of physical existence. Consummate skeptic David Berlinski shows that all such confidence is at best a bluff. In essays about evolution using humor and wit, Berlinski shows how lost today’s scientists really are. His new book The Deniable Darwin frees us from the superstition of preening [[scientism]] and illuminates the path to a renewal of real science.}}</ref>
|author=C.J.S. Clarke|title=The Analysis of Space-Time Singularities|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge, UK|year=1993|page=152|pages=175|isbn=0-521-43796-2|url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=Mh9sT9moNM-Sswa6g5XQAg&id=aeUADsSiC1QC&dq=Clarke+The+analysis+of+space-time+singularities&q=final+satisfactory+statement#v=snippet&q=final%20satisfactory%20statement&f=false|quote=It is perhaps one of the disappointments of the subject of time-space singularities, as it was established by the definitive work of Hawking and Penrose in the early 1970s, that no final satisfactory statement emerges of what a singularity really is like.}}</ref> This is in fact just other way of saying and acknowledging that contemporary modern science has no satisfactory explanations on the origins of the universe, matter and life (i.e. physical existence) despite many scientists try, by using bluff, to make general public to think otherwise.<ref>{{cite web |title=About Deniable Darwin|url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/deniable-darwin/about.php|accessdate=June 22, 2013|quote=When it comes to some of life’s most profound questions—the origins of life, of matter, of the universe itself—does modern science already have everything all figured out? Many scientists would like us to think they are mere steps away from solving all the deep enigmas of physical existence. Consummate skeptic David Berlinski shows that all such confidence is at best a bluff. In essays about evolution using humor and wit, Berlinski shows how lost today’s scientists really are. His new book The Deniable Darwin frees us from the superstition of preening [[scientism]] and illuminates the path to a renewal of real science.}}</ref>
| publisher = Basic Books, New York, 2009
| publisher = Basic Books, New York, 2009
| isbn = 978-0-465-01937-3
| isbn = 978-0-465-01937-3
| pages = 74, 79-82
| pages = 74, 79–82
|chapter = The Cause
|chapter = The Cause
| url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/devils-delusion/about.php
| url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/devils-delusion/about.php
|publisher=BBC
|publisher=BBC
|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml
|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml
|quote=NARRATOR: If everything in the Universe was to be explained then String Theory and the Big Bang would now seamlessly merge and they'd complement each other perfectly. After all, one concerned the birth of the Universe and the other all the matter in it. It was surely a foregone conclusion. Physics seemed to be on the edge of glory, but it all went terribly wrong. Try as they might they just couldn't get the two ideas to merge and then, after 10 years of struggling, something even worse happened: their two pet theories now began to self-destruct. The first problem appeared with the Big Bang. The cosmologists had assumed that as they worked backwards in time they would eventually work their way back all the way to the beginning of the Big Bang. There would be no awkward gaps, but after years of end-less refinement there was one gap which refused to disappear, the most important one of all.
|quote=NARRATOR: If everything in the Universe was to be explained then String Theory and the Big Bang would now seamlessly merge and they'd complement each other perfectly. After all, one concerned the birth of the Universe and the other all the matter in it. It was surely a foregone conclusion. Physics seemed to be on the edge of glory, but it all went terribly wrong. Try as they might they just couldn't get the two ideas to merge and then, after 10 years of struggling, something even worse happened: their two pet theories now began to self-destruct. The first problem appeared with the Big Bang. The cosmologists had assumed that as they worked backwards in time they would eventually work their way back all the way to the beginning of the Big Bang. There would be no awkward gaps, but after years of end-less refinement there was one gap which refused to disappear, the most important one of all. ALAN GUTH: In spite of the fact that we call it the Big Bang Theory it really says absolutely nothing about the Big Bang. It doesn't tell us what banged, why it banged, what caused it to bang. It doesn't even describe, doesn't really allow us to predict what the conditions are immediately after this bang. MICHIO KAKU: The fundamental problem of cosmology is that the laws of physics as we know them break down at the instant of the Big Bang. Well some people say what's wrong with that, what's wrong with having the laws of physics collapse? Well for a physicist this is a disaster. All our lives we've dedicated to the proposition that the Universe obeys knowable laws, laws that can be written down in the language of mathematics and here we have the centrepiece of the Universe itself, a missing piece beyond physical law. NARRATOR: The very beginning of the Big Bang was the single biggest mystery in all of cosmology. It was called the singularity. PAUL STEINHARDT: When you extrapolate Einstein's general Theory of Relativity back to the beginning you discover what we call a singularity, a cosmic singularity, which is to say that the equations blow up.}}</ref>
ALAN GUTH: In spite of the fact that we call it the Big Bang Theory it really says absolutely nothing about the Big Bang. It doesn't tell us what banged, why it banged, what caused it to bang. It doesn't even describe, doesn't really allow us to predict what the conditions are immediately after this bang.
