Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Let's see--

First, a singularity basically explodes.

Let's see where we can find singularity in the bible...
Wait, we can't.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPSSSS.

Second, where do we see the condensation of matter? We sort of see light coming from nowhere (which, in a technical sense, is true, but this comes after the initial explosion, whioch is not mentioned in genesis). But now the Earth. I suppose you COULD contrive that, but the stars? Bullshit. Earth never had a thick atmosphere at any point in it's history, so all light would have been visible anyhow. Furhter, if we accept microwave radiation as "light", then it would ALWAYS have been able to see the "light" emitted from stars. So they're full of shit and a half.

Godless Dave

Only the most ignorant fundies think Moses wrote Genesis or any other part of the Old Testament. Almost all serious Biblical scholars agree Genesis is the product of at least two authors at different points in time, and was combined into one story when the canonical Old Testament was established in the 5th Century BC.

Magus55

First of all, a singularity is a blatant guess - you have no proof the universe came from a singularity - its just the best guess you have. Second, if there was a singularity - what made it explode? Why didn't it stay a singularity?

WinAce

Fixed it for you.

Valentine Pontifex

You are clearly not aware that if General Relativity is correct then the universe did start as a singularity.

(The big caveat here is that General Relativity is a classical/non-quantum and thus how how things will turn out if relativity is successfully modified to be integrated with quantum theory remains to be seen.)

Also the Big Bang is not an explosion.

In any event, the evidence that everything we see around us started out in a much more compact volume is very clear. It is the only known explanation for the microwave background radiation. That radiation is as about a perfect fit to a blackbody radiation spectrum as one could hope for.

The big bang can correctly account the amount of hydrogen, helium, and lithium in the universe. The red-shifts you must already know about. One prediction of the big bang is that the universe will look different at different times. Combined that with the Big Bang's explanation of red-shifts and one gets a prediction which one can easily test to observation. The objects at different red-shifts would not be the same.

HRG

Let's not forget that general relativity - like all physical theories - is a mathematical model of reality, not reality itself. When it postdicts a mathematical singularity, IMHO this simply indicates that it ceases to be valid in specific regions of space-time.

Aerodynamics also predicts singularities in the time development of a sonic boom; but this just says that the approximation of aerodynamics (treating a gas like a continuous substance, rather than an ensemble of molecules playing billiards ) ceases to be valid.

Regards,
HRG.

Zadok001

WinAce:

Brilliant on a number of levels.

GunnerJ

Just like all of science- we have no "proof" of anything, all we have are best guesses, based on a pressuposition that what we sense corresponds to reality.

Do you reject all of science?

Magus55

No I don't reject all of science - but I take the Bible as fact, before human attempt at explaining the world around them, and then use science to understand God's creation better.

My trust is in God, yours is in humans.

WinAce

Then you by definition have to reject science, as well as the most basic principles it's based on, like parsimony and falsifiability.

Actually, your trust is in an ancient book of superstitious middle eastern fairy tales written by people who still believed the earth was flat. Ours is in the methodology that works for sending men to the moon, eradicating smallpox and building that computer you're typing on.