What's your opinion of The Big Bang Theory, from a scientific perspective
 

I think it has some merit, as far as it goes. There's no explanation of where the singularity came from. Why did it exist in the first place, where did it come from, and why did it explode? It serves to prove that Einstein was right when he said, "energy can be neither be created or destroyed, but can change forms."

The above theory just never had much appeal to me. But I read a book, a few years ago, that put forth another theory. The author, an astrophysicist, stated that the universe always existed. Why not? For some reason I like it better. :)

They are all good as far as they go. There's no theory that I know of that can create something from nothing.

What do you think, from a scientific perspective?

Darn....I thought that this was going to be about the show:)

Just that. You and me and Einstein agree on this one. The more complicated and scientific it is the more I am amazed by God's work.

Yeah, I was thinking about that too. I don't have TV but I have a portable DVD player and I have seen several seasons worth of The Big Bang Theory. Great show, in my opinion. I guess I should like the theory better because without it we wouldn't have had all this great entertainment.

Bazinga!

From a scientific perspective, homo sapiens, allegedly a recently occurring mutant on earth, ought, by Darwinian reckoning, given their evolutionarily primitive state, to be exceedingly error prone and subject to further mutation as regards survival in their realms of domain, compared to something ancient, like native Florida cycads.

Einstein was one smart dude, but didn't even come close to the intelligence of God.

Something from nothing
 

I agree its impossible for mortal man to create something from nothing. Only God.

Makes sense to me.

I agree also. The Big Bang theory as it has been unfolding since the days of Einstein realizing that the universe did have a beginning is one of the clear proofs of God being the Creator.

Scientist after scientist admits he or she does not want to say 'supernatural' or God but they really cannot come up with anything better and still remain intellectually honest and objective. Darwin's path from the goo to you via the zoo just doesn't cut it when dealing with the first cause, that which started the "Big Bang."

I encourage you to please read "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" by Geisler and Turek. If I can understand that book anyone can. It's an eye opener for the open minded and honest.

Me too! Love the show, think the actors are superb and their ability to remember lines and lines of scientific dialog is excellent - but that's just my opinion!

Hi villages PL: The problem with experts opining on the Big Bang Theory is that the theory keeps evolving as new evidence comes in. An expert once stated that to suggest the viability of the Big Bang Theory as a random event is like suggesting that an exploding building stuffed with letters of the alphabet creates an encyclopedia. In my view such an event as the mathematic precision of the universe requires some sort of intelligent design.

You also point out that Einstein stated that energy could not be created or destroyed but it can change form. When a person dies energy leaves the body since it cannot be destroyed but can change form does that imply each of us lives elsewhere but in a different form? Is this in fact what many of us call heaven. I believe so. I have had many conversations over the years on this concept and also as to the Big Bang Theory. I have in an earlier thread recently expressed these same thoughts.

Like all of us I have struggled with these questions of the Big Bang Theory , the after life and of God.

In my humble opinion it is a struggle akin to banging your head against a wall. Intellect can 't get you to the decision on God because the brain is a lazy organ and one needs to look beyond the brain.

As for scientific discussion on Big Bang theory the concept is so vast and complex with so many pieces of the puzzle missing that the best your going to get from a scientist is an qualified opinion meaning within the certainty of what science has available at that moment in time

I lean toward intelligent design because creation while not perfect is so amazing and so resilient

another aspect is to note how far advanced scientist have come in re-creation with stem cell, DNA, etc. I cannot even imagine what the world will look like one hundred years from now but hoping that my energy rests a hundred years from now with a human being preferable a rich good looking very athletic , very talented male that just makes the ladies swoon...:D

I have not listened to this Great Course but would like to....
 

Big History: The Big Bang, Life on Earth, and the Rise of Humanity

I can never understand how something can come out of nothing? It is a real paradox. There does seem to be a lot of evidence that there was some point where the universe began and started spreading. But what started it and more importantly why? http://gizmodo.com/astronomers-disco...ang-1545525927

Albert Einstein's Lost Theory Resurfaces, Shows His Resistance To Big Bang Theory

above article says Einstein and Hoyle both at times thought creation continually happens.

Just watch the show on Thurs nites and Sheldon will answer all your questions eventually.

Agree with Rubicon. You're asking ME for a scientific viewpoint? I try to be aware of what I don't know and I don't know this subject anymore even at a high school level.

Agree with Rubicon that the brain is useless in attaining the realm implied, that of consciousness of infinite creator. We are not without the capacity to attain it, but the mind itself creates the barrier to awareness.

I think, therefore I am limited to only what's in this head. Must be a better way.

I am neither an astrophysicist nor cosmologist but I have no difficulty with accepting the prevailing wisdom of the experts in the field who are constantly repeating studies, analyzing new data, and revising the theory as needed to fit new discoveries. This is of course the essential difference between science and faith. One never changes and is based on a small fixed set of data (the words in a book) although there may be variations on the emphasis of one sentence in one faith versus de-emphasis of those same words in another, or slight variations in the effect of multiple translations over several centuries, faith is fairly immutable. Science is not immutable which those who need absolute certainty may find uncomfortable.

I do not need to know what existed before the big bang to accept the big bang. The bb is a theory that attempts to understand what happened when this universe began its existence as a rapidly expanding phenomena. It does not really, if I grasp the bb correctly, attempt to describe what is before the bb began but rather what happens in the micro fractions of seconds as the universe began. Two thought experiments I suggest. For those of you with faith who attack the idea of the bb because of the "who" created the singularity from which the bb emerged. People of faith have no difficulty accepting that their God has been forever and don't seem to ask what created God. I have no difficulty accepting that time may be meaningless in a singularity and that the physics to gain a better understanding of a singularity or multiple singularities of various types are not yet known which does not mean unknowable. So for those who say what existed before the singularity, I ask what existed before God? Second thought experiment.. I hope everyone understands the concept of infinity. There is no infinity plus one in standard math (put aside hyperreals) no meaning to X divided by zero but we understand it to be something we can approach but never quite reach. There does not need to be some number beyond infinity any more than there needs to be some "thing" before a singularity. I may have it all wrong and welcome corrections.
But to re-emphasize the original question. The BB only deals with what happens after the beginning in the time beginning in the one divided by infinity seconds of the universe.

Genesis-Chapter-1
 

I will stick with Genesis chapter 1 from the bible.

GENESIS CHAPTER 1

There is no other explanation.

Z

I've been studying Inflationary cosmology for the past 10 years and we've made alot of discoveries in that time frame. You really can't ask what happened before inflation because that's when "time started", 13.8 billion years ago....

Do you believe that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old and that Adam & Eve walked around with dinosaurs?

Check out the website for the Creation Museum. It is rather amazing.

Philosophy of space and time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check out what this has to say about Immanuel Kant's ideas.

There are some theories that suggest that the Big Bang was the collision to two "membranes" that exist in the 10-dim space of string theory. As such, our 13.8 billion year old universe is just one of an infinite number of universes that are created and destroyed endlessly. Or something like that ...

It is trash TV,
I watched it once, and never will again. It is not a "G" rated for my grandchildren to see

I've been there and it is very amazing. One of a kind. My son is a Scientist and thinks well of Ken Ham who is behind the Creation Museum. Hoping to go again soon. Ken Ham

No opinion here about the "big bang," but I do hope I get enough advanced warning to plug my ears! http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/...y-emoticon.gif

Here's a good debate with your guy Ken Ham...

Watch "Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (Official)" on YouTube
Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (Official): http://youtu.be/z6kgvhG3AkI

This is a situation where kind people just drop the subject. IMHO

Actually, it is of interest to some. I would not talk about this at Doggie Doo Run Run but they have certainly had conversations like this one. It does sometimes upset the pooches. You can usually tell when a dog owner is getting upset or stressed from the actions of her dog.

I hope your son (the Scientist) does not think that Ken Ham has any credibility as a scientist whatsoever. He may think well of Mr. Ham as in being a nice guy, a good golfer, or a gracious host - but not a credible scientist by any means.

The Creation Museum definitely is a one of kind place but to think of it in terms of any reality does not make sense. The museum founder, Ken Ham, believes the Earth is 6,000 years old and will not even look at the facts that disprove that such as the Grand Canyon. Naturally, he and his followers think that evolution is completely bogus.

Big bang theory---don't buy it.

Evolution---for sure.

Creationism---not a chance.

Be sure to see the movie... "God's NOT Dead" it's playing now in the Villages... It is such a wonderful movie and addresses ALL of these BRILLIANT minds and their theories AND vs. God the Creator... There was some very, very interesting information in this movie.... One for everyone to see and consider....

No theory is going to make any difference in my life

It does make sense. I've been there. Have you? He puts up at every exhibit both views. He uses quotes of well known Scientists over the years. Something you do not see from the other Museums who hold no such view. Ken is not a Ph.D but is very well represented by many who are. He is a brilliant man with a vision and millions have checked out this museum and were impressed as was I. Both sides have the same facts. They just come away with different conclusions. That's basically it in a nutshell. One believes a creator was behind all this evidence and the other side believes it just happened without a creator. Obviously I believe the Creationists have a better answer.

It seems the title of the movie is a "spoiler" because it gives away the conclusion they come to in the end.

OK, if I missed this earlier, I apologize, but IT'S JUST A TV SHOW! Plus, it makes me wonder....Do you think the Flintstones was a real life projection of how things where in the stone age?

My understanding of how the big bang theory came about is this: Scientists can observe the universe expanding or moving outward. And if you were to picture or plot everything moving in reverse, everything would come together in what they call a "singularity".

In other words, picture ball bearings being propelled outward from a central location, as if by some explosion. At first there are no spaces between them. Then as they begin to move outward the spaces between the bearings begin to increase. If you could film them in slow motion and then reverse the film, you would see them come back together.

If you could do the same with the universe, it may be that everything would come together in one location. Then we know the greater the mass of an object, the greater the greater the pull of gravity. Perhaps, by using mathmatics, they figure that gravity would be so strong as to collapse everything into a very small singularity.

What do you think? Did I get it right? If I did get it right, it's good as a theory and I suppose it's how science is supposed to work.

I haven't had a chance to read all the links so there may have been an explanation better than what I gave above.

Last weekend............."I don't want to go. I don't want to go. I don't want to go." She made me go and I really liked it.

:wave::wave:

Regarding Big Bang.............I like Sheldon.

If the letters of the alphabet landed in water and could float, it's only a matter of time before random floating would spell out some words. And given that there might be billions of letters, who knows what you'd get? You might eventually get whole sentences. :shrug:



What you describe is based on faith, not science.

Anytime I want to get beyond the brain, I just take a nap.

That's okay, I accept that. It's science....it is what it is.

Well, a book has been written with the following title: "Live Long Enough To Live Forever". The idea is that if you can stay alive for another 10 or 20 years, science will advance to the point where they will be able to keep you alive forever.

The first words to be spelled are always "I" and "a."