MICHIO KAKU: The fundamental problem of cosmology is that the laws of physics as we know them break down at the instant of the Big Bang. Well some people say what's wrong with that, what's wrong with having the laws of physics collapse? Well for a physicist this is a disaster. All our lives we've dedicated to the proposition that the Universe obeys knowable laws, laws that can be written down in the language of mathematics and here we have the centrepiece of the Universe itself, a missing piece beyond physical law.
NARRATOR: The very beginning of the Big Bang was the single biggest mystery in all of cosmology. It was called the singularity.
PAUL STEINHARDT: When you extrapolate Einstein's general Theory of Relativity back to the beginning you discover what we call a singularity, a cosmic singularity, which is to say that the equations blow up.}}</ref>
Many naturalistic scientists are trying to escape the inescapable [[scientific evidence|evidence]] that the universe really did begin by proposing speculative theories including imaginary time (cf. [[Stephen Hawking]]:"Only if we could picture the universe in terms of ''imaginary time'' would there be no singularities...When we go back to the ''real time'' in which we live, however, there will still be ''singularities''")<ref name="Hawking">{{cite book
Many naturalistic scientists are trying to escape the inescapable [[scientific evidence|evidence]] that the universe really did begin by proposing speculative theories including imaginary time (cf. [[Stephen Hawking]]:"Only if we could picture the universe in terms of ''imaginary time'' would there be no singularities...When we go back to the ''real time'' in which we live, however, there will still be ''singularities''"),<ref name="Hawking">{{cite book
|author=Stephen Hawking
|author=Stephen Hawking
|title=A brief history of time
|title=A brief history of time
|pages=135
|pages=135
|isbn=0-553-10953-7
|isbn=0-553-10953-7
|url=}}</ref>, [[string theory]], prior and/or alternative (parallel) universe(s) beyond the reach of [[Scientific observation|observation]]<ref name="ESA">{{cite web
|url=}}</ref> [[string theory]], prior and/or alternative (parallel) universe(s) beyond the reach of [[Scientific observation|observation]]<ref name="ESA">{{cite web
|title= Is the Universe finite or infinite? An interview with Joseph Silk
|title= Is the Universe finite or infinite? An interview with Joseph Silk
|publisher= ESA, European Space Agency
|publisher= ESA, European Space Agency
|url= http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_people_0_iv.html
|url= http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_people_0_iv.html
|access date= 09.03.2012
|access date= 09.03.2012
|quote= ESA: We seem to agree that the Big Bang started with an 'inflation', a short period of high-speed expansion. But what happened before that?
|quote= ESA: We seem to agree that the Big Bang started with an 'inflation', a short period of high-speed expansion. But what happened before that? Joseph Silk: Maybe long before inflation there was a Universe that was collapsing near a singularity, which then inflated again, so there was already a history before the Big Bang. Some people think there was a 'pre-Big Bang'. One possibility is that this pre-Big Bang, ''if there was such a place'', would have made lots of entropy (the amount of disorder in the Universe). And the Universe we live in does have huge amounts of entropy. That's one theory. But ''we have no understanding of how to change from collapsing to expanding. There's no physical way to explain that transition.'' Some people believe that they have explanations the pre-Big Bang, so it's a respectable theory.}}</ref> (cf. [[Victor J. Stenger]]: ''"In the scenario I presented, our universe is described as having "tunneled" through the [[chaos]] ...from ''prior universe'' that existed for all previous time"'';<ref name="WhomadeGod"/> Neil Turok, Cambridge University: ''"And the Big Bang is the aftermath of some encounter between two parallel worlds"''<ref name="BBC"/>{{#tag:ref|The idea of ''parallel universes'' is not new and it is native to many [[Gnostic]] heresies. Basilidean mythology, for instance, sets the number of ''"heavens"'' (cosmic spheres) at three hundred and sixty five.<ref name="Hart">{{cite book |title=Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies|author=David Bentley Hart|publisher=YALE University Press|year=2010|pages=140|isbn=978-03-0016-4299|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=NtG5QQAACAAJ&dq=Ateist+delusions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LWKgUezkCumF4ATem4DYCA&redir_esc=y}}</ref> According to [[Alan Guth]], evidently by applying the [[Logic of possibility]] and Gnostic thought, ''"essentially anything that can happen does happen in one of the alternatives which means that superimposed on top of the Universe that we know of is an alternative universe where Al Gore is President and Elvis Presley is still alive."''<ref name="BBC"/>|group=note}}), or put their hope to [[quantum mechanics]].