Has the Big Bang Gone Bust?

Question

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Kepler.html

Answer 1

You lost me on a ´´creation - scientist deal

No such thing exists

Answer 2

Darwinists are floundering in their cesspools of primordial soup!

Just to think. One day they can trade it all in for a fire that never quencheth!

Answer 3

1 - Evolutionary biologists do not study the Big Bang.  

2 - The formation of the Earth occurred about 10 billion years after the Big Bang.  They didn't all form in one "explosion" (which a thoroughly inaccurate account of the Big Bang).

3 - Life didn't form until at least a billion years after the Earth formed.  

4 - Physical evidence studied by physicists and astronomers continues to garner more and more support for the Big Bang, not less.

5 - If you cannot get a complex system without a Creator, what created that Creator - surely by your own rules "God" is complex enough that He could not have formed on His own - where did God come from?  Adding a Creator into the model doesn't explain anything, it only adds another step which must be explained.

In conclusion, your premise fails in every step.

Answer 4

Expansion is a more precise term rather than "explosion".  I have yet to see a creditable source, or any other than your unsubstantiated claim, that cosmologists are getting desperate or that there is any doubt about the "big bang".

Edit:

Given the track record of creationist completely (to the point of dishonesty) misquoting real scientists, you'll have to forgive me if I doubt the authenticity of your "quote".

Edit:

Your link to why creationism is science is laughable as the first thing that it opens with is a list of deceased scientists that lived quite awhile ago and had no impact or input into creationism.  Creationism is not science in any definition of science, nor is factually correct or intellectually honest.

Answer 5

There are many details of the universe that defy the explanation of a big bang. For example, 2 planets revolve around the sun the opposite direction of the other planets. One even has moons that go the opposite way of each other !  If the big bang happened, then they should all be revolving the same way.

By the way, suggesting the big bang suggests that a tornado can rip through a junk yard and leave behind a newly assembled jumbo jet.

Answer 6

Your question is nonsensical, and shows you do not actually know anything about the "Big Bang theory" (as it was called by the inimitable Fred Hoyle, who was it's greatest opponent).

I'll spell it out for you, and perhaps you'll understand.

1) Nobody actually knows what caused the "explosion" (it was NOT an explosion, it was an EXPANSION, which is not the same thing) or even whether it was caused at all. Quantum events, which the beginning of time by definition was, do not necessarily require a cause. Under M-theory, there might be several causes.

2) As the newborn universe expanded, energy was released from the collapse of a 'false vacuum'. This is a very cryptic sentence, is it not? But you would understand it if you had done any research into the issue.

3) The energy released eventually coalesced into matter, per E = MC²,

There was actually not that much matter, and most of it was hydrogen, some helium, very small amounts of lithium and beryllium, all gaseous, all incredibly hot, all expanding.

4) Gas clouds have a tendency to create swirls when they move.This has been observed. Immense swirls formed galaxies and stars (possibly at the same time). It is possible black holes, created at the original expansion, acted as the gravitonic centers around which galaxies formed.

5) the first generation of stars did not have planets, because there were no heavy elements yet. Nuclear fusion in stars created heavier elements, but still not the heaviest we have today. But as the first really heavy stars burned up and went supernova, in their final moments the immense force of their 'death' forced the creation of small amounts of the heavier elements, some of which were radioactive.

6) The amounts of heavier elements were, as said, small compared to stars, but large enough to allow the formation of solid planets as the remains of the huge stars were once again coalesced by gravity into much smaller, much longer-lived stars.

7) On at least one of these planets the circumstances were such that it allowed the generation of life. But that is another matter entirely.

Does all this sound fanciful? It's not. It's the outcome of very long and intense research by many dedicated men and women who are both smarter and more knowledgeable than us.

There is no big controversy over this. But creationists like to pretend there is... they emulate their personal god by creating these tiny universes in which everything is the way they want it to be.

Which is fine! But let's not pretend it has anything to do with science.

Answer 7

*Yawns* Given that the idea that the Big Bang, since it was an explosion, could only create chaos, just shows a very basic lack of understanding.

And no, the general science population is NOT turning away from Big Bang theory, that's a flat-out lie. And giving a creationist site as reference just shows that you've got no backing for it whatsoever, otherwise you'd give us a post from a science-based website.

