big bang theory - many problems

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge

Originally posted by: warcrow

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode?

Exactly. I'm not really a religious man (even though I was raised to be, and was baptised), but this is what keeps me from being an atheist. Where did it all start? The universe had to come from somewhere. Something had to create it. Not just some huge explosion. It just doesnt make sense to me.

Good link, thanks!

Yea, cause everybody knows that the bible has a much better explanation for it.

The Bible has endured criticism for 6.000+ years.

The Big Bang theory doesn't even come close

What an idiot! The Bible (New Testament) was "written" or should we say transcribed by a bunch of Arabs back in the Middle Ages for King Charlemain so he could tax his subjects...... Christian "History" is just over 2400 years old..... Jewish (Old Testament) History is over 5000 years old.... What kind Theological Scholar do you think you are? 6000 years...... You my son are a fool.

SHUX

Your "information" is so full of holes it's not even worth responding too.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why people do this on OT is more beyond me than the Big Bang.

First, the ultimate origin of the Universe is unknown. The Big Bang is a mechanistic explanation to creation, and one that is not withour conceptual difficulties, but then any theory would be.

For those who insist that God created the Universe, how do you know that it isn't how God did it? What is the conflict here? Agnostically, I cannot comment on WHY the universe came about, but no one can. That does not shoot down the BB though.

BTW, issues like density fluctuations aren't. They are adequately explained by quantum fluctuations when the universe was very very small. Nothing to write home about. IF God created the Universe, how can you claim to know the mechanism behind it, or discredit someone if they grasp a small part of it.

Tempest in a teapot.

 

[arcenite]

the part the gets me is how 3 planets are spinning in the opposite direction...?

 

[BD2003]

I have to be perfectly honest. Im a pretty open minded kind of guy. People are free to believe what they want to believe.

But at this point in time, if youre denying evolution, youre not an enlightened philosopher who doesnt just accept the status quo at face value, youre just an idiot.

Evolution is proven far beyond a reasonable doubt, and it permeates every facet of our existence, from our genetics, to our brains, to our ideas and well beyond. You need a true understanding of it to grasp this, and reading the description that the web page gives of it proves that the author has NO IDEA what they are talking about.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: element®

No one here claimed any such thing. You can try to put words in peoples mouths but it's plain to see where they really came from. Yours.

What they're trying to say is look, science isn't anywhere near explaining how the universe began. Until they do, there is nothing wrong with believing that it's possible all of this was created by an intelligent being, rather than just some random explosion.

Of course it's also obvious that science has and may continue to uncover more truths about the universe than any religion has.

This is why I believe a creator may exist, but I don't believe in any organized religion.

:beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer:

That is a great post. Yes, science cannot prove with an absolute certainty that there is no creator. So scientists should not feel angry at people who do believe in it. However, I think most of the anger comes from people discrediting their work. Here they are trying to learn more and more about the creation of the earth and there's people on the sideline saying "psh... of course the universe was created by God. Why can't he SEE that?" That can get a little annoying.

 

[fitzhue]

Does anyone in here read Discover magazine? They had an article a couple months back about a theory of the universe that somewhat includes the big bang theory but greatly expands upon it. Here is a link to the beginning: Link

I can post the whole thing in .pdf if anyone wants it.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: BD2003
I have to be perfectly honest. Im a pretty open minded kind of guy. People are free to believe what they want to believe.

But at this point in time, if youre denying evolution, youre not an enlightened philosopher who doesnt just accept the status quo at face value, youre just an idiot.

Evolution is proven far beyond a reasonable doubt, and it permeates every facet of our existence, from our genetics, to our brains, to our ideas and well beyond. You need a true understanding of it to grasp this, and reading the description that the web page gives of it proves that the author has NO IDEA what they are talking about.

Biological evolution is a FACT; however, the mechanism by which it occurs is not. Anyone who argues the former is simply ignorant.

 

[Kadarin]

The Big Bang Theory is a theory; meaning that as new evidence becomes available, the theory is subject to modification, or to being thrown out in favor of a new theory. The Big Bang Theory is NOT dogma. Whether or not the Big Bang Theory comes close to describing the actual creation of the universe has NOTHING to do with religious dogma. The universe may have been "created" by some other means or natural phenomena that we have not as yet suspected.

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: element®

No one here claimed any such thing. You can try to put words in peoples mouths but it's plain to see where they really came from. Yours.

What they're trying to say is look, science isn't anywhere near explaining how the universe began. Until they do, there is nothing wrong with believing that it's possible all of this was created by an intelligent being, rather than just some random explosion.

Of course it's also obvious that science has and may continue to uncover more truths about the universe than any religion has.

This is why I believe a creator may exist, but I don't believe in any organized religion.

:beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer:

That is a great post. Yes, science cannot prove with an absolute certainty that there is no creator. So scientists should not feel angry at people who do believe in it. However, I think most of the anger comes from people discrediting their work. Here they are trying to learn more and more about the creation of the earth and there's people on the sideline saying "psh... of course the universe was created by God. Why can't he SEE that?" That can get a little annoying.

Great posts.

<---end of thread--->

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: fitzhue
Does anyone in here read Discover magazine? They had an article a couple months back about a theory of the universe that somewhat includes the big bang theory but greatly expands upon it. Here is a link to the beginning: Link

I can post the whole thing in .pdf if anyone wants it.

Ive heard of the same theory, the problem is its VERY hard to prove. Its pretty radical, and opens a whole new can of worms when we're not even done sorting out the first one.

Its far beyond the scope of our current technology and understanding to actually prove or even test at this point, but if I had a dollar for every time someone said something was impossible because science says no, and then someone went and actually did it, Id be a very rich man.

 

[her209]

What's the difference between these two questions:

Where did the universe come from?

Where did God come from?

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: warcrow

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode?

Exactly. I'm not really a religious man (even though I was raised to be, and was baptised), but this is what keeps me from being an atheist. Where did it all start? The universe had to come from somewhere. Something had to create it. Not just some huge explosion. It just doesnt make sense to me.

Good link, thanks!

Ditto,

The fact of the matter is...there is the law of conversation of mass and energy (it can be neither created or destroyed)...so at some point way back in the scheme of time, that law was broken by the very fact that matter and energy exist.

If if in the future we determine that mass and energy really can be created and destroyed (the whole "anti-matter" debacle) and that some other quantity of stuff is actually conserved...that had to come from somewhere and the conservation law(s) of that stuff had to be broken.

So, ultimately, this leads to a regression type argument that basically proves the supernatural (i.e. a primary law, if not 'the' primary law, of nature was broken at some point in time).

I'm study for a PhD in Chemical Engineering, my research is in computational chemical physics (with some other stuff on the side) so I'm pretty involved with this material.

I believe that the Big Bang theory is the most reasonable scientific explanation we have at this time. However, there are some serious problems with the theory which are extactly those mentioned by the web site. An additional item of serious concern...a black-hole is basically a near singularity so this singularity would have a been a sort of super black hole of sorts...black holes don't spontaneously explode or not that we have ever imagined (such behavior would be inconsistent AFAIK with all our known theory)...this needs some serious explanation. there have been rather weird (but maybe ture, who knows?!) explanations of this such as "white holes", etc. but those are way out there....mathematical figments of the imagination, really.

Furthermore, I believe that the Big Bang and a creationist theory are not mutually exclusive, nor is the idea of evolution and creation...creation has to have mechanism -- a means by which it occurs (the Big Bang and evolution could be such mechanisms).

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: warcrow

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode?

Exactly. I'm not really a religious man (even though I was raised to be, and was baptised), but this is what keeps me from being an atheist. Where did it all start? The universe had to come from somewhere. Something had to create it. Not just some huge explosion. It just doesnt make sense to me.

Good link, thanks!

Ditto,

The fact of the matter is...there is the law of conversation of mass and energy (it can be neither created or destroyed)...so at some point way back in the scheme of time, that law was broken by the very fact that matter and energy exist.

If if in the future we determine that mass and energy really can be created and destroyed (the whole "anti-matter" debacle) and that some other quantity of stuff is actually conserved...that had to come from somewhere and the conservation law(s) of that stuff had to be broken.

So, ultimately, this leads to a regression type argument that basically proves the supernatural (i.e. a primary law, if not 'the' primary law, of nature was broken at some point in time).

I'm study for a PhD in Chemical Engineering, my research is in computational chemical physics (with some other stuff on the side) so I'm pretty involved with this material.

I believe that the Big Bang theory is the most reasonable scientific explanation we have at this time. However, there are some serious problems with the theory which are extactly those mentioned by the web site. An additional item of serious concern...a black-hole is basically a near singularity so this singularity would have a been a sort of super black hole of sorts...black holes don't spontaneously explode or not that we have ever imagined (such behavior would be inconsistent AFAIK with all our known theory)...this needs some serious explanation. there have been rather weird (but maybe ture, who knows?!) explanations of this such as "white holes", etc. but those are way out there....mathematical figments of the imagination, really.

Furthermore, I believe that the Big Bang and a creationist theory are not mutually exclusive, nor is the idea of evolution and creation...creation has to have mechanism -- a means by which it occurs (the Big Bang and evolution could be such mechanisms).

Evolution could not happen in Creation. It's impossible. Period.

 

[fitzhue]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: fitzhue
Does anyone in here read Discover magazine? They had an article a couple months back about a theory of the universe that somewhat includes the big bang theory but greatly expands upon it. Here is a link to the beginning: Link

I can post the whole thing in .pdf if anyone wants it.

