Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang - Big Dud
CreationScientist
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 287 (96079)
03-30-2004 6:04 PM


Argument against the Big Bang
By CreationScientist
The definition for the Big Bang I took out of page 362 of the ?HBJ General Science? 1989 Edition Textbook.
?In the realm of the universe nothing really means nothing. Not only would matter and energy disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion 16.6 billion years ago.?
Also from the ?Scientific American? May 1984 Edition Page 128.
?The observable universe could have formed from an infinitesimal region? The entire universe evolved from literally nothing.?
As stated above in the beginning there was nothing than it exploded. Does everybody know what the first law of thermodynamics says? Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Here matter is definitely being formed from nothing. This is just bad science; even the most basic scientist knows that matter could not have arising from nothing exploding.
On page 61 of the 1992 Edition ?Prentice Hall General Science? textbook it states.
?Most scientists believe that 18 to 20 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was concentrated into a very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason this region exploded. This explosion is called the Big Bang.?
In this at least there is matter to begin with.
On page 69 the book states that ?as the nebula shrank it spun faster and faster.? So this region is spinning. Does everybody know what the law of conservation of angular momentum is? This law states that in a frictionless environment, remember above it said all the matter in the universe was concentrated, if a spinning object brakes up the pieces will spin in the same direction as the original object.
Two planets spin backwards, one spins on its side, and Jupiter has several moons that orbit the planet backwards and spin backwards. Doesn?t this seem just a little strange to you? You may say that maybe something struck the planets to make them spin backwards. Do you know what it would take to reverse the spin of a planet? I think it would leave a dent.
Evolution is every bit as much as a religion as creation is. When you get right down to it, you must believe something without knowing why it happened. ?For some unknown reason this region exploded.?
This message has been edited by Admin, 01-28-2006 11:48 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 03-30-2004 6:16 PM CreationScientist has not replied
 Message 3 by JonF, posted 03-30-2004 6:28 PM CreationScientist has not replied
 Message 4 by Loudmouth, posted 03-30-2004 6:37 PM CreationScientist has not replied
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 03-30-2004 6:45 PM CreationScientist has not replied
 Message 6 by simple, posted 03-30-2004 7:21 PM CreationScientist has not replied
 Message 14 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-31-2004 12:21 AM CreationScientist has not replied
 Message 47 by Eggmann, posted 04-02-2004 3:36 PM CreationScientist has not replied
 Message 49 by SRO2, posted 04-04-2004 9:14 PM CreationScientist has not replied
 Message 51 by SoulFire, posted 04-05-2004 8:42 PM CreationScientist has not replied
 Message 88 by jar, posted 04-22-2004 2:19 PM CreationScientist has not replied
 Message 89 by NosyNed, posted 04-22-2004 2:39 PM CreationScientist has not replied
 Message 93 by AdminSylas, posted 05-13-2004 7:40 PM CreationScientist has not replied
 Message 107 by DC85, posted 05-16-2004 1:23 AM CreationScientist has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 287 (96080)
03-30-2004 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CreationScientist
03-30-2004 6:04 PM


Does everybody know what the first law of thermodynamics says? Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
Observation: Nuclear reactions produce energy by destroying matter.
Conclusion: Either 1) nuclear reactions violate thermodynamics, or 2) You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
This law states that in a frictionless environment, remember above it said all the matter in the universe was concentrated, if a spinning object brakes up the pieces will spin in the same direction as the original object.
Conclusion 2 confirmed. You don't know what you're talking about.
How about you try supporting your statements of these principles from actual scientific resources rather than from memory? You've misquoted both thermodynamics and conservation of angular momentum.
Evolution is every bit as much as a religion as creation is.
Woah, hang on a second. We're talking about cosmology here. When did you change the subject to evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CreationScientist, posted 03-30-2004 6:04 PM CreationScientist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by rineholdr, posted 04-20-2004 1:51 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 232 by Pro Terra, posted 06-11-2005 12:26 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 242 by randman, posted 07-02-2005 1:30 AM crashfrog has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 3 of 287 (96081)
03-30-2004 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CreationScientist
03-30-2004 6:04 PM


