Talk:Big Bang theory

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ottava (Talk | contribs) at 13:03, 15 September 2011. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

It looks like this page may have to be protected, since evolutionists are getting on here and posting nonsense such as YEC being "non-scientific". Scorpionman 22:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

The only nonsense involves the religious thinking there is "proof" of YEC. Really? An article on the big bang contains one scientific paragraph and a longer one about creationist views? How does one explain cosmic background radiation? Or Hubble's Law? Or Deuterium Observation? Or the fact that if you use the big imaging telescopes to look beyond 14 billion light years in any direction all you see is, well, big bang? Inasmuch proof as science allows (remember, science can't "prove" anything, it can only disprove the false in order to make a better hypothesis) the Big Bang is accepted fact. In what peer-reviewed journal did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John publish? Scientz 10:46 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. Tsumetai 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonsense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method should have nothing to with ideology; it should have everything to do with coming up with better hypotheses about the universe based on empirical observations. Scientz 10:56 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
There, finally finished typing it in Word. This works so much better, although feel free to add to its information. Quite frankly, its absurd to believe in YEC--and I'm a committed social, political and economic conservative!! Please don't associate lunatics with conservatives, because it hurts our credibility. In the 1800s, the Comte de Buffon took composite lumps of molten rock of varying sizes and estimated (based on how long it took his samples to cool to room temperature) that a molten ball the size of Earth would've taken at least 35,000 years just to cool. YEC is idiotic, and those who believe it are blinded by their own ignorance of basic physics. Scientz 10:42 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm confused, Scorpionman. Are you saying that YEC is scientific?
Personally, I don't see why a discussion of Biblical literalism has any place in an article about the Big Bang. If you want to dispute the current prevailing theory behind the origin of the cosmos, then you should do it scientific evidence or at the very least an attempt at refuting evidence presented for the theory and not with the contents of one religious text. As it is, the article abruptly changes the subject and goes totally off-topic. Dimensio 13:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Please update the article to include peer-reviewed scientific criticisms of Big Bang-like theories. Right now the article looks ridiculous: a half of a dozen scientific references followed by a bunch of references dominated by the Apologetic Press. Clearly somebody misunderstands the modern scientific process.

Dominant theory

Would it ruffle too many feathers to mention that it is the dominant theory amongst scientists today. I suggest that such a statement is an uncontroversial fact. Thoughts? --Horace 05:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

No, I agree, it is the dominant theory among scientists. Hengineer 05:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Sweeping generalisation

The following sentence should be removed:

In contrast to young earth creationists, Old Earth Creationists and Theistic evolutionists agree that the Big Bang occured.

Just because you are an OEC or you believe evolution to be correct does not mean that you MUST believe in the Big Bang Theory. Does anyone remember Fred Hoyle?

Are there any objections to the removal of the sentence? --Horace 20:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I think this article looks good right now. Good edits guys. Hopefully expressing positive emotions is not violative of probation.-AmesGyo! 01:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Article split

The intro confuses Big Bang with Expanding universe. I'd like to split the article up, with one short article treating each of these two distinct ideas. --Ed Poor 08:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

In fairness, no, an expanding universe is part of the "big bang" (which refers to far more than the universes creation. It's confusing, so I would leave it to someone with a background in physics. Nematocyte 08:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Have the bounds of outer space expanded? Or is it just that the galaxies have been getting farther apart within boundless space? What exactly does the theory state? --Ed Poor 08:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Apparently, the answer is "both", at least according to --M 10:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's try to get this straight. Is outer space infinite or what? --Ed Poor 11:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

From what I understand most astrophysics believe that since the area that the universe is expanding into is void of matter and energy that yes currently, outer space is infinite.--TimS 12:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Unknown. The spatial extent of the Universe could be finite or infinite. If you're picturing a lump of matter dispersing in a larger void, you're thinking of the wrong thing, though. Tsumetai 04:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Again, I'm pretty much an amateur when it comes to astrophysics...but I think that the confusion comes from the fact that we're currently uncertain as to the actual curvature of space. I think I remember hearing that space seems to be curved enough that it's actually finite (though boundless, like the three-dimensional equivalent of the surface of a sphere), but I can't provide citation of that at the moment.--M 07:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think a split is neccesary, however, on a related note, an article describing the Big Freeze, Big Rip, and Big Crunch theories for the end of the universe might be called for, as those also center on the way in which the universe is expanding (specifically, from measurements of type 1 supernovae in extremely distant galaxies, we have evidence that the universe's expansion is in fact, speeding up, giving support to the Big Freeze (everything expands until entropy is at a maximum), or possibly Big Rip (if Dark Energy is the cause of expansion, then if the universe keeps expanding, dark energy could start to rip apart galaxies, then solar systems, then stars and planets, and finally atoms). So yeah, an article on the possible ways the universe will 'end' (or if it is infinite) would probably help provide more information about the nature of the expanding universe, without having to create an article solely about the expansion of the universe. Warhawk 14:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

