Scientist now have to go back to the drawing board in hopes of advancing a plausible theory re: the creation of the universe. Everything they thought about the Big Bang theory has now been challenged by 3 Nobel Prize winners here in the USA.
It's tough to explain life if you don't have an equation that includes a supreme being, but, they are giving it a go. Interesting reading if you have time, this was on CNN today.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/04/world/europe/sweden-nobel-physics/
If you have an equation that says a supreme being did it without any evidence, then you are just giving up and not looking for the truth.
Besides, in an open universe, the big bang still explains the origins and the universe does expand faster as it ages ultimately resulting in heat death.
[EDIT] Also, the big bang doesn't explain life at all. It explains the universe. You're confusing the big bang theory with abiogenesis.
I don't know what article you read... but you totally missed the point.
The "BANG" still occurred and they have just found more evidence to support the
theory that the universe continues to expand outwards. End of story.
God not required. Sorry.
Here we go . . .
gettingpopcornFoy
Nope, you are right, God is not required. But something out there that is 74% of the universe is over-riding gravity and making scientists rewrite the basics of what they believe about the forces that drive the universe. They just don't know what it is yet, so they are calling "it" dark energy.
BTW, KLow, BB does not explain the matter of the universe, it only explains the expansion.
Just because there are unanswered questions doesn't mean that magic wins by default.
[EDIT]Incorrect, it explains the origins of the universe. The expansion is just a component of the whole theory.
Occams Razor... I vote for the simplest solution.
BTW, this was the article I meant to link to
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/09/opinion/urry-dark-energy/index.html
Then let's hear it. What do you think the "simplest solution" is?
I only know of two choices being offered, are there more that I am unaware of?
You're not being offered anything, I simply want to know what you think the "simplest explanation" is.
Forgetting the God component of this thread...I have to agree it is funny to read that article and to come to that conclusion.
The universe is expanding which has nothing to do with overturning the Big Bang Theory. This "news" was first reported in 1998 as well :) They are just getting the award for it now.
I don't agree. BB did not offer an explanation fort he existence of anything, only an explanation of how it scattered the mass of the universe. But based on the original thesis, the universe should not be speeding up, rather quite the reverse. Which is not happening.
The accelerating rate of expansion signaled that gravity, a force we have known about and loved since the first apple fell from a tree, is a paltry thing compared to some new, utterly unknown, energy field that pushes galaxies apart.
We call this new thing "dark energy" -- signifying the energy that appears to push outward, with the adjective "dark" signifying that we know nothing whatsoever about its nature.
Moreover, in 2003, NASA's WMAP cosmology satellite showed convincingly that dark energy is the dominant constituent of the universe.
This stuff wasn't predicted by any physics theory and was completely unknown until the Nobel prize-winning teams of astronomers and physicists made their measurements -- yet there is more of it than anything else in the universe. More than the atoms that make up you and me and our Earth, more than the hydrogen and helium that pervades the universe, more than the unknown dark matter particles that cause attractive gravity and allow galaxies to form in the first place. Whatever it is, it's teaching us something utterly new about how matter and space and time behave. A fundamentally new physics theory is needed.
The fact is, dark energy is the biggest mystery in science. It has driven a huge amount of research in the past decade...Astrophysicists are hot on the trail of dark energy. A fellow physics professor asked me, following Yale's Leigh Page Prize lecture on dark energy by Saul Perlmutter, one of the Nobelists, "Doesn't this just keep you up at night, wondering what this stuff could be?" It's keeping a lot of us up at night.
So, you have on one hand Universalism, and the other hand Creationism. Universalists are now "staying awake at night wondering". Creationists maintain the same as before. Who wants to offer a third choice? Those are the only two I am aware of.
BTW to those who want to throw out any "faith arguments", you throw out both of the above.
If there was proof that either side is correct, we would not be debating the issue.
when i first saw the title of this thread, i thought the TV show Big Bang Theory has been canceled. u scared me dude. i love that show.
HAHA! That's exactly what I thought, too, and I've never even watched 5 minutes of that show :D
I can go in to why your understanding of the big bang theory is wrong but I am going to speak on your "choices".
Creationism stays the same because there was no research in the formation of the creationism hypothesis. There is no evidence to support creationism and there are no tests that can be done to verify creationism. Essentially, creationism is not science and that is why it doesn't change and never will change.
On "choices", there are hundreds of "choices". You can say that any of the creation myths can be chosen. From the Christian creation myth, to Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain so on and so forth. Just because you choose to believe something doesn't make it truth. Without evidence all you have is "belief". With evidence, I have an understanding of the fundamental theories that explain the world around me.
On change; change is a good thing. I don't know why creationists make it seem like a bad thing. When new evidence is presented, a hypothesis must change to support the evidence. For example, people thought the earth was the center of the universe. The evidence was because we could see everything moving around us as if we were stationary. With the advent of modern technology, including telescopes, evidence arose that shown we were not the center of the universe; in fact, far from it. Ergo, the theory changed because new evidence was presented, tested and publicly verified. What evidence does "creationism" have that can be presented, tested and publicly verified?
Their ain't none on either side of the argument. Whichever side you choose, you do so based on faith, not fact.
That is, by far, the most ignorant statement I have heard in my life.
I can quote one bit of evidence for the big bang theory and that is more than creationism will ever have. Here is just one, cosmic microwave background radiation.
I don't know why people find the truth so hard to believe that aliens planted us here like seeds so they could watch us from space like a messed up sitcom or something. We must be the laughing stock of the entire universe with some of the stupidity that has occurred on this planet.
(Pokes the tiger in the eye with a stick slowly backs away turns and runs full speed like the cops are chasing him.)
Here's another Tiger poke: I believe God created everything and all discoveries made/will be made will ultimately point to that and be seen and accepted as such by all, eventually.
Foy