Popularizations are inaccurate, and 20-ish-year-old popularizations are out of date.
It is possible that the total energy content of the Universe is exactly zero. It's certainly close to zero (crudely put, gravitational energy is negative and mass is positive energy and the two are known to be close to cancelling each other out).
It's also possible that the law of conservation of mass-energy is only true in relatively small areas, like a galaxy or two. In the curved space of General Relativeity, conservation of mass-energy can't even be defined over large areas.
Your "understanding" of conservation of angular momentum is severely flawed. The law of conservation of angular momentum states that, for an isolated system, the total angular momentum does not change. In order to claim that the Big Bang contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum:
1. State what the angular momentum of the Universe was at the instant of the Big Bang, and give your reasons why you believe that is the amount. (You'll also have to state why you believe it's possible to define the angular momentum of the Universe at the instant of the Big Bang).
2. Measure the motion of everything in the Universe, and calculate the angular momentum of every body in the Universe relative to some point. Add up all these numbers.
3. Is the result of (1) the same as the result of (2)? If not, the Big Bang may indeed violate the law of conservation of angular momentum!
4. Report back when you're finished. I'll wait.
In other words, the angular momentum of the Solar System and/or the direction of rotation of individual bodies has absolutely nothing to do with the angular momentum of tehe Universe except that they are an infinitesimal contribution to the total. And, if you don't know the total, you can't make any statements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CreationScientist, posted 03-30-2004 6:04 PM CreationScientist has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 287 (96082)
03-30-2004 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CreationScientist
03-30-2004 6:04 PM


quote:
Two planets spin backwards, one spins on its side, and Jupiter has several moons that orbit the planet backwards and spin backwards. Doesn’t this seem just a little strange to you? You may say that maybe something struck the planets to make them spin backwards. Do you know what it would take to reverse the spin of a planet? I think it would leave a dent.
  —CreationScientist
This and an oxymoron for a username. Hehe, couldn't help but giggle a bit.
First of all, some of the moons of Jupiter may have been captured after Jupiter was formed. Secondly, there is no law of physics that requires that every planet in a solar system spin in the same direction, therefore no need to reverse the spin of any planet and therefore no dent. You may want to branch out from creationist sites spouting pseudoscience and actually venture into sites with actual science. Don't take this personally, mind you, we all started off at the same level of scientific knowledge, which is none. Secondly, if it is so obvious that the planets were violating a fundamental law of physics, don't you think there would be a loud uproar among physicists? I would say the silence among physicists should tell you something.
[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-30-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CreationScientist, posted 03-30-2004 6:04 PM CreationScientist has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 5 of 287 (96085)
03-30-2004 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CreationScientist
03-30-2004 6:04 PM


CS,
I have to ask, why did you conclude your "piece" about spinny things with:
Evolution is every bit as much as a religion as creation is.
What has evolution got to do with retrograde motion?
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CreationScientist, posted 03-30-2004 6:04 PM CreationScientist has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 287 (96097)
03-30-2004 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CreationScientist
03-30-2004 6:04 PM


up against it
I think the 1989 book might be the problem. It might as well be 1923.
These guys change their tune every time the waiter announces the soup of the day!
It's also not cool in their cult to say they are evolutionists, or not objective.
Using answers from creation science sites more than 6 months old is risky. They check them, concoct new mindbending pagan stories, and practice making fun of those who use them against their new, improved, imagined 'monopoly on science' doctrines.
Just to let you know what you're up against. To be fair, there are a bunch of nominal christian scientists types who pop up now and then and try to empasize the 'fair' aspects of the game. And who are eager to explain why, like their best friend evolutionists know, God is sick or dead, or otherwise totally out of the picture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CreationScientist, posted 03-30-2004 6:04 PM CreationScientist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-30-2004 7:42 PM simple has replied
 Message 9 by sidelined, posted 03-30-2004 8:55 PM simple has replied
 Message 23 by Loudmouth, posted 03-31-2004 12:56 PM simple has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4365 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 7 of 287 (96102)
03-30-2004 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by simple
03-30-2004 7:21 PM


LOL
Arkathon - you are a dimwit. Pure and simple, a dimwit. Your diatribes make no sense, when you don't understand something you flit quickly around writing some new nonsense like a butterfly going from flower to flower.
Everything to you is a complex fog of technical jargon because simple sentences befuddle you. Hence, to compensate for a lack of understanding it's all branded a conspiracy from 'cultists' as you put it. Instead of the reality which is your lack of comprehension and the fact that you belong probably to some minor North American Christian Cult with some bizarre title like the Southern Ohio Tabernacle Brethren of the Adventist Nazarene Apostolic Calvary Chapel. A cult so minor that apart from a few methodone drop outs and lifelong nutcases it wouldn't exist.
You show no sign of understanding - which doesn't mean agreement - all you chant (apart from probably your nightly tongue speaking) are appeals from your own ignorance and/or incredulity.
I am sure we could tell you that in an electric circuit one of the simple forms of Ohms Law is V=IR and you would scream 'where is room for the Lord in that', 'if there is no Jesus in Ohms Law then by golly it's not real' - you would scream for Divine cause in a bloody light bulb illumination from a battery and two wires.
Dork!
[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 03-30-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by simple, posted 03-30-2004 7:21 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by simple, posted 03-30-2004 8:11 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 287 (96121)
03-30-2004 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Eta_Carinae
03-30-2004 7:42 PM