YEC Citations

Conservative, your citations don't appear to agree with each

A prediction had been made prior to the discovery, that if the Big Bang were true, there should be some sort of constant radiation in space, although the prediction was for a temperature several times higher. (


All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.

Is it standard procedure to use citations which don't agree with each other on the particulars?

Is it standard procedure to give me two citations without giving me the specific cite to the second citation? Conservative 01:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
I found the second citation and it appears to use the following to support its contention: “The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction [by George Gamow in 1946] was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin.” Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33. [1][2] Conservative 02:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
It's a good thing Tom Van Flandern didn't publish in peer-reviewed journals. I'll believe your numbers, but current data indicates that BOTH were wrong. Redoing a computation of the ambient temperature of the Universe (given modern observations) will not yield Eddington's prediction; reworking Gamow's calculation will reproduce the CMB temperature very accurately. Additionally, the CMB data is more than just temperature data; the anisotropies in the CMB are also indicative of the premordial expansion. Just because you can dig up a citation doesn't mean it's correct.

Common Misconceptions

As previously written, this was untrue. The Big Bang does not claim that all matter was tightly packed together before the Big Bang started. That is an assumption that the Big Bang does not address. It is unfortunate that in a section titled common misconceptions that a misconception was added. Learn together 16:08, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Misconception about Evolution

I think evolution discredits itself. But I think it is unfortunate when us anti-evolutionist mistrepresent the theory. It is discreditable on many points, but this sentence mistrepresents it:

Many scientists who believe in the Big Bang Theory are Evolutionists, though not all are. One can believe that God both created the Universe AND laid out the plan for all life in the Big Bang, as opposed to the idea that life evolved randomly after the Big Bang.

Evolution does not say life evolved randomly. It says the intitial organism came about through essentially "random" events. (although not strictly random).

Evolution is wrong for other reasons. And if we are going to make evolutionists see its falsity, we have to correctly represent the theory. Or atleast not MISREPRESENT the theory. InTheEvent 00:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I agree and I'm glad that the article at least makes that distinction, although as an a Creationist who believes the Big Bang is one of the strongest theistic arguments out there, I'm not incredibly happy about Evolution being mentioned in there; one has nothing to do with the other. However, I won't press the issue because I think what's there is a reasonable compromise. DanH 14:23, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Big Bang proves Universe had a beginning

Why are so many creationists against the big bang, it proves that the universe had a beginning point. It also seems to violate physics because matter can't be created from nothing. It indicates a creative force behind the universe.

Well, for one thing the "billions of years" makes it just laughable, but more importantly it goes against the Bible which says God created the Earth in 6 days around 6000 years ago. --Rolloffle 15:43, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
Where, exactly, is the age of the Earth specified as being 6000 years in the Bible. Please reference the relevant chapters and verses. Dimensio 11:38, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
"'Billions of years' makes it just laughable." The good old argument from ridiculity. It's like the argument from incredulity, but more fun.--All Fish Welcome 12:10, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Most atheists?

Does anyone have ANY reference that backs up the claim about "most atheists"? Or is it just made up off the top of people's heads?

