There is evidence, from our point-of-view in an out of the way corner of the Universe, that galaxies and other things are moving away as though from a single point. That may be true, or it may be an optical illusion. But that is where the evidence ends, and where myth begins. What we are seeing is both unexplained and unexplainable, yet the term, "Big Bang," still exists and is regarded by some as "accepted science." The only acceptable answer is that we do not have an answer. So, we employ myth to create one. Very much like the "Let There Be" crowd does, and for the same basic reasons.

We are taught in thermodynamics class that everything proceeds toward chaos and disorder, yet here we are. Literally everywhere we look, both very large and very small and even subatomic, we find: order. And we also find mechanisms (in biology) that keep things in order. As human beings, we are driven to explain these things, even when "evidence" can't. Or, when it can't go as far as we want it to, nor cast enough light.

It may possibly be unproductive, sundialsvcs to try to get someone so invested in their view of the world as intractable who sees offhand denial as skepticism, but one fact is we have a photo of Big Bang in progress and at ever increasing resolution. Computer modeling based on what we see in that photo proceeds accurately to what we see now. Particle accelerators show us that progression in reverse so we see the same progression from opposing directions.

Yes, some aspects, like Rapid Expansion or Inflation, are still quite controversial and we have extremely low levels of understanding on Dark Energy and Dark Matter other than the effects we see, which is akin to how we saw some geological events without solid explanation until Plate Tectonics Theory was proposed and progressed sufficiently for so much to fall into place. However, and this is important, the fundamentals of Big Bang does not depend on Inflation, Dark Energy or Dark Matter. No matter how those are refined, Expanding Universe is real in one direction of The Arrow of Time, and viewed in reverse, smaller, denser, hotter did happen, regardless of whatever cause (intelligence, hologram, chance... whatever) or variables are also involved. The odds of that are beyond overwhelming.

Of course you are free to doubt, but isn't it irrational to bet against overwhelming odds? It seems to me wise, if one can afford it, to "bet with the House".

You can't really compare plate tectonics with the Big Bang. Plate tectonics has perfectly straightforward mechanisms: the earth's mantel behaves like a very viscous fluid and is subject to convective currents when heated by geothermal (nuclear) energy. These currents carry the plates on which the continents rest and move them around in a predictable manner. This is normal science.

That some kind of Big Bang happened at the dawn of our universe is likewise normal science. Galaxies are receding from one another at a fixed rate so, when you turn the clock back far enough, they must have started as a single point of infinite density. But when any attempt is made to explain where that point of infinite density came from or why it suddenly exploded, normal science disappears out of the window and we get gobbledegook like "dark energy" and "colliding branes". Sorry but that really is the equivalent of "Here be dragons!"

Actually Wegener's original theory of continental drift had the same problem and that was why it was for decades not considered to be science but rather pseudo-science. To put it bluntly, there was no known mechanism for such a drift. Only with the discovery of sea floor spreading in the 1960s was a mechanism provided in the form of plate tectonics. That is how science develops. Provide a comprehensible explanation and it's science. Provide gobbledegook and it's mythology at best, and often much poorer mythology than some of the classical forms.

Actually, hazel, and despite a minor incongruity, you are making my case for me. I have never and would never make any claims of "where that point of infinite density came from or why it suddenly exploded". We haven't yet and may never do any better than to "inch back" closer to the time when the four fundamental forces were combined as one. That in no way rules out Big Bang as it stands today. True, some overly imaginative people, including some scientists, thought or at least spoke of Big Bang as The Very Beginning of All Things, literally, rather than as an expression of Time, and Laws of Physics, as we know them, having any meaning. Thankfully such overly enthusiastic or misspoken assertions have been calmed and reined in.

I suppose the salient point for a forum centered around Religion is that Big Bang in no way stands as an argument against Religion or Creation. It IS an argument against LITERAL translation of scripture, but really should never be considered an obstacle for most religious folks. Simply put, if there was or is a Creator, He/She/It created Big Bang, Evolution, etc since those are objective facts. They are as unarguable or subject to opinion as is the distance from New York to London. What came before is a matter for mere Myth and Speculation.

FWIW I was not comparing the processes of Plate Tectonics to the processes of Big Bang, just the processes of figuring out True Nature of Things.... but I think you know that

How does a Thought Question "Does myth matter anymore?" end up talking about the Big Bang ... Enorbet!??

Hello, business_kid, nice to see you posting.

Answer - Simple. OP asserts Big Bang is a myth. As currently tested and refined, it is not.

Well, Genesis 1:1 says what happened, but it gives no clue how. And of course, not everyone agrees with it.

The big bang was conceived by discovering the expanding universe, and then imagining that in reverse all the way back to a singularity. There's a plethora of contending theories to the big bang out there now, because as someone said of the big bang "Here be dragons!"

I personally prefer the notion that Creation never went through the Singularity stage, which would be a lot of extra pain for no gain. It went through the CMB, I think, but not the singularity. Parts of that big bang story before the CMB lack credibility or persuasive evidence. But scientists can't go travel this road, because that road presupposes an outside influence. The fact that it's scientifically accepted doesn't impress me. Human opinion is far from infallible. And many other embarrassing examples could be inserted here of wrong expert opinion. If scientists had put their telescopes & calculators away back in the 1970s and stuck to their simple little story, more folks would believe it. Now they've researched it enough to make huge trouble for themselves.

Actually, business_kid, while you obviously do have some knowledge of Science, your description of how Big Bang was discovered is a little off. Edwin Hubble has credit for the first solid evidence of expansion, but Georges LeMaitre's theory preceded Hubble.

BTW I chose to quote the Wikipedia article rather than a scientific journal to demonstrate another more general and pertinent point, that there is a difference between objective fact and opinion. Your opinion on a Divine Creator has validity because there is and can be no objective evidence to support or deny the existence of anything outside our Universe. Being speculative it the conclusion is merely opinion. As I've said before, the distance from New York to London, or the subtrahend of 4 minus 2. are not subject to opinion. They are objective fact.

It is common that because objects like Black Holes are referred to as a Singularity, that when the term singularity is used in the context of the early universe, non-scientific people will equate the two. The term Singularity is often used when describing areas of extreme gravity but more specifically, Gravity, as we know it didn't exist until the Universe expanded and cooled sufficiently for the four fundamental forces to separate. Simply put, Singularity refers to extreme conditions under which our mathematics and physical laws break down, mostly because we can't recreate such extreme conditions even in a computer model. What happens in Black Holes or at Big Bang gets progressively pushed back, the border of singularity as lack of understanding is reduced by new data, usually by new technology and rigorous testing.

There is no evidence that Big Bang was essentially like a Black Hole. They are very different with only minor overlap.

As for dragons and witches, those are opinion at best and actually even less reliable than Myth, since they are entirely superstition and very often associated with organized religion. The assertion that "The judges' decisions based on it were sound in logic and in law" is not embarrassing to scientists because it is not scientific. The only value in it is demonstrating how people who consider themselves logical are subject to confirmation bias when harboring non-logical magical thinking agendas like organized religion.

That, my friend, is exactly why I bother to spend time here and around the web, trying to offer a more accurate view of Science. The more we accept conclusions based on superstition and myth, the less logical and consistent we tend to be and we flirt with myopic views that often lead to violence against those with whom we disagree, considering ourselves "Chosen People" who have that right if not duty. That, Sir, is dangerous.

My vague recollection was that Hubble discovered redshift/blueshift and concluded expansion - 1929?. Thereabouts anyhow. The big bang I had thought of as the 1940s, but it's history I'm not interested in. LeMaitre sounds familiar. But I didn't say any of that, and you're correcting me as if I did. Anxious to get on a soap box, are we?

For that matter I referred to a singularity (once) and didn't need a lecture on singularities/black holes. I take your point on the witches. My point was that accepted wisdom changes with time. Surely you must agree proof (of the nature you described, i.e. absolute measurement of London - New York) is lacking before the CMB, as sundialsvcs pointed out (most recently in post #61).

That's the Hebrew creation myth. All mythologies have their versions of what happened. Why should the biblical account be regarded as better than the rest. They're all fantasies, products of human imagination.

Myth: changes with time because people tell new stories.
Science: changes with time because we discover new things.

@enorbet, @business_kid: "The observation of apparent expansion [from a single point]" leads to ... an educated attempt to explain this observation, and then to engage in scientific philosophy in an attempt to put it into context. Unfortunately there's just not much data to go on.

Therefore, what happens next (I submit ...) is mythology, as we seek to explain a Great Kanuna Question: "Where did it all come from? How did it all begin?"

And, as I have said here before, this is an utterly human thing to do, and utterly reasonable. Science is a wonderful thing, but science has limits and they are hard limits. Philosophy is a powerful adjunct, but it works best when there is an abundance of opportunity for observation – as in biology.

Perhaps we should look at "mythology" as being yet another legitimate form of inquiry, for use when "the philosophy of science" has reached its outer limits. In any case, we should regard mythology as legitimate because humans have been practicing it literally for as long as we know. Were all of these human beings "ignorant?" I don't think so.

Hmmm let's see.....

Looks like a connection to me. "Accepted wisdom" is not Science. Accepted wisdom can be "old wives tales" or twisted tradition like not eating pork, with some bearing out and others not. "Scientifically Accepted" OTOH means there is overwhelming evidence to support such a claim. If that doesn't impress you, that's perfectly fine, but don't expect your opinion on that subject to impress anyone who does care about such inquiry. Nobody sane is ever going to seek my opinions on the procedures of brain surgery nor yours on Cosmology.

Actually there are mountains of data and in numerous fields from very different angles with a very large rate of consistency and agreement. You are apparently unaware of it all.

There IS an abundance of opportunity for observation and covering a range from the sub-atomic to galactic clusters, and taking place over nearly 14,000,000,000 years which we can see and analyze. That we don't and maybe even can't know 100% only matters little once the odds get high enough as they have.

If you ask me "Where are you from?" and I respond "Back East" that might be enough information but you might follow with "What State" or "Rural or Urban? and it is highly doubtful you need to know my street address for you to have a grasp on my influences on most any subject.

Since you similarly "wrinkle your nose" at abiogenesis perhaps you might find this illuminating in the diversity employed to understand processes that is not mere common knowledge

https://www.nature.com/articles/nchem.2419

Here is a Myth within a Myth for you. The science fiction TV show, Star Trek Next Generation aired a thought provoking episode in which the crew of the Enterprise met an alien race and even with a telepath and a super genius android onboard they were stymied at every turn trying to crack the algorithm of their language. The turning point came as they began to grasp they could never speak that language unless they knew that civilization's myths because everything was referred to as being a similar condition or situation to one or more of thousands of mythological stories.

On the surface it seems an incredibly efficient language since, in our terms, I could answer hundreds of specific questions or musings about power struggle, deception, greed, infidelity, military might, technology, etc etc etc with just one word "Troy". The flaw should be obvious given the horrid state of public education, at he very least in the US, where modern high school graduates can't even find their home state on a map let alone name the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Without context Myth is devalued and even destroyed. Objective fact is not subject to context. Whether you float, fly, or walk on the ocean floor, the distance between New York and London simply IS, and whether you choose to measure in miles, kilometers, inches, or centimeters.

A similar situation of "knowledge lost forever" could have occurred with regard to Egyptian Hieroglyphics. Until the Rosetta Stone was found, no one suspected that the language was actually a syllabary, recording how spoken words sounded. Had the ancient language not sufficiently represented the languages spoken in modern Egypt, the entire written texts of an entire civilization could have been lost. The Rosetta Stone provided the "known plaintext" that was needed to make this vital discovery.