Joel V: Since planetary formation in our solar system happened several billion years after the Big Bang, you have just spoken utter nonsense. Thanks for playing, feel free to go away now. And the junkyard analogy? Please, try something that isn't quite so pathetic next time.

Answer 8

I think the word EXPLOSION is inaccurate. What really happened is called the Great Expansion. Have you ever actually read any books on cosmology that weren't written by creationist.

The Big Bang is the cosmolgical model of the universe that is supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. The essential idea is that the universe  has EXPANDED from a primordial hot dense intial condition at some finite time in the past and continues to EXPAND today.  Some terms you might want to look up " the Hubble Expansion" and "inflation theory". I'm quite sure you've never heard of those before. If you wish to continue  to try and disprove the Big Bang then by all means knock yourself out. I doubt that you will do it here on this forum.Your proof would require real research , meaning advanced mathematics and  thousands of hours of observation. Caution: you may wind up like this guy. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...

Answer 9

2 problems I see from the start with the big bang theory.

First, we are told by scientists that there was nothing big about it. That somehow all the matter and energy in the universe was smaller than the size of one molecule or atom (as we relatively comparatively understand this juxtaposition of apples to apples today).

Second, we are told there was a bang or explosion. This would mean fire. How can fire burn in the absence of oxygen? Even if this explosion was self contained, what is this place and where did it come from that all this energy and matter exploded out into?

Since when has an explosion ever created order?

I am more accepting of The Creation model. Energy dispersal and matter placement are quite provocative matters for the finite mind to grasp. What is seemingly apparent to the finite mind often overlooks mysteries of the conception and standards of human contrivances. Many theories are just that, they are specious in nature and just invented for convenience. Big bang ego is a dream, but The Saviour reigns supreme.    

Answer 10

The 80s is over dude and so is intelligent design

Answer 11

The Big Bang wasn't and explosion, but rather the extremely rapid destabilization and expansion of an exceedingly hot and compact singularity. The cause of the instability is still a matter of much discussion and research.

The evidence for the Big Bang is compelling. Galactic red shift, Cosmic Microwave Background, all things that were predicted by the hypothesis and later confirmed.

I notice you attribute things to generic, unnamed scientists. The page you cite has very few quotes from cosmologists. Might I suggest you take time to actually learn about the subject?

OK, if something cannot come from nothing, where did the Creator come from?

Answer 12

you shouldn't just listen to one side of an argument. Did you think someone arguing for creationism wouldd honestly say that anyone but a creator started the universe? theres plenty of evidence for the big bang. and for all the things that have come from it. This is something to think about though.... what if a creator used the big bang to create his or her universe? If a creator is almighty and all powerful they could create an explosion to create our world. I wouldn't discredit the big bang just yet

Answer 13

The Big Bang and evolution have nothing to do with each other. One is astronomy/physics and the other is biology.

Assuming that this so-called creator exists - who created the creator?

Edit:

Even if the Big Bang is found to be an incorrect model at some stage in the future that would not automatically prove creation. I have yet to see an argument for creation made on its own merits - creationists always try to claim that creation is true because of some fabricated shortcoming of established scientific theories...

Answer 14

no. it's just your religious propaganda.

the big bang gets more accepted by scientist everyday.

Answer 15

(sigh)  It would help if you didn't get your science information from creationist sources.  That's like trusting an Islamic fundamentalist to give you the true meaning of Bible passages.

First of all, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion.  It was an extremely rapid expansion of space-time.  Nothing went boom, nothing was destroyed, no oxygen was required.  No cosmologists are discovering for the first time that there is a certain amount of order in the universe.  The Big Bang does not predict that there will be chaos in the universe.

Of course scientists sometimes say that they're not taking everything into account.  That's science.  Don't read "God" into that statement.  It's not there.  And don't take a statement from a scientist paid by a creationist organization to promote its agenda as a statement reflecting the beliefs of science in general.

You can't state that since books have an author, the universe must have a creator.  It doesn't follow.  The properties of books are not the properties of the universe.

Answer 16

Troll, many of your facts are completely wrong. If your going to post claims about the big bang at least try to get accurate information.

The big bang has many facts and different branches of scientific proof to back it up. I'm sorry your IQ is below 80 and you cannot understand what 'facts' are. God however has no facts to back it up.

Go away!

Answer 17

the big bang is totally stupid. theres no way its real.  

Answer 18

GOD SPOKE FORTH

and It happened. period.