The scientific community (which I define as the doctorate-level degree holding scientists) in the U.S. overwhelmingly accept the Big Bang and old universe. I think most atheists just believe what scientists say is right despite the fact they don't know anything about it. I don't have a source for the U.S. public relating atheism to big bang belief, but I have a source for correlation between scientists' atheism and big bang belief, which we could extrapolate from. From Nature magazine. --Theonlyconservative 12:38, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Article Depth

In all honesty, this article does not tell anyone very much about the big bang theory, evidence for it, or the reasons why it was formulated in the first place. The article basically introduces the topic with a mish mash of unrelated facts in no particular order, then the next section is "dissent letter" followed by "starlight problem". These are hardly the most relevant topics about the Big Bang theory. May I suggest that as this article is (hopefully) reworked, those doing the writing keep in mind that the Big Bang Theory is a very general class of theories that all have one thing in common - the assertion that long ago the universe "began" from a mathematical singularity and has been increasing in size ever since. Also, be wary about the throwing around the word "singularity" - contrary to popular belief and science fiction, a singularity is not a physical thing - it is an asymptotic point in a mathematical function where the function breaks down and can no longer make any predictions. Other singularities include the center of black holes, and objects traveling at the speed of light. The mathematical models for these systems break down at these values and become meaningless. Likewise, the Big Bang Theory has nothing to say about the origin of the singularity or what came "before" it. It is outside the realm of the theory, and in the opinion of some scientist (I'm not comfortable saying most or few here, as I'm basing this statement only on my personal discussions) outside the realm of science as a whole.

Georges-Henri Lemaître

Could somebody add something in about how Roman Catholic priest Georges-Henri Lemaître, the original proposer of the Big Bang theory, felt that the theory fitted beautifully with his faith as it supports a "creation event"? Ajkgordon 12:51, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Change "Starlight problem" to "Horizon problem"?

There's a section in this article that refers to the "starlight problem" but I believe scientists actually refer to this issue as the "horizon problem." See here and here for example. One reason is that the problem has to do with more than starlight--there are questions about density, temperature, etc. The term "starlight problem" is generally used by people discussing creationist cosmological models, while "horizon problem" is more appropriate in the context of the big bang model.--JamesR 20:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

I've changed it. Philip J. Rayment 00:27, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Inflation and YEC

Couldn't inflation make the Big Bang and YEC compatible? I mean if it happened faster than the speed of light. Then why couldn't it happen in the YEC time scale? jfraatz

"God's Role"

Can someone help me come up with a better way of saying "God's role in creating the universe." ? Obviously God didn't just have a 'role,' He simply created it by Himself! Thanks! WillS 18:16, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

I tried; do you think my wording is OK? DanielPulido 03:06, 22 May 2010 (EDT)
Looks great. And good job catching some other areas where liberal bias crept in as well!

Correcting "scientific"

I just corrected "scientific" the word used in description of the Big Bang to the proper in this case term "pseudo scientific". See also my Essay:Demystified gravitation where I explain why the Big Bang is a pseudo scientific hypothesis (between other things it assumes "curved" spacetime for which there is no evidence and a lot of to contrary) and how Einsteinian gravitation works. The essay is still not finished and so I invite anybody to expres their opinion on the talk page of the essay. Thanks. JimJast 17:35, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

I have already expressed my opinion on the talk page of that essay: you're a crackpot. --SamCoulter 20:02, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Sam, the fact that I'm a crackpot has certain influence on my credibility (which I never claimed being high, while I'm only a sculptor, with only one year training in general realativity, and the rest of my formal education being in electrical engineeiring) but it surely has no influence on the truth of Big Bang hypothesis (BBH).
The biggest flaw of BBH is an assumption that the universe is expanding while it is not.
This error of expansion of universe was created many years ago by relativists giving up the checking what is the intrinsic redshift in the universe before jumping to conclusion that the redshift is a proof that the universe is expanding. It is clearly a non scientific approach to science. There are no proofs in science (except in math, and that's why math is not considered to be science). There are only better or worse hypotheses that are surely no proof. Some last long time until they collapse when a proof of their invalidity turns up and usually it is not accepted since no scientist cares about looking like an idiot who overlooke something important and assumed an impossible. Error that Newton avoided, not believeing in his own theory being more than just math.
Intrinsic redshift is as it is observed in our universe (see my step-by-step derivation in Essay:Demystified gravitation and please comment on possible errors in this derivation). My derivation is done in such a simple way that an intelligent high school student shouldn't have problems with repeating it him/herself. Besides I'm here to explain if something is too difficult. Just ask a question about this derivation or other things since from 1985, when I discovered this derivation, I found out also many other thing. E.g. why the universe is looking as if it were expanding with accelerating expansion and the acceleration has just its value, observed with accuracy of only one standard deviation (max possible) by Supernova Cosmology Project team in 1998, which is
where is acceleration of expansion in terms of derivation of Hubble constant with respect to time , and is the Hubble constant itself. JimJast 16:44, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

"even though the theory is based on little more than guesswork, speculation, and dubious assumptions."

