And the science behind the Big Bang creation of the universe is that it happened from a point of infinite temperature, infinite density, infinitesimal in size that is physically indescribable, mathematically unverified, and beyond the conceptions of space and time because certain parameters of the observed movement of galaxies were put into a computer model and then run backwards, especially when all that we call matter accounts for only 4% of the energy of the universe.

How can one really believe that the entire vast universe of energy and matter BANGED into inflationary existence 13.8 billion years ago from a infinitesimally hot, dense point smaller than a proton because that's what a computer model backward extrapolation of parameters of observed movement of galaxies ends with called a "singularity" of unknown and unverifiable characteristics.

Now imagine all the near infinite number of atoms comprising all matter in the entire universe and explain how one could logically believe that all of this came from a point smaller than a proton which is even smaller than a atom?

About five million million hydrogen atoms could fit. Some factors would affect that number like the area of the head and the size of atoms (as well as attractions between atoms). Some atoms are larger than others. As atomic radii increases, you'll fit less and less atoms on the pin of an atom.

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=660

I had to go back and research a little. There were no atoms present at the BBT. It is estimated the 1st atoms appeared about 379,000 years after when the universe started to cool.

This simultaneously finished and ongoing aspect of cosmic stretching is identical to the big bang concept of cosmic expansion. According to the big bang, at the creation event all the physics (specifically, the laws, constants, and equations of physics) are instantly created, designed, and finished so as to guarantee an ongoing, continual expansion of the universe at exactly the right rates with respect to time so that physical life will be possible.

This biblical claim for simultaneously finished and ongoing acts of creation, incidentally, is not limited to just the universe’s expansion. The same claim, for example, is made for God’s laying Earth’s foundations (Isaiah 51:13; Zechariah 12:1). This is consistent with the geophysical discovery that certain long-lived radiometric elements were placed into the earth’s crust a little more than four billion years ago in just the right quantities so as to guarantee the continual building of continents.

Finally, the Bible indirectly argues for a big bang universe by stating that the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and electromagnetism have universally operated throughout the universe since the cosmic creation event itself. In Romans 8 we are told that the entire creation has been subjected to the law of decay (the second law of thermodynamics). This law in the context of an expanding universe establishes that the cosmos was much hotter in the past. In Genesis 1 and in many places throughout Job, Psalms, and Proverbs we are informed that stars have existed since the early times of creation. As explained in two Reasons To Believe books,10 even the slightest changes in either the laws of gravity or electromagnetism would make stars impossible. As already noted in the accompanying article, gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics yield stable orbits of planets around stars and of electrons around the nuclei of atoms only if they operate in a universe described by three very large rapidly expanding dimensions of space.

I know, it's all speculation and conjecture. That's why I stated above, it's a Theory.

Perhaps the most misunderstood term is scientific theory. To many non scientists, a theory is nothing more than an idea, a guess, a belief, or a hypothesis. To a scientist, however, a theory is one of the most powerful statements that science can make about how the natural world works. A scientific theory is a logical and unifying structure of ideas that accounts for a large body of observations and, therefore, explains something important about nature. Examples are the theories of special and general relativity, the theory of evolution, and the theory of plate tectonics. Much of physics does not make any sense unless viewed within the framework of relativity. The theory of evolution and the theory of plate tectonics have the same importance to biology and geology, respectively. A theory is the closest that science can come to the "truth." This is why scientists were so upset when President Ronald Reagan said that evolution was "only a theory." He was equating an important scientific theory, for which there is convincing evidence and that is universally accepted by knowledgeable scientists, with a hypothesis or a guess, and he was dead wrong.

Despite the confidence scientists have in current theories and laws, none of them is absolutely guaranteed to endure. Science arrives at its description of nature by a series of increasingly better approximations. New findings may modify scientific facts, laws, and theories and lead to new and quite different conclusions from those previously thought to be true. Occasionally, when overwhelming evidence is brought to bear, a whole field of science may undergo a revolution of sorts a "paradigm shift." The discovery of atomic structure around the turn of the twentieth century did that for chemistry and physics, just as the discovery of plate tectonics in the 1960s did for geology and Charles Darwin's 1859 descent with modification, now known as the theory of evolution, did for biology.

~ G. Brent Dalrymple

.
A scientific theory isn't "speculation and conjecture". It's an explanation for something that has been repeatedly tested and found to be true.

More in-depth explanation from a scientist:

We do not know for a certainty why or what caused the universe to begin. Not doubting the theory, but I would call it middle ground of hypothesis and theory. Only because there are less popular theories to explain it also.

Scientists use the Hubble to peer back into time measuring distance and light and get a faint glimpse of the infancy of the universe, but I do not know how they would " test " the theory.

Of course you are and rightly so.

There is nothing in scripture that in any way opposes the Big Bang. In fact, the inflationary aspect of the universe is even hinted at. 5 different Biblical authors alluded to this. ( I suspect many had been schooled in Kabbalah cosmology which taught a version of the Big Bang. According to FJO, mention of it and the Zohar is not allowed though,lol)

Inflation (cosmology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation is a theory of exponential expansion of space in the early universe. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10-36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to sometime between 10-33 and 10-32 seconds after the singularity. Following the inflationary period, the Universe continues to expand, but at a less rapid rate.[1]

Inflation theory was developed in the early 1980s. It explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the Universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation).[2] Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the Universe appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic), why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the Universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed.

The detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is not known. The basic inflationary paradigm is accepted by most scientists, who believe a number of predictions have been confirmed by observation;[3] however, a substantial minority of scientists dissent from this position.[4][5][6] The hypothetical field thought to be responsible for inflation is called the inflaton.[7]

In 2002, three of the original architects of the theory were recognized for their major contributions; physicists Alan Guth of M.I.T., Andrei Linde of Stanford, and Paul Steinhardt of Princeton shared the prestigious Dirac Prize "for development of the concept of inflation in cosmology".[8] In 2012, Alan Guth and Andrei Linde were awarded the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics for their invention and development of inflationary cosmology.[9]

Its why I asked Furch, which he does agree with, the inflation of the universe or what started it? Or both?

