Posted by Amanda on January 09, 1997 at 09:06:12:
In Reply to: Re: Science Education crisis posted by Tyler Bradley on January 08, 1997 at 08:16:40:
: : Can you explain this a bit slower and perhaps in more simple language - you've lost me. I once battled through first year physics and all I remember is that it was one heck of a struggle for me to stay afloat. Can you try to explain to me what it is Genesis aludes to and then what it is that has evidence to back it up regarding the Big Bang. Thanks.
: I'd rather not get into too much fine detail about the physics; this is really not the forum for that. What I would say about the evidence though is that there is much to support the notion of pure energy at the beginning, and was temporally precedent to matter.
: 1. The discovery of the cosmic background radiation (which is radiating at a temperature of ~2.7K. This is what is left of the pure energy at the universe's inception. It is not matter, but pure radiation... and it is fairly evenly spread-out over the sky. There are miniscule ripples in the temperature gradient that suggests that the early stages of development saw non-uniform distribution of energy, then matter.
: 2. The neutrino background. Neutrinos are similar to, but different from, photons; both are massless particles. One might even conjecture them being a transitional state between energy and particulate matter.
: 3. Helium abundance. Much of the matter in the universe has been formed and reformed, and so has lost its "memory" of the Big Bang. However, there may be first generation matter in stars and galaxies in the forms of hydrogen and helium. Theoretical models predict roughly 24% of matter ought to be in the form of helium. We observe between 23 and 25%; excelent agreement!
: 4. Antimatter, mini black holes, features of the four fundamental forces, blah....blah....blah....
: The point is that there is a lot of evidence around to support Mr. Big Bang. Nucleosynthesis, the formation of atomic nuclei, began after the energy had cooled from expansion and allowed the electromagnetic and strong nuclear force to coagulate the fundamental particles into the more familiar atomic structures observed today. The notion of an energy field at the beginning is echoed in Genesis, though I must admit that I'm not familiar with the assertion that Jason makes with regard to opacity. My first guess is that he is correct in what he says, and it does conflict with a LITERAL interpretation of the Creation myth. But I have already stated my assertion that it is figurative writing, and the allegory is pretty good. We associate much of energy with photon emission; all you need to do is accelerate a charged particle to do it. And, after all, kinetic energy is perhaps the most typical form of energy, eh?
I do understand that there is evidence for the Big Bang - and I thank you for taking the time to write it out in detail - but I do not see at all how "let there be light" can be interpreted to signify the Big Bang. Why was it not until the evidence was found for such a 'beginning' that people began finding the passages in the bible that might fit into this? What about all of the other passages of the SAME book that obviously do not agree with some of the evidence discovered by science?