This is called SUPERNATURAL Omnipotence.

- Something ONLY GOD possesses. Science is still trying to figure out the mystery of it all.

Answer 19

Great point. Your gonna get a lot of atheists mad at you on this one.  

Answer 20

The Big Bang is a joke.

Answer 21

First of all it wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion.  Secondly, talking about the Big Bang and mentioning "evolution-scientists" makes no sense.  Evolution = Biology. Big Bang = Cosmology.  Thirdly, if you are proposing that the Big Bang did not happen then you need to explain why we see evidence that the universe is expanding and where all of the background microwave radiation came from.

Answer 22

Of course there was no explosion. Just because someone called creation "Big BANG" doesn't make creation exploding.

And I'm getting more than a little tired of soi-disant "Christians" trying to tell God just HOW He had to do His creating!

Strikes me that being God, instead of micro-managing things from the gitgo, it's a lot more free to set up a set of parameters (let's call  'em, the Laws of Physics, why don't we), start with nothing and make it into something (ex nihilo) and then let it do its own thing in accordance with those aforementioned parameters.

Whassamattah, that too big a God for you to handle? Tough bananas, folks. He AIN'T something you put into YOUR itty-bitty brain-box. You aren't big enough to encompass infinity so please, please, please, stop trying to stuff the Lord God Almighty into your tiny concepts. He doesn't fit!

Answer 23

There is no such thing as a creation "scientist"

The Intelligent design argument has been destroyed utterly.

Creationism is in NO way scientific.  You can't START with the conclusion.  That is not how science works.

Answer 24

A few disgruntled 'christians' who managed to get shaky degrees in the physical sciences are not a wave of change in scientific thought. And next time you post garbage like this, try, just try, to post a link. Otherwise, you're writing fiction.

Answer 25

LET  THERE  BE  LIGHT.THAT  IS  THE  BIG  BANG.WHATS  IMPORTANT  TO  UNDERSTAND  IS.THAT   THE  POINT  OF  SINGULARITY  WAS  A  SHAPED  CHARGE  DETONATED   IN  AN  PRECISELY  SEEDED,  AND  MOLDED     WITHIN   THE  DIMENSIONS  ALREADY  EXISTING.ONCE  DETONATED  DEFINITION  OF  OUR  FOUR  DIMENSIONS   WAS  GIVEN.The  BIBLE   teaches   this  perfectly.Look    GOD     did  create  everything.Yet  he  choose  certain  physical  laws  tuned  them  and  let  them  carry  themselves  out  naturally.When   the   BIBLE  says   GOD  separated  the  light  from  the  dark.SCIENCE    perceived  this  as  the  expansion.This  expansion  due  to  the  big  bang.LOOK   EVERYONE   WE  MUST  ALL  WORK  TOGETHER.We    can  do  this  for  and  in  the  love  of  the  truth  if  not  for  the  and  in  the  love  of  GOD.This  is  undeniable     THANK  YOU  D'S

Answer 26

I like your last paragraph. Mind if I sum it up for you?

"You can't get [insert object of which we have numerous pre-designed and observed examples] without [observed designer of said object]."

OR

"You can't get [complex object] without [logically more complex creator]."

Answer 27

"The news is that evolution-scientists are beginning to agree."

Nonsense.

"One scientist has suggested that maybe they are not taking everything into account." - Exactly. ONE scientist.

"You cannot get a universe like ours that is literally crammed with information and information storage systems without a Creator." - If you're arguement is that something can only exist if it is created, then who the h**l created the Creator.

Science is getting closer and closer to answering the question of the universe. Creationism has nothing scientifically useful to say. You're question states too many untruths.

Answer 28

organization is a natural force in the universe, it seeks alignment in particular sequences  

Answer 29

A Catholic priest invented the Big Bang theory.  Can't you take it up with them?  Calling it an explosion, by the way, is a mistake.  It was an expansion - not an explosion.

Answer 30

No one will ever know how we got here, so there's no sense in arguing about it.

Honestly, I agree. It isn't crazy. It isn't stupid. But like I said, we'll never know the answers. Have you ever asked yourself the question 'Does space ever end' or 'How many galaxies are out there?' you can't answer it, and when you try and think of a solution, you simply can't, because you can't wrap your mind around it.

So honestly, can't everyone just accept that WE DON'T KNOW.