Ive heard of the same theory, the problem is its VERY hard to prove. Its pretty radical, and opens a whole new can of worms when we're not even done sorting out the first one.

Its far beyond the scope of our current technology and understanding to actually prove or even test at this point, but if I had a dollar for every time someone said something was impossible because science says no, and then someone went and actually did it, Id be a very rich man.

Very true. It's very hard to prove anything when it comes to theoretical physics. IIRC, we're just getting ready to set up an experiment that would test part of one of Einstein's theories. Nonetheless, theories like the one I mentioned earlier are still very cool to wrap one's brain around.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: aRCeNiTe
the part the gets me is how 3 planets are spinning in the opposite direction...?

I have not read any formal explanation on this question but I can take a st@b at a possible answer. This is more an educated guess than anything so take it with a grain of salt, so to speak. It might be possible that the planets spinning opposite to most of the others collided with other massive debris, asteroids or planets or whatever before they completely formed. this might explain the lack of evidence of any collisions that massive. Not to mention the fact that we don't really have any detailed maps of their surfaces either, to see if there is any such evidence.

 

[Heisenberg]

Originally posted by: fitzhue

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: fitzhue
Does anyone in here read Discover magazine? They had an article a couple months back about a theory of the universe that somewhat includes the big bang theory but greatly expands upon it. Here is a link to the beginning: Link

I can post the whole thing in .pdf if anyone wants it.

Ive heard of the same theory, the problem is its VERY hard to prove. Its pretty radical, and opens a whole new can of worms when we're not even done sorting out the first one.

Its far beyond the scope of our current technology and understanding to actually prove or even test at this point, but if I had a dollar for every time someone said something was impossible because science says no, and then someone went and actually did it, Id be a very rich man.

Very true. It's very hard to prove anything when it comes to theoretical physics. IIRC, we're just getting ready to set up an experiment that would test part of one of Einstein's theories. Nonetheless, theories like the one I mentioned earlier are still very cool to wrap one's brain around.

Relativity has already been verified experimentally.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: warcrow

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode?

Exactly. I'm not really a religious man (even though I was raised to be, and was baptised), but this is what keeps me from being an atheist. Where did it all start? The universe had to come from somewhere. Something had to create it. Not just some huge explosion. It just doesnt make sense to me.

Good link, thanks!

Ditto,

The fact of the matter is...there is the law of conversation of mass and energy (it can be neither created or destroyed)...so at some point way back in the scheme of time, that law was broken by the very fact that matter and energy exist.

Then there is E=mc^2

If if in the future we determine that mass and energy really can be created and destroyed (the whole "anti-matter" debacle) and that some other quantity of stuff is actually conserved...that had to come from somewhere and the conservation law(s) of that stuff had to be broken.

So, ultimately, this leads to a regression type argument that basically proves the supernatural (i.e. a primary law, if not 'the' primary law, of nature was broken at some point in time).

I'm study for a PhD in Chemical Engineering, my research is in computational chemical physics (with some other stuff on the side) so I'm pretty involved with this material.

I believe that the Big Bang theory is the most reasonable scientific explanation we have at this time. However, there are some serious problems with the theory which are extactly those mentioned by the web site. An additional item of serious concern...a black-hole is basically a near singularity so this singularity would have a been a sort of super black hole of sorts...black holes don't spontaneously explode or not that we have ever imagined

What about gamma ray bursts? One of the progenitor classes of GRBs is black holes.

(such behavior would be inconsistent AFAIK with all our known theory)...this needs some serious explanation. there have been rather weird (but maybe ture, who knows?!) explanations of this such as "white holes", etc. but those are way out there....mathematical figments of the imagination, really.

Furthermore, I believe that the Big Bang and a creationist theory are not mutually exclusive, nor is the idea of evolution and creation...creation has to have mechanism -- a means by which it occurs (the Big Bang and evolution could be such mechanisms).

I've always perceived creationism as the manifestation of the universe as indicated in Genesis, and with that I can't see how they'd be anything but exclusive.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: warcrow

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode?

Exactly. I'm not really a religious man (even though I was raised to be, and was baptised), but this is what keeps me from being an atheist. Where did it all start? The universe had to come from somewhere. Something had to create it. Not just some huge explosion. It just doesnt make sense to me.

Good link, thanks!

Ditto,

The fact of the matter is...there is the law of conversation of mass and energy (it can be neither created or destroyed)...so at some point way back in the scheme of time, that law was broken by the very fact that matter and energy exist.

If if in the future we determine that mass and energy really can be created and destroyed (the whole "anti-matter" debacle) and that some other quantity of stuff is actually conserved...that had to come from somewhere and the conservation law(s) of that stuff had to be broken.

