Hi Tangle
Tangle writes:
Why are you picking sides? The fact that there are sides tells you that there is not yet a settled scientific concensus yet you picked a side that you thought would help you.
I actually thought 99.9% consensus was considered an accepted theory in scientific circles.
Tangle writes:
You're also confused about what the scientists are saying - not surprising because you're not a scientist, so you post stuff that you don't understand imagining that it supports your position.
As long as I post what they say you can argue against what they say and not what you imagine I am imagining they said.
Tangle writes:
The scientists are not saying that the big bang didn't happen, they're saying that a universe existed before it. ie it's eternal.
There is no scientific evidence of anything existing prior to the singularity at T=0.
Quote me one published scientist that can support with evidence of any thing existing prior to the singularity that existed at T=0).
Tangle writes:
Because there is no correct side yet. Obviously.
Sure there is a correct answer.
quote:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
It was not created by spontaneous combustion from an absence of existence.
It had to be created by something or someone, that had all power, required to produce all the matter in the universe.
There only two theories of the origin of the universe.
1. The oldest is that the universe is eternal having no beginning and no end. There are several different versions of this one.
Einstein believed in 1 of them called Static universe. Until Hubble used the Doppler effect to determine that the universe is expanding.
Then Einstein changed his mind. Because an expanding universe can not be eternal due to entropy.
2. The other is that the universe was created at some point in time.
The BBT is one of those with a little different explanation stating time, and space began to exist at the same time. Lately it has been modified to add everything existed in a pea sized universe that existed 1 billionth of a second after T=0. No explanation of where that little universe came from.
Later Hawking proposed an instanton to produce the universe with no explanation of where it came from. Later some said that little universe was produced by two branes banging together. With no explanation of where those branes could have existed. They require a vacuum to appear in. No explanation of where that vacuum came from or existed.
There was several problems with the big bang theory.
The Horizon Problem
The missing magnetic monopole problem.
The Flatness Problem.
Lack of universal galactic uniformity.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Inflation violates Einstein's General Law of Relativity
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as Entropy.
It violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.
linkStatic universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.
The microwave background makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
link
Here is an open letter to science concerning problems with the big bang theory. Partial quote:
quote:
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community was published under the title:
Bucking the big bang
Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
™ Version 4.2