Replies

I wish I understood the math for the redshift phenomonon. I'll check out the site BMCDA posted and do my own research. Funny thing is, if the big bang doesn't have a center or original point, isn't your current understanding of this process more consistant with the biblical account of, "let there be light" than the original big bang theory as it was proposed?

Funny thing is, if the big bang doesn't have a center or original point, isn't your current understanding of this process more consistant with the biblical account of, "let there be light" than the original big bang theory as it was proposed?

I don't think this is a change in the theory as originally proposed; the "explosion" idea was more of a popular explanation than an accurate summary of the actual theory. But yes, to those of us who believe in God and modern science, the Big bang Theory is indeed very reminiscent of genesis 1:3.

Interesting site. He quotes under 14 billion as the universe age. I thought we are currently closing in on 20 billion years old, not 15. Thus, his white dwarfs need to have come into being when the universe was already 5 billion years old. My memory is suspect though.

At one point, about 15 or so years ago, per Hubble Space Telescope, we were closing in on a 20 billion year age. However, with the Key Project of the HST complete, it narrowed down quite a bit to the current estimate. It's been hovering there for almost 5 years now.

I wish I understood the math for the redshift phenomonon. I'll check out the site BMCDA posted and do my own research. Funny thing is, if the big bang doesn't have a center or original point, isn't your current understanding of this process more consistant with the biblical account of, "let there be light" than the original big bang theory as it was proposed?

Some people think so. I'm generally not one of them, though I used to be (long long ago). I do happen to think that religion should not be diametrically opposed to science in anyway. They are two different endeavours.