> Wireless, why are you hung up on Darwinian Evolution? Biologists moved on from that
> looong ago.
Sorry, but Darwinian Evolution is still how it is being presented...
> Re the Big Bang, it is as much fact as a theory can be. The Cosmic Microwave Background
> Radiation studies pretty much confirm the existance of a "Big Bang" in our distant past,
> around 17 billion years ago.
No, they do
not confirm this! It is still an educated guess!!!
> "Why does the CMB support the Big Bang picture?
> The basic point is that the spectrum of the CMB is remarkably close to the theoretical
> spectrum of what is known as a "blackbody", which means an object in "thermal equilibrium".
> Thermal equilibrium means that the object has had long enough to settle down to its
> natural state.
That makes no sense! What would be the "un-natural" state? Note also that background noise could as well directly suggest very wide spectrum, time encoded information and data. Please read more about time modulation and encoding and ultra wide band...
> Your average piece of hot, glowing coal, for example, is not in very good thermal
> equlibrium, and a "blackbody" spectrum is only a crude approximation for the spectrum of
> glowing embers. But it turns out that the early Universe was in very good thermal
> equilibrium (basically because the timescale for settling down was very much shorter than
> the expansion timescale for the Universe). And hence radiation from those very early times
> should have a spectrum very close to that of a blackbody.
I am sorry, but I don't subscribe to any of that timescale nonsense! I see energy transfers taking place in
real time , therefore, there is no such thing as "settling down" per say! The various frequency cycles are just repeating themselves and energy is being transferred from one cycle to another in real time... In essence, time is just the inverse of frequency. Either case, this is not the scope of this discussion!!!
> The observed CMB spectrum is in fact better than the best blackbody spectrum we can make
> in a laboratory! So it is very hard to imagine that the CMB comes from emission from any
> normal "stuff" (since if you try to make "stuff" at some temperature, it will tend to
> either emit or absorb preferentially at particular wavelengths).
It is real time energy transfer...
> The only plausible explanation for having this uniform radiation, with such a precise
> blackbody spectrum, is for it to come from the whole Universe at a time when it was much
> hotter and denser than it is now. Hence the CMB spectrum is essentially incontrovertible
> evidence that the Universe experienced a "hot Big Bang" stage (that's not to say that we
> understand the initial instant, just that we know the Universe used to be very hot and
> dense and has been expanding ever since).
Well, you are still going to have a very hard time convincing me of that...
..and, I see "expansion" as nothing more than real time energy conversion at the lower end of the spectrum since, after all, space is just a wavelength...
> In full, the three cornerstones of the Big Bang model are: (1) the blackbody nature of
> the CMB spectrum; (2) redshifting of distant galaxies (indicating approximately uniform
> expansion); and (3) the observed abundances of light elements (in particular helium and
> heavy hydrogen), indicating that they were "cooked" throughout the Universe at early times.
I read about it many, many times, but it is still "basically" boggus to me...
> Because of these three basic facts, all of which have strengthened over the decades
> since they were discovered, and several supporting pieces of evidence found in the
> last deacade or two, the Big Bang model has become the standard picture for the
> evolution of our Universe.
What other "supporting pieces of evidence"!?
> > "who created or made this so called big bang?"
>
> Why does there have to be an intelligence behind it? Why does there need to be a
> cause for it at all?
Trying to answer my question with another question! That is a low shot under the belt...
> > "and what was there before this so called big bang and who created or made that?"
>
> It doesn't work like that. It sounds elusive, but before the big bang there existed
> nothing and everything.
I like that one! LOL
> Very little known matter was created during the big bang. Aside from hydrogen and
> helium, the other elements are second, third, or fourth generation elements that
> were created in stars. In essence, most of the known matter in the universe is a
> by-product of the original hydrogen and helium produced about 380,000 years after
> the big bang, when the universe had cooled enough to allow for that.
Look, I am fully aware of the overall food chain and structure of things...
> >"and what was before, before that and who made that?"
>
> Again, nothing, everything.
I just absolutely love it! LOL
Maybe you could then "define" for me what "nothing" is and what "everything" is!?
> Why do you need a consciousness here?
Who is talking about consciousness!? IMHO, consciousness is, way, way over-reated. Maybe you are not aware, but the sub-conscious and unconscious are much, much bigger spaces -- maybe like 96% of reality...
-wirelessguru1
The Invisible Universe -- 96% of reality