<ref name="PhysLink"/><ref name="DismantlingBB">{{cite book|author=Alex Williams, John Hartnett|title=Dismantling the Big Bang|publisher=Master Books|location=Green Forest, AR, USA|year=2005|page=101|pages=346|isbn=978-0-89051-437-5|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=FR7basoxkSwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hartnett+dismantling+the+big+bang&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvNwT_6nJJOP4gTP6fG_Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hartnett%20dismantling%20the%20big%20bang&f=false|quote=It is simply assumed that space was expanding right from the beginning and the substance of the universe "went along for the ride", and was thereby carried out of the singular state. No one can explain how, so they place their hope for an explanation in quantum gravity...At this stage it is still in the realm of speculation. ... Big-bang theory is based on the laws of physics but those laws cannot explain the important components of the model. The big-bang universe begins in a singularity (all matter, energy, space and time crushed into a point of infinite density) and there is no known mechanism to start the universe expanding out of the singularity - the equations in the theory only work after the expansion has begun.}}</ref> Some resort to the assertion that the world was ''uncaused'' (cf. [[Carl Sagan]]: "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be")<ref name="skeptics"/> while other dismiss the question of ''the first cause'' altogether (cf. Hawking: "To ask what happened before the universe began is like asking for a point on the Earth at 91 degrees north latitude. Instead of talking about the universe being created, and maybe coming to and end, one should just say: the universe is.").<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>
Joseph Silk: Maybe long before inflation there was a Universe that was collapsing near a singularity, which then inflated again, so there was already a history before the Big Bang. Some people think there was a 'pre-Big Bang'. One possibility is that this pre-Big Bang, ''if there was such a place'', would have made lots of entropy (the amount of disorder in the Universe). And the Universe we live in does have huge amounts of entropy. That's one theory. But ''we have no understanding of how to change from collapsing to expanding. There's no physical way to explain that transition.'' Some people believe that they have explanations the pre-Big Bang, so it's a respectable theory.}}</ref> (cf. [[Victor J. Stenger]]: ''"In the scenario I presented, our universe is described as having "tunneled" through the [[chaos]] ...from ''prior universe'' that existed for all previous time"''<ref name="WhomadeGod"/>; Neil Turok, Cambridge University: ''"And the Big Bang is the aftermath of some encounter between two parallel worlds"''<ref name="BBC"/>{{#tag:ref|The idea of ''parallel universes'' is not new and it is native to many [[Gnostic]] heresies. Basilidean mythology, for instance, sets the number of ''"heavens"'' (cosmic spheres) at three hundred and sixty five.<ref name="Hart">{{cite book |title=Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies|author=David Bentley Hart|publisher=YALE University Press|year=2010|pages=140|isbn=978-03-0016-4299|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=NtG5QQAACAAJ&dq=Ateist+delusions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LWKgUezkCumF4ATem4DYCA&redir_esc=y}}</ref> According to [[Alan Guth]], evidently by applying the [[Logic of possibility]] and Gnostic thought, ''"essentially anything that can happen does happen in one of the alternatives which means that superimposed on top of the Universe that we know of is an alternative universe where Al Gore is President and Elvis Presley is still alive."''<ref name="BBC"/>|group=note}}), or put their hope to [[quantum mechanics]]<ref name="PhysLink"/><ref name="DismantlingBB">{{cite book|author=Alex Williams, John Hartnett|title=Dismantling the Big Bang|publisher=Master Books|location=Green Forest, AR, USA|year=2005|page=101|pages=346|isbn=978-0-89051-437-5|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=FR7basoxkSwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hartnett+dismantling+the+big+bang&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvNwT_6nJJOP4gTP6fG_Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hartnett%20dismantling%20the%20big%20bang&f=false|quote=It is simply assumed that space was expanding right from the beginning and the substance of the universe "went along for the ride", and was thereby carried out of the singular state. No one can explain how, so they place their hope for an explanation in quantum gravity...At this stage it is still in the realm of speculation. ... Big-bang theory is based on the laws of physics but those laws cannot explain the important components of the model. The big-bang universe begins in a singularity (all matter, energy, space and time crushed into a point of infinite density) and there is no known mechanism to start the universe expanding out of the singularity - the equations in the theory only work after the expansion has begun.}}</ref>. Some resort to the assertion that the world was ''uncaused'' (cf. [[Carl Sagan]]: "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be")<ref name="skeptics"/> while other dismiss the question of ''the first cause'' altogether (cf. Hawking: "To ask what happened before the universe began is like asking for a point on the Earth at 91 degrees north latitude. Instead of talking about the universe being created, and maybe coming to and end, one should just say: the universe is.")<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>.
== The hot big bang singularity ==
== The hot big bang singularity ==
''"Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator will probably consider that a single winding-up at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind"''<ref>{{cite book |author=John MacQueen, Stanley L. Jaki |title=Cosmos and creator |publisher=Scottish Academic Press |year=1980 |pages=5, 145|isbn=978-0707-302904|url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=i0PBUe-qOoiC4ATMjIDwDw&id=MhouAAAAMAAJ&dq=jaki+cosmos+and+creator&q=repugnant#search_anchor}}</ref> The late Professor [[Carl Sagan|C. Sagan]] wrote in the introduction to the book ''"A brief history of time"'' by [[Stephen Hawking]] that ''"This book is also about God...or perhaps about the absence of God...a universe with no edge in space and no beginning or end in time [leaves] nothing for the Creator to do."''<ref name="DismantlingBB"/>{{#tag:ref|cf.[[Horror of a unique position]]|group=note}}
''"Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator will probably consider that a single winding-up at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind"''<ref>{{cite book |author=John MacQueen, Stanley L. Jaki |title=Cosmos and creator |publisher=Scottish Academic Press |year=1980 |pages=5, 145|isbn=978-0707-302904|url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=i0PBUe-qOoiC4ATMjIDwDw&id=MhouAAAAMAAJ&dq=jaki+cosmos+and+creator&q=repugnant#search_anchor}}</ref> The late Professor [[Carl Sagan|C. Sagan]] wrote in the introduction to the book ''"A brief history of time"'' by [[Stephen Hawking]] that ''"This book is also about God...or perhaps about the absence of God...a universe with no edge in space and no beginning or end in time [leaves] nothing for the Creator to do."''<ref name="DismantlingBB"/>{{#tag:ref|cf.[[Horror of a unique position]]|group=note}}
The similar position was in the 18th century expressed by [[James Hutton]], whose aphorism ''"The revolt, therefore, of this physical inquiry is, that we find [[Age_of_the_Earth#Evolutionists_vs._.E2.80.9Codius_spectre.E2.80.9D_Kelvin|no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end]]"'' was acсompanying the onset of [[uniformitarian]] [[geology]] and [[Darwinian]] [[evolutionism]]. Their partisans however were not only ones having problem with the idea of beginning. As late as in 1913, Arthur Holmes wrote that ''"Even at the present day there exist barbaric tribes to whom it has never occured that the earth may have had a beginning."''<ref name="Holmes1913">{{cite web |title= The age of the earth |author= Arthur Holmes |publisher= Harper |place=London |year= 1913 |chapter=1 |pages=1 |url= https://archive.org/details/ageofearth00holmuoft |accessdate=July 18, 2015 |quote= }}</ref>
The similar position was in the 18th century expressed by [[James Hutton]], whose aphorism ''"The revolt, therefore, of this physical inquiry is, that we find [[Age of the Earth#Evolutionists vs. .E2.80.9Codius spectre.E2.80.9D Kelvin|no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end]]"'' was acсompanying the onset of [[uniformitarian]] [[geology]] and [[Darwinian]] [[evolutionism]]. Their partisans however were not only ones having problem with the idea of beginning. As late as in 1913, Arthur Holmes wrote that ''"Even at the present day there exist barbaric tribes to whom it has never occured that the earth may have had a beginning."''<ref name="Holmes1913">{{cite web |title= The age of the earth |author= Arthur Holmes |publisher= Harper |place=London |year= 1913 |chapter=1 |pages=1 |url= https://archive.org/details/ageofearth00holmuoft |accessdate=July 18, 2015 |quote= }}</ref>
When in 1920s Russian mathematician A.Friedman (1924) and Belgian catholic priest and professor of physics G.Lemaître (1927) independently found that Einstein's gravitational field equations of [[general relativity]] have non-static cosmological solution implying an expanding or collapsing universe, Einstein, wishing to cancel out expansion and to support the universe model without any beginning or end, suggested modification to his field equations by adding a so-called [[Cosmological constant|cosmological term]]. Few years later, after Hubble's interpretation of new discoveries as expanding universe in 1929, Einstein called the cosmological constant "''the biggest blunder of my life"''.
When in 1920s Russian mathematician A.Friedman (1924) and Belgian catholic priest and professor of physics G.Lemaître (1927) independently found that Einstein's gravitational field equations of [[general relativity]] have non-static cosmological solution implying an expanding or collapsing universe, Einstein, wishing to cancel out expansion and to support the universe model without any beginning or end, suggested modification to his field equations by adding a so-called [[Cosmological constant|cosmological term]]. Few years later, after Hubble's interpretation of new discoveries as expanding universe in 1929, Einstein called the cosmological constant "''the biggest blunder of my life"''.
== Einstein on singularity ==
== Einstein on singularity ==
Some scientists argue that when Einstein's [[General theory of relativity]] is extrapolated back to the beginning [of the universe] it is discovered the equations blow up in the region of singularity or a [[Singularity#The_big_bang_singularity|cosmic singularity]], respectively.<ref name="BBC"/> Einstein himself however expressed his following views on this matter: "One may not therefore assume the validity of the [field] equation for very high density of the field and of the matter and one may not conclude that the beginning of the [[Expanding universe|expansion]] must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense. All we have to realize is that the equations may not be continued over such regions."<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> [[John Hartnett]] also points out that there is no known mechanism to start the universe expanding out of singularity - the equations in the theory only work after the expansion has begun.<ref name="DismantlingBB"/>
Some scientists argue that when Einstein's [[General theory of relativity]] is extrapolated back to the beginning [of the universe] it is discovered the equations blow up in the region of singularity or a [[Singularity#The big bang singularity|cosmic singularity]], respectively.<ref name="BBC"/> Einstein himself however expressed his following views on this matter: "One may not therefore assume the validity of the [field] equation for very high density of the field and of the matter and one may not conclude that the beginning of the [[Expanding universe|expansion]] must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense. All we have to realize is that the equations may not be continued over such regions."<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> [[John Hartnett]] also points out that there is no known mechanism to start the universe expanding out of singularity - the equations in the theory only work after the expansion has begun.<ref name="DismantlingBB"/>
== Biological singularity ==
== Biological singularity ==
|publisher=Creation Book Publishers
|publisher=Creation Book Publishers
|year=2011
|year=2011
|pages=143,177,323
|pages=143, 177, 323
|url=http://www.wernergitt.de/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&view=productdetails&virtuemart_product_id=1505&virtuemart_category_id=126&Itemid=131&lang=de
|url=http://www.wernergitt.de/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&view=productdetails&virtuemart_product_id=1505&virtuemart_category_id=126&Itemid=131&lang=de
|isbn=978-1-921643-41-5
|isbn=978-1-921643-41-5
|publisher=Stanford Medical History Center
|publisher=Stanford Medical History Center
|date=17 November 2011
|date=17 November 2011
|accessdate=02 April 2013
|accessdate=2 April 2013
|url=http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/html/chap5/chap5-sect6.html
|url=http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/html/chap5/chap5-sect6.html
|quote=Pasteur considered the matter closed. Nevertheless, the dispute dragged on and we can detect his exasperation in the tone of his lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864 when he outlined the history of the controversy and concluded by saying:[139] "Gentlemen, I could point to that liquid (in the flask of sterile culture medium on the table before him) and say to you, I have taken my drop of water from the immensity of creation, and I have taken it full of the elements appropriated to the development of inferior beings. And I wait, I watch, I question it, begging it to recommence for me the beautiful spectacle of the first creation. But it is dumb, dumb since these experiments were begun several years ago; it is dumb because I have kept it from the only thing man cannot produce, from the germs which float in the air, from Life, for Life is a germ and a germ is Life. Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment.
