New Theory Suggests Start of Universe

AP via Yahoo! ^ | January 8, 2002 | Paul Recer

[College Repub]

Age of the Universe

[NC_Libertarian]

Perhaps the physical expression of our existance cannot, as it is an intricate component of this spacial reality, but concsciousness transcends this reality.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

The point in Genesis where plants appear is out-of-place, but otherwise it's a fairly accurate, simplified version of what science is showing us.... About what you'd tell someone living 3,500 years or so ago.

[rdb3]

The whole universe was contained in the Big Bang.

And who made the thing that went, "Bang," hmmmm? If there ever were such a theoretical thing which I highly doubt.

[College Repub]

Made a thread on the link I posted above....

[NC_Libertarian]

intricate = integral (opps :p)

[VRWC_minion]

The point in Genesis where plants appear is out-of-place

Not necesarily. Scientists are currently studying plants that grow without sun at vents in the earths crust and plant like organisms that feed on minerals in the earth.

Theologically speaking, I believe the first light was not the light of the sun but rather the light of Jesus. (See John Chapter 1) In addition in Revelations the new earth is lighted by God not by the sun. There is no need for the sun anymore to light the city.

[Junior]

You are beginning to see the nonsense of the standard ( big bang ) model.

The Big Bang never happened.

You obviously have little knowledge of that which you speak. Please read the replies to Darth Reagan that appear shortly after his question.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Theologically speaking, I believe the first light was not the light of the sun but rather the light of Jesus.

Scientifically speaking, it wouldn't be the light of the first sun, but the light of the explosion that started the Big Bang.

Theologically, I'd say the Light of God, but the Big Bang could be the physical manifestation of the Light of God.... I haven't really thought about it, though, one way or another.

Hey, God did it; it's His light.

[mitchbert]

In fact, the more and more we discover about the origins of the universe and civilization, the more accurate Genesis appears to be. Science and religion go hand in hand.

Stephen Hawking makes some interesting references to this concept in "A Brief History of Time". He claims that as the physicists on the cutting edge of cosmic theory get closer and closer to the so-called "beginning of time" and look further into the evasive "singularity" theories the more convinced they become that everything is too nice and neat to be purely accidental. Contrary to what many may believe, he claims, individuals at that level of science are not as dismissive of a "guiding hand" in creation as many laymen might think. Perhaps this is why many in the field describe the search for the moment of the Big bang to be trying to "read the mind of G-d."

Interesting.

[elfman2]

Does anyone here know of the leading non-religious based hypothesis regarding what came before the Big Bang?

[VadeRetro]

The Freeper known as "Physicist" likes to post that there is no "before" the Big Bang any more than there is a point North of the North Pole. Time itself starts at the BB.

[abandon]

You are beginning to see the nonsense of the standard ( big bang ) model.

Then what is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation?

[DoctorMichael]

"And God said, 'Let there be light'"

Ditto! The Big Bang Theory is in nearly complete agreement with the account given in Genesis!

[VRWC_minion]

Does anyone here know of the leading non-religious based hypothesis regarding what came before the Big Bang?

For many nothing existed. If something existed then you run into the problem that not everything is under God's control. Without a long explanation you end up with two equal forces of good and evil without any clear way of determining which is which. It becomes a theological mess.

For me, its a big warning when any religious person starts to opine that God is on same plane as evil. Its a set up for the religious person to have control over others.

[Dimensio]

What's beyond space?

Oh, NC_Libertarian, don't be silly! The end of space ... draws line on chalkboard ... is just the beginning again!

[Dimensio]

Does anyone here know of the leading non-religious based hypothesis regarding what came before the Big Bang?

I don't think that there is one. Once you go back to the theorized universe at Plank time (which is a moment just after the start of the Big Bang) the fundamental laws of the universe break down and you really can't explain much of anything...

At least that's how it was when I last read about it.

[elfman2]

The Freeper known as "Physicist" likes to post that there is no "before" the Big Bang any more than there is a point North of the North Pole. Time itself starts at the BB.

I think my question wasn't complete. If there was no "before", then what are the leading non-religious based hypotheses as to how it began?

Even if the laws of the universe were different, it's still "something from nothing". There appears to be no way around that. (Kind of like the "God just was" explanation.)

If there are no good explanations, the Big Bang theory's not very satisfying. It only defers the question and pushes what we don't know back to an earlier point.

We could even say that this is a middle ground, some place for creationists and evolutionist to come together, and recognize that they don't have to be at odds from the start.

[JoJo the Clown]

Big Bang never made much sense to me. How do its advocates explain the non-uniformity of the universe? If all matter began with a singularity, how does the transformation from that state to an expanding universe (by "explosion") occur without perfect uniformity during the expansion? What accounts for the variation in the universe, and what accounts for the fact that the universe is mostly empty? The notion of a singularity makes no sense in that context.