I must agree with the removal of the above sentence. The big bang theory is based on the observations of red shifts, background radiation and other observational and physical properties of the universe. However, it is the assumptions the Big Bang theorists draw from this that are the debatable part. MaxFletcher 19:51, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Thanks Max. I don't accept the Big Bang theory myself, but only on the grounds of my faith. The error - and I think it's a sincere one - that astrophysicists are making is in the use of methodological naturalism, which of course is a requirement of the scientific method. Within the constraints of that method it's a very sound theory; it just isn't correct. --SamCoulter 20:01, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Yes Sam, "it just isn't correct". But can we say it while relativists maintain that it is correct? We have to have a proof that it isn't correct.
I don't blame Max for him doing what he had to do not knowing such a proof. I just would like to start a discussion whether my proof is sound one, and justifying dumping BBH. I'm sure it is but I'm the author so I may be biased (though I took a general realtivity course at Harvard to be sure that I'm right and thought about this for over quater of a century so I'm relatively sure that it is a sound proof of invalidity of BBH).
Anyway, I can only help in discussion by keeping it on track when I see wrong arguments, and without anybody discussing this issue it won't be even known that the proof of invalidity of BBH even exists. No mainstream scientific journal ever wanted to publish this proof despite it is only one page of print. It was published in conservapedia (after being blocked on my university server) as Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe in a short form suitable for physicists. Longer form with step-by-step derivation of redshift in our universe, and more, is in Essay:Demystified gravitation. JimJast 17:25, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Just as a note, Sam, the Scientific Theory (i.e. Scientific Method) was codified by two individuals that were deeply religious (Descartes and Francis Bacon). It is also derived from the theories of logic codified by Roger Bacon, a monk. I don't think it is a difference between faith and reason. St. Thomas Aquinas made the argument that we should seek to combine the two, which John Calvin said was a very important advancement that allowed us to move beyond Greek philosophy/science. Ottava (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Additional note, Sam, what good it would do if we believed in things that are not true? As pseudo scientific theories usually are. JimJast 14:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)


As a Catholic, I hope people realize that the Catholic Church was involved in the matter. The Catholic Church is home to one of the most conservative Christian organizations in the US, the Knights of Columbus (1.8 million members), mind you. I do hope that we can at least acknowledge that this isn't an "atheist" view or a "liberal" view, but one that spreads across boundaries. :) After all, the Catholic Church's view about Genesis is based on St. Augustine's determination that Genesis was allegorical, which was something both Martin Luther and John Calvin agreed with. Just keep this in mind. :) Ottava (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

In what sense "the Catholic Church was involved in the matter"? The fact that "Martin Luther and John Calvin agreed (that Genesis was allegorical)" isn't a clear indication that "the Catholic Church was involved in the matter". At least to me (the crank :) that's why I'd appreciate if you explained it in more detail.
My opinion is the same as yours that there was an involvement but I'm not sure that I understand it the same way as you do. I know that Gorges Lemaître, the Catholic prist, proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory[1], and also that the theory is false since I personally executed the for long time neglected calculation of value of intrinsic redshift and it turned out roughly as it is observed, which implies that practically there is no expansion of universe. Results of my calculations were not published since 1985 when they were done, except recently in conservapedia[2], but I don't think that the Catholic Church was involved in the matter of blocking the publication. Do you? :) JimJast 14:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

Ottava, are you saying that a large percentage of Catholics accept the Big Bang theory? If so, is it because it seems reasonable to them? Or because it's Catholic dogma, or what? --Ed Poor Talk 14:36, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
It is both accepted by Catholics and given official approval by the Vatican. After all, Georges-Henri Lemaitre was a famous Catholic Priest and the originator of it. The Catholic Church also says there is enough reason to believe that evolution is okay. Afterall, Darwin made it clear that he believed in Aristotelian theory (and thus, Aristotelian Metaphysics which St. Thomas Aquinas relied upon), and that Darwin was Anglican his whole life, whether High Church or not is a different matter. Ottava (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2011 (EDT)


  1. After wikipedia and believed this time.
  2. Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe.