The Evidence For The Big Bang In 10 Little Minutes

Jacnas Says:

Aug 9, 2008 - Attaching ideological claims to a theory is called junk science. It DOES contaminate it and hurt it's reputation and validity. As to the claim that the universe had a beginning; the only theoretical framework on which you can base this claim is general relativity. But the problem is GR DOESN'T APPLY because it inevitably encounters a problem called singularity at the big bang which it cannot explain and NEVER attempted to (it never even meant to). The existence of a singularity means only

Jacnas Says:

Aug 9, 2008 - that our understanding of gravity is incomplete and therefore GR is incomplete. So to sum up; the only theory from which you can derive the conclusion that the universe had a beginning doesn't apply to describing or even claiming the existence of this beginning. It's striking that you are doing exactly what I griefed about in my 1st comment. You aren't even doing it well suggesting that you are a layman with very little understanding of cosmology. As I said it's degrading to the theory.

whole27 Says:

Aug 9, 2008 - Just that image of all the galaxies and those are only the ones we can see is AMAZING! TRILLIONS OF STARS....I WONDER HOW MUCH INTELLIGENT LIFE IS OUT THERE AND IN WHAT FORMS!! SCIENCE IS AMAZING!

whole27 Says:

Aug 9, 2008 - Creationist: Duh...i have a better theory...god did it...the universe is only 6000 years old..duhhh...we are the only life in the universe...so the 400 BILLION STARS in our galaxy alone are all DEAD...serve absolutely no purpose...duhh...i have to go get fitting for my helmet now!

ShaundalynChic Says:

Aug 9, 2008 - "As I said it's degrading to the theory." You are just embarrassed to admit that theists had the idea first. What is really embarrassing are the scientists like Hoyle who actively opposed the Big Bang theory because it was too much like religion. That's hardly the proper scientific mindset.

Jacnas Says:

Aug 9, 2008 - Not to understate Lemaitre's achievement but the BB theory was not solely his idea. Other contributors include Einstein, Hawking, Friedman, Hubble, Penzias, Wilson, Gamow, Dicke, Zel'dovich, Mather, Rubin and Guth. This is NOT a complete list. These were/are all brilliant minds who brought the theory to where it's now. It would be VERY unfair to say that the BB theory is solely Lemaitre's achievement. You seem to have a very underdeveloped worldview with a strong US vs THEM mentality.

ShaundalynChic Says:

Aug 10, 2008 - Einstein actively opposed the idea until the evidence was overwhelming. Certainly Hubble's ideas in other areas were timely in helping to prove the validity of the theory. In a broad sense you might include Hubble, but not directly. Friedman obviously does deserve nearly equal credit to Lemaitre. I never said the completed theory was solely Lemaitre's achievement, just that he first proposed it.

ShaundalynChic Says:

Aug 10, 2008 - "You seem to have a very underdeveloped worldview with a strong US vs THEM mentality" My point was atheists on YT seem to have exactly that. In reality Christians like Lemaitre are integral to the advances science has made. Science and religion are very compatible. YT atheists seem to claim science as solely their's. It isn't.

Jacnas Says:

Aug 10, 2008 - "Einstein actively opposed the idea until the evidence was overwhelming." This is a blatant falsehood. When Lemaitre presented it to him it pleased him immediately. He liked how well it fitted with his theory. Until the discovery of CMB a few years after Einstein's death the only good evidence for the BB was Hubble's constant so your claim about "overwhelming evidence" is false.

Jacnas Says:

Aug 10, 2008 - "I never said the completed theory was solely Lemaitre's achievement, just that he first proposed it." Where does this sentence come from then: "You are just embarrassed to admit that theists had the idea first."

Jacnas Says:

Aug 10, 2008 - "In reality Christians like Lemaitre are integral to the advances science has made." Only if they do not allow their religion get in the way of their science. If you disagree describe to me please how exactly him being a christian aided him in the development of the theory. "My point was atheists on YT seem to have exactly that." Oh the irony. I'm not the one hijacking the theory to further my ideology.

ShaundalynChic Says:

Aug 10, 2008 - "Where does this sentence come from then: "You are just embarrassed to admit that theists had the idea first." " That Lemaitre had the idea first, as in first proposed it. See the word "first"?

ShaundalynChic Says:

Aug 10, 2008 - "Only if they do not allow their religion get in the way of their science." That is certainly true. Just as it is certainly true that some atheist scientists allow their atheism to get in the way. Einstein, in fact, found the Big Bang suspect, because, according to him "it was too strongly reminiscent of the Christian dogma of creation". Prejudices can work both ways. Einstein was hardly alone in finding the Big Bang idea unpleasant because of theistic overtones. Anyone can be biased.

ShaundalynChic Says:

Aug 10, 2008 - "If you disagree describe to me please how exactly him being a christian aided him in the development of the theory." Not being reluctant to explore ideas similar to the theistic views of creation for one. See the atheist scientists that found the whole idea unpleasant for those reasons. Maybe without those biases, they would have been first.

ShaundalynChic Says:

Aug 10, 2008 - "This is a blatant falsehood. When Lemaitre presented it to him it pleased him ..." You are wrong. Lemaitre published the idea in 1927. It was five years later before Einstein fully accepted it. Einstein initially approved of the mathematics of Lemaître's theory, but refused to accept the idea of an expanding universe; Lemaître recalled Einstein commenting "Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable". (Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable). -cont'd-

ShaundalynChic Says:

Aug 10, 2008 - -cont'd- It wasn't until January 1933, Lemaître and Einstein, traveled together to California for a series of seminars. After the LeMaitre detailed his theory, Einstein is said to have stood up, applauded, and said: "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened". It took him that long, because Einstein found it suspect, according to him, it was too strongly reminiscent of the Christian dogma of creation. Initially Einstein was skeptical.

Jacnas Says:

Aug 10, 2008 - "Maybe without those biases, they would have been first." 2 words: Alexander Friedmann. Are you a creationist? You're saying that Einstein didn't accept the theory until 1933. Considering that he didn't fully know the mathematics behind it and the evidence was lacking forgive me if I don't condemn him for his scietific skepticism just yet.

ShaundalynChic Says:

Aug 10, 2008 - "Considering that he didn't fully know the mathematics behind it" Actually Einstein did know the math and agreed with the math, he just didn't want to accept the idea of an expanding universe. See his comment to Lemaitre that "your math is correct, but your physics is abominable". Einstein eventualy overcame his reluctance because he was faed with overwhelming proof, but why the reluctance? I am just saying biases can go both ways. "Are you a creationist?" No.

photekxl Says:

Aug 15, 2008 - How does atheism get in the way of science? Are you saying scientists actively attempt to DISPROVE god or something? Which of course makes no sense because they don't believe in god. So just how does atheism interfere with the practice of science?

ShaundalynChic Says:

Aug 15, 2008 - So just how does atheism interfere with the practice of science?" They don't have to let it interfere, but they can if they let their bias against religion creep into their thinking. There were scientists like Einstein, who originally found the Big Bang suspect, because, according to him, it was too strongly reminiscent of the Christian dogma of creation. He eventually came around because of the math and Hubble's evidence, but he might have done so sooner without anti-theism biases.

CruxAustralis Says:

Aug 16, 2008 - Actually this is another nail in the coffin for Young Earth Creationists. I would like to see them wriggle out of this one. Or are they to scared/stubborn to see it any other way?

NeoDeterminist Says:

Aug 17, 2008 - That was the most informative 10 minutes I've had in a LONG time. Bravo!

intotheabyss2003 Says:

Aug 18, 2008 - its quite possible that right now as we speak the universe as we know it could be a single atom. Of course i wasn't talking about the universe as we know it, I was talking about the universe, there isn't a big wall at each end that says "end of universe here". The universe expands on forever.

intotheabyss2003 Says:

Aug 18, 2008 - being conscience is a scary thing, we know that one day we will die, I truly believe no other species knows this or thinks about it. To think that it all will just be over one day is frightening. Out of this fear of what we know we lie to OURSELVES and make up false stories. Im not saying science doesn't have enough room for a god to be involved, but if he is there no one has begun to grasp ANYTHING about him/her/it, except for one small thing, HE DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK.

Zox111 Says:

Aug 19, 2008 - This is an amazing video! Great job getting that much information into a 10-minute video without making it feel rushed.