|quote=Pasteur considered the matter closed. Nevertheless, the dispute dragged on and we can detect his exasperation in the tone of his lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864 when he outlined the history of the controversy and concluded by saying:[139] "Gentlemen, I could point to that liquid (in the flask of sterile culture medium on the table before him) and say to you, I have taken my drop of water from the immensity of creation, and I have taken it full of the elements appropriated to the development of inferior beings. And I wait, I watch, I question it, begging it to recommence for me the beautiful spectacle of the first creation. But it is dumb, dumb since these experiments were begun several years ago; it is dumb because I have kept it from the only thing man cannot produce, from the germs which float in the air, from Life, for Life is a germ and a germ is Life. Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment. No, there is now no circumstance known in which it can be affirmed that microscopic beings came into the world without germs, without parents similar to themselves. Those who affirm it have been duped by illusions, by ill-conducted experiments, spoilt by errors that they either did not perceive or did not know how to avoid."
No, there is now no circumstance known in which it can be affirmed that microscopic beings came into the world without germs, without parents similar to themselves. Those who affirm it have been duped by illusions, by ill-conducted experiments, spoilt by errors that they either did not perceive or did not know how to avoid."
}}</ref>
}}</ref>
Philosopher of science Sir [[Karl Popper]] proposed that mankind may be "faced with the possibility that the [[origin of life]] (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to [[Reductionism|reduce]] biology to [[chemistry]] and [[physics]]."
Philosopher of science Sir [[Karl Popper]] proposed that mankind may be "faced with the possibility that the [[origin of life]] (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to [[Reductionism|reduce]] biology to [[chemistry]] and [[physics]]."
== Bible and origins ==
== Bible and origins ==
Scientists who are biblical Christians believe that a [[creation]] model of the biblical kind clearly predicted a beginning of the world, <ref name="LENNOX"/>{{#tag:ref|cf. ''"Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements and the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."''<ref name="Jastrow"/>|group=note}} and thus this can be considered as successful testable prediction giving the credit to predictive power of Biblical message.{{#tag:ref|In the more exact sense the Biblical message in this context is regarded to be a sort of testimony about things that are believed to had happened in the unobservable past. The predictive power of this message relates to actual discovery of scientific evidence inferring this testimony (claiming the World had the beginning) to be correct.|group=note}} They warn against the danger of being seduced by speculation masquerading as science{{#tag:ref|The [[Cosmic inflation]] theory that tries to account for several objections to the materialistic [[Big Bang]] model has been described by its partisan Alexei V. Filippenko as "seductively powerful".|group=note}} and they consider cosmic singularity to be compatible with creation of space, time, matter and energy ''ex nihilo'' (i.e. out of nothing) and often cite Arno Penzias, astrophysicist and Nobel laureate who stated in 1978 for [[The New York Times]] that "The best data we have (concerning the Big Bang){{#tag:ref|To avoid confusion, an explanatory note should be made that the ‘big bang’ in this context obviously connotes the concept of the rapid ''expansion of the universe'' formulated to interpret the evidence (such as the Hubble’s law<ref>{{cite web
Scientists who are biblical Christians believe that a [[creation]] model of the biblical kind clearly predicted a beginning of the world,<ref name="LENNOX"/>{{#tag:ref|cf. ''"Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements and the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."''<ref name="Jastrow"/>|group=note}} and thus this can be considered as successful testable prediction giving the credit to predictive power of Biblical message.{{#tag:ref|In the more exact sense the Biblical message in this context is regarded to be a sort of testimony about things that are believed to had happened in the unobservable past. The predictive power of this message relates to actual discovery of scientific evidence inferring this testimony (claiming the World had the beginning) to be correct.|group=note}} They warn against the danger of being seduced by speculation masquerading as science{{#tag:ref|The [[Cosmic inflation]] theory that tries to account for several objections to the materialistic [[Big Bang]] model has been described by its partisan Alexei V. Filippenko as "seductively powerful".|group=note}} and they consider cosmic singularity to be compatible with creation of space, time, matter and energy ''ex nihilo'' (i.e. out of nothing) and often cite Arno Penzias, astrophysicist and Nobel laureate who stated in 1978 for [[The New York Times]] that "The best data we have (concerning the Big Bang){{#tag:ref|To avoid confusion, an explanatory note should be made that the ‘big bang’ in this context obviously connotes the concept of the rapid ''expansion of the universe'' formulated to interpret the evidence (such as the Hubble’s law,<ref>{{cite web
