Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The big bang does not disprove the notion of divine creation, nor would debunking the big bang serve as proof of divine creation. If you can understand this, there is no longer any reason to draw lines in the sand and form camps based on ideology.
I'm agnostic but I always thought that having one singular event explaining the origin of everything (aka Big Bang) was one of the greatest evidence of Christianity's notion of divine creation.
Teaching creationism as an alternative to the big bang theory? Hmm. I don't think so. What if we as well as the universe is just one big serendipitous event? If there is a God who created everything, then who created God? Who or what created God who created God? Saying one entity or one event created all galaxies and life forms is too simplistic for a very complex issue. Now if you find an intelligent life form so far advanced and over our heads that say one God created all of this, well, I'll have to rethink my atheism. What do you think the odds are that that will happen? We most likely will never know how all of this was created. We don't need to fill children's heads with what could very well be a fantasy. Leave religion in the privacy of home where it belongs.
No, the James Webb telescope did not "disprove" the Big Bang theory. It may, however, lead to refinements. That's science, and is a good thing. It is just like Einstein refined Newtonian physics, but that didn't debunk Newton's theories. Understand?
Actually Einstein’s theory of general relativity completely changed the epistemological understanding of gravity. Newton’s and Einstein’s theories share similar predictions in the classical limit only but Einstein’s theory is radically different and not just a “tweak”
To teach the Big Bang, you need to have a working grasp of Lorentz Manifolds (aka differential geometry). Big Bang should only be taught to Physicists during the end of their undergraduate, or beginning of their graduate careers.
It's worthless to mention the Big Bang Theory to anyone else, for one thing you cannot teach it (the mathematics needed is well beyond their grasp) and secondary, it implies to the kids that Big Bang is true when in reality, there is a weak body of evidence of supporting it but Physicists accept it because it's the "best that they got."
There are different levels of teaching, you can certainly read scientific articles on the big bang without having a Phd in mathematics.
What you’re doing is not teaching the Big Bang Model, which is the set of outcomes from solving the two coupled first order partial differential equations (eg the Kodama-Sasaki equations) with various gauges and noting a red-shift.
What you’re doing is teaching someone’s interpretation of these equations and translating them into their epistemological understanding of nature.
We need to be clear here because it leads people to quite a fantastical perception of what is and what is not.
My point stands. Einstein's theory did not debunk Newton's, did it?
"Debunk" is very unscientific. Newton's theories were not FACTS to be debunked.
They were theories....hypotheses that held until new data proved them false.
All theories are just that theories that we hold to be true until something new is discovered to change scientists' minds.
https://www.inverse.com/science/the-...re-interesting OK, SO LET’S start with the obvious. The Big Bang is not dead. Recent observations by the James Webb Space Telescope have not disproven the big bang, despite certain popular articles claiming otherwise. If that’s all you need to hear, then have a great day. That said, the latest Webb observations do reveal some strange and unexpected things about the universe, and if you’d like to know more, keep reading.
Our current understanding is that after the big bang, the universe went through a period known as the dark ages. During this period, the first light of the cosmos had faded, and the first stars and galaxies hadn’t yet formed. Webb is so sensitive it can see some of the youngest galaxies that formed just after the dark ages. We would expect those young galaxies to be less numerous and less developed than later
galaxies. But the Webb observations have found very redshifted, very young galaxies that are both common and surprisingly mature.
It’s the kind of puzzling and unexpected data astronomers were hoping for. It’s why we wanted to build the Webb telescope in the first place. And it tells us that while the big bang model isn’t wrong, some of our assumptions about it might be.
My view --- Big Bang Theory should be taught and some discussion on what others 'believe' and why it may or may not be applicable.
at what level of education should the Big Bang be taught? When we learn the Sun is a star and the names/order of the planets? At the same level that we learn that we're one galaxy that's part of a universe? At higher levels when we discuss the existence or prospective viability of "life" as we know it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