But what they did not understand but do now, is that space its self, began in side that.Not the other way around.

No space, no energy and no matter before creation. It all started at a single point.

Another thing they agree on, is that it was not like an explosion. It is closer to a very small baloon being blown up, where it starts small and expands evenly and at the same velocity all around, and that is our universe if you will.

Proof of this?

There is a lot of mathematical proof for the expansion of the universe and how it was created. And that is on going .

Albert Einsteins theory of relativity supports the concept when it was finally put into context. And many Astronomers are involved in actually measuring the inflation of the universe such as Hubble and Spitzer.

When one takes into account all the questions about our universe such as :

- how is it possible that elements which had never been in contact with each other, come to equilibrium @ the same temperature making one part of it similar to another.

This phenomenon is actually being measured as its common, DNA if you will is showing up in wicro wave pictures of the universe by NASA, you can read about here:

WMAP CMB images - NASA
https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/cmbimages.html

3 different NASA missions so far have been able to produce these "maps", and measure inflation.

Then I already mentioned what is called the "Red Shift" which shows the inflationary nature of the universe.

This is for others interested not FJO. Waste of time dealing with cult members who think only they have the answers and that it supersedes Science.

Like I already mentioned, 2 days ago,the big bang was not an explosion.

isna

But what they did not understand but do now, is that space its self, began in side that.Not the other way around.

No space, no energy and no matter before creation. It all started at a single point.

Another thing they agree on, is that it was not like an explosion. It is closer to a very small baloon being blown up, where it starts small and expands evenly and at the same velocity all around, and that is our universe if you will.

Proof of this?

There is a lot of mathematical proof for the expansion of the universe and how it was created. And that is on going .

Albert Einsteins theory of relativity supports the concept when it was finally put into context. And many Astronomers are involved in actually measuring the inflation of the universe such as Hubble and Spitzer.

3 different NASA missions so far have been able to produce these "maps", and measure inflation.

Then I already mentioned what is called the "Red Shift" which shows the inflationary nature of the universe.

I have no interest in debate on this subject with lud or kb. I only thought it would be better served in it's own thread rat her than a thread about catholic church and hot water.

I am sorry I didn't clarify sooner but I had roses to plant & chickens to tend to.
I didn't mean to inconvenience anyone.

I agree it is a waste of time to discuss anything scientific with people who already think they have the answers and those who state opinions as if they are factual.
I agree with lord c that TUB needs a disclaimer against pseudoscience and outdated thinking.
I did not want to go down this road again as it is a waste of effort as it has been before as you well know.
I have much more productive things to attend to.





Stoneheads

@ isna I have a small flock of Old English Game Bantams (Red Pyle)


We're good mate

Which (TUB), you haven't read, right?

*

Any comment, lordclarence, older, anyone?

4. The Limitations of Revelation

101:4.1 Because your world is generally ignorant of origins, even of physical origins, it has appeared to be wise from time to time to provide instruction in cosmology. And always has this made trouble for the future. The laws of revelation hamper us greatly by their proscription of the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge. Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented. 101:4.2 Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.

What exactly is your problem with this statement, Clarence?

And why haven't you responded to my post asking for your comment?

.
The statement shows Sadler contriving a getout clause from what he correctly foresaw as the limited shelf life of the UB's science content, which has crucial implications for all of the dodgy science content in the UB.

And why haven't you responded to my post asking for your comment?

I need further time to ponder.

I would not think that an actual explosion would have taken place. It was probably more of an igniting than anything else.

If indeed heat and pressure were the culprit, compression would have to be involved for an explosion. Not really sure how compression would have been involved? The conditions would have to have been contained.

As I understand it the big bang doesn't cover the "bang" actually because they don't know.
The theory only knows what took place milliseconds after the so called "bang" or expansion.

I could be wrong but that's how I understand it. ( I'm not a physicist)

Expansion is part of the BB!

You cannot separate the two.

Who told you, inflationary universe is not part of the BB?

Ah, man, you caused me to lie to my self.

As I understand it the big bang doesn't cover the "bang" actually because they don't know.
The theory only knows what took place milliseconds after the so called "bang" or expansion.

I could be wrong but that's how I understand it. ( I'm not a physicist)

Nor am I. My knowledge of physics is extremely rusty. Not to mention the amount of knowledge that has increased. This is one of those subjects that I have not contemplated in a very long time. My understanding is the initial expansion was faster than the speed of light.

I have to equate things in a mechanical way. If there was a BANG, it would have to be contained. A diesel motor works off heat and compression, causing an explosion in a contained space. If it is not contained, it would just be a fireball with no explosion.
But then you would have to think of how an uncontained space could build enough heat and pressure to ignite? Pressure without compression.

While the scientists do not claim to know the cause of the theorized Big Bang they certainly claim as you point out "what took place milliseconds after" which leads one to wonder how they can "know" what took place milliseconds afterwards when the BB is nothing but a "theory" to begin with? And a theory they can't show is even possible.

Its all just speculation commencing with trying to explain why the universe was observed to be expanding and having the bright idea if its expanding in the past it was smaller, more compact and denser thus they put certain parameters into a computer model and ran it backwards until it ended up with what they call a "singularity" even though that is beyond the known laws of physics. Hence they can't show such a singularity supposedly containing all the energy of the universe in a infinitesimal point is even possible.

How in the hell could it be. It defies even my imagination and it should defy yours, the total energy of the universe is ENORMOUS.