|title=The Observational Approach to Cosmology
|title=The Observational Approach to Cosmology
|author=Edwin Hubble
|author=Edwin Hubble
|url= http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/Hubble_contents.html
|url= http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/Hubble_contents.html
|access date=27.09.2012
|access date=27.09.2012
}}</ref>, or later the ''accelerating universe''<ref name="Riess 1998">{{cite journal|author=Adam G. Riess ''et al.'' (Supernova Search Team)|year=1998|title=Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant|journal=Astronomical J.|volume=116|issue=3|pages=1009–38|doi=10.1086/300499}}</ref>) for universal expansion. According to W. Gitt et al. the Bible states twelve times an expansion of that kind had happened when God ''stretched out the heavens'''.<ref name="WITHOUT EXCUSE">{{cite book
}}</ref> or later the ''accelerating universe''<ref name="Riess 1998">{{cite journal|author=Adam G. Riess ''et al.'' (Supernova Search Team)|year=1998|title=Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant|journal=Astronomical J.|volume=116|issue=3|pages=1009–38|doi=10.1086/300499}}</ref>) for universal expansion. According to W. Gitt et al. the Bible states twelve times an expansion of that kind had happened when God ''stretched out the heavens'''.<ref name="WITHOUT EXCUSE">{{cite book
|author=Werner Gitt, Bob Compton, Jorge Fernandez
|author=Werner Gitt, Bob Compton, Jorge Fernandez
|title=Without Excuse
|title=Without Excuse
|url=http://www.creationbookpublishers.com/products/Without-Excuse.html
|url=http://www.creationbookpublishers.com/products/Without-Excuse.html
|isbn=978-1-921643-41-5
|isbn=978-1-921643-41-5
|quote=The commonly accepted beginning to the universe is a modern theory referred to as the Big Bang. …The Big Bang was formulated to account for evidence of universal expansion (which the Bible states (twelve times) happened when God says He stretched out the heavens). While the concept of an expansion is not a problem, the idea that everything started with this ‘singularity’ which unaccountably brought the entire universe into existence, is worth challenging. …The Big Bang is the secular Materialist’s hypothesis of how the (purely material) universe came into existence.}}</ref> While the concept of expansion itself is not a problem, the notion of Big Bang as the secular materialistic hypothesis of how the purely material universe came into existence is according to creationist community or biblical literalists, respectively, worth of challenging. For scientific objections to Big Bang theory cf.''the cosmology statement''<ref>{{cite web
|quote=The commonly accepted beginning to the universe is a modern theory referred to as the Big Bang. …The Big Bang was formulated to account for evidence of universal expansion (which the Bible states (twelve times) happened when God says He stretched out the heavens). While the concept of an expansion is not a problem, the idea that everything started with this ‘singularity’ which unaccountably brought the entire universe into existence, is worth challenging. …The Big Bang is the secular Materialist’s hypothesis of how the (purely material) universe came into existence.}}</ref> While the concept of expansion itself is not a problem, the notion of Big Bang as the secular materialistic hypothesis of how the purely material universe came into existence is according to creationist community or biblical literalists, respectively, worth of challenging. For scientific objections to Big Bang theory cf.''the cosmology statement'',<ref>{{cite web
|title=An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
|title=An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
|author=Group of signers
|author=Group of signers
|url= http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
|url= http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
|access date=27.09.2012
|access date=27.09.2012
}}</ref>, the objections of [[YEC]] community might be reviewed, in paper ‘Christian apologists should abandon the big bang’<ref>{{cite web
}}</ref> the objections of [[YEC]] community might be reviewed, in paper ‘Christian apologists should abandon the big bang’<ref>{{cite web
|title= Christian apologists should abandon the big bang
|title= Christian apologists should abandon the big bang
|author=Jonathan F. Henry
|author=Jonathan F. Henry
== External links ==
== External links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pP8ENlWfRk&feature=related ''The Case for a Creator'']: [[Lee Strobel]] & [[William Lane Craig]] on the [[Big Bang]] and the [[Cosmological_argument#Cosmological_arguments|Kalam Cosmological Argument]]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pP8ENlWfRk&feature=related ''The Case for a Creator'']: [[Lee Strobel]] & [[William Lane Craig]] on the [[Big Bang]] and the [[Cosmological argument#Cosmological arguments|Kalam Cosmological Argument]]
*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_13-14.pdf Daniel Schmidt: [[String theory]] and the origin of the universe—new idea, old problem]
*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_13-14.pdf Daniel Schmidt: [[String theory]] and the origin of the universe—new idea, old problem]