So, ultimately, this leads to a regression type argument that basically proves the supernatural (i.e. a primary law, if not 'the' primary law, of nature was broken at some point in time).

I'm study for a PhD in Chemical Engineering, my research is in computational chemical physics (with some other stuff on the side) so I'm pretty involved with this material.

I believe that the Big Bang theory is the most reasonable scientific explanation we have at this time. However, there are some serious problems with the theory which are extactly those mentioned by the web site. An additional item of serious concern...a black-hole is basically a near singularity so this singularity would have a been a sort of super black hole of sorts...black holes don't spontaneously explode or not that we have ever imagined (such behavior would be inconsistent AFAIK with all our known theory)...this needs some serious explanation. there have been rather weird (but maybe ture, who knows?!) explanations of this such as "white holes", etc. but those are way out there....mathematical figments of the imagination, really.

Furthermore, I believe that the Big Bang and a creationist theory are not mutually exclusive, nor is the idea of evolution and creation...creation has to have mechanism -- a means by which it occurs (the Big Bang and evolution could be such mechanisms).

Evolution could not happen in Creation. It's impossible. Period.

So basically you are saying that creation is impossible. if P -> !Q, then Q -> !P

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: warcrow

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode?

Exactly. I'm not really a religious man (even though I was raised to be, and was baptised), but this is what keeps me from being an atheist. Where did it all start? The universe had to come from somewhere. Something had to create it. Not just some huge explosion. It just doesnt make sense to me.

Good link, thanks!

Ditto,

The fact of the matter is...there is the law of conversation of mass and energy (it can be neither created or destroyed)...so at some point way back in the scheme of time, that law was broken by the very fact that matter and energy exist.

If if in the future we determine that mass and energy really can be created and destroyed (the whole "anti-matter" debacle) and that some other quantity of stuff is actually conserved...that had to come from somewhere and the conservation law(s) of that stuff had to be broken.

So, ultimately, this leads to a regression type argument that basically proves the supernatural (i.e. a primary law, if not 'the' primary law, of nature was broken at some point in time).

I'm study for a PhD in Chemical Engineering, my research is in computational chemical physics (with some other stuff on the side) so I'm pretty involved with this material.

I believe that the Big Bang theory is the most reasonable scientific explanation we have at this time. However, there are some serious problems with the theory which are extactly those mentioned by the web site. An additional item of serious concern...a black-hole is basically a near singularity so this singularity would have a been a sort of super black hole of sorts...black holes don't spontaneously explode or not that we have ever imagined (such behavior would be inconsistent AFAIK with all our known theory)...this needs some serious explanation. there have been rather weird (but maybe ture, who knows?!) explanations of this such as "white holes", etc. but those are way out there....mathematical figments of the imagination, really.

Furthermore, I believe that the Big Bang and a creationist theory are not mutually exclusive, nor is the idea of evolution and creation...creation has to have mechanism -- a means by which it occurs (the Big Bang and evolution could be such mechanisms).

Evolution could not happen in Creation. It's impossible. Period.

So basically you are saying that creation is impossible. if P -> !Q, then Q -> !P

Of course it's possible, it just didn't happen by Evolution.

 

[SoylentGreen]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge

Originally posted by: warcrow

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode?

Exactly. I'm not really a religious man (even though I was raised to be, and was baptised), but this is what keeps me from being an atheist. Where did it all start? The universe had to come from somewhere. Something had to create it. Not just some huge explosion. It just doesnt make sense to me. Good link, thanks!

Yea, cause everybody knows that the bible has a much better explanation for it.

The Bible has endured criticism for 6.000+ years. The Big Bang theory doesn't even come close

What an idiot! The Bible (New Testament) was "written" or should we say transcribed by a bunch of Arabs back in the Middle Ages for King Charlemain so he could tax his subjects...... Christian "History" is just over 2400 years old..... Jewish (Old Testament) History is over 5000 years old.... What kind Theological Scholar do you think you are? 6000 years...... You my son are a fool. SHUX

OWNED!!

 

[Bassyhead]

the site doesnt hide its author, though. check out the about page: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/common/aboutus.asp

 

[LS20]

blah blah more trite god fanaticism

 

[sillymofo]

One day, some one farted, thus the big bang.

 

[PHiuR]

it all have to have come from somewhere...god or whatever..it came from something "up there" :oints::

 

[DrPizza]

To those who don't believe that something can just wink into existence - study quantum mechanics. At the quantum level, particles wink into and out of existence all the time. This has been verified experimentally.

btw, to the creationists: My God created man via the process of evolution. He set the ball rolling 13.7 billion years ago at the moment of the big bang. My God could kick your God's a$$ any day of the week. What do you think would be more difficult? Creating man? Or creating the process of evolution that leads to man?