keep em out
Eta
Amazing to me how all that comes out of your fountain is poison. Yet some hold you in respect here. Your name that cult, you can add to the list of your false assumptions! Keep up the filth, and empty posts, captain, it's good for people to see. Keep the fangs out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-30-2004 7:42 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-30-2004 11:51 PM simple has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5898 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 9 of 287 (96149)
03-30-2004 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by simple
03-30-2004 7:21 PM


Re: up against it
arkathon
Time to put up some actual evidence here old man.You state.
Using answers from creation science sites more than 6 months old is risky. They check them, concoct new mindbending pagan stories, and practice making fun of those who use them against their new, improved, imagined 'monopoly on science' doctrines.
I want you to give everybody here the exact answers from creation science sites that you claim are refuted through 'new mindbending pagan stories.' Either put up or change your posting to reflect that just because a person can shoot holes in these answers does not have anything whatever to do with beliefs but with facts.I assume pagan to you is anything that disagrees with your rigid worldview.

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by simple, posted 03-30-2004 7:21 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by simple, posted 03-30-2004 9:20 PM sidelined has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 287 (96163)
03-30-2004 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by sidelined
03-30-2004 8:55 PM


Re: up against it
quote:
Either put up or change your posting to reflect that just because a person can shoot holes in these answers does not have anything whatever to do with beliefs but with facts
Of course there's that as well. But I have noticed on these evo forums people often link to the latest evo refutations to creation science sites. I also noticed some people like to sling names like dork and imbecile, and idiot, etc. I didn't see you on their butts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by sidelined, posted 03-30-2004 8:55 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by sidelined, posted 03-30-2004 9:40 PM simple has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5898 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 11 of 287 (96172)
03-30-2004 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by simple
03-30-2004 9:20 PM


Re: up against it
arkathon
I can understand people who attack others out of frustration when they do not deal with the issues honestly.I personally have a fairly thick skin and am old enough not to take things too personally. This is especially true when you are dealing with most of the people on this site.
I think it is better if you were to allow yourself to take a specific issue and debate it to see where the you may be not consistent in either your understanding or your interpretation.The strength of science lies in how it shows where errors of logic and personal bias occur and why science is self-correcting over time.
So I suggest that you offer your evidence and allows others to show the errors [if they exist] and you may debate the the points raised by them.It is my experience that given a proper debate both sides can learn.Please bring up a specific point on whatever you wish and we shall discussit.Fair enough?

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by simple, posted 03-30-2004 9:20 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by simple, posted 03-30-2004 9:49 PM sidelined has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 287 (96175)
03-30-2004 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by sidelined
03-30-2004 9:40 PM


Re: up against it
quote:
Please bring up a specific point on whatever you wish and we shall discussit.Fair enough?
Sounds fair.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by sidelined, posted 03-30-2004 9:40 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4365 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 13 of 287 (96201)
03-30-2004 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by simple
03-30-2004 8:11 PM


I agree
I am insulting you. I am amazed how long people on here are dealing with you.
Without bragging I probably am more versed in cosmology than anyone on here (apologies to all) but I refuse to deal with you. I honestly believe you have no chance of understanding and even if you could you would not.
I have seen dozens of posts directed at you where people are genuinely trying to at least point out the fallacies of your arguments or errors of fact you make. But instead of even letting them know you understand you write some slightly tangential piece of chaotic nonsense.
You hide behind the nonsense to divert away from your lack of comprehension.
All in all, a waste of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by simple, posted 03-30-2004 8:11 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by simple, posted 03-31-2004 12:26 AM Eta_Carinae has replied
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2004 10:18 AM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4365 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 14 of 287 (96204)
03-31-2004 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CreationScientist
03-30-2004 6:04 PM


Oh my - where to begin with this one?
The definition for the Big Bang I took out of page 362 of the HBJ General Science 1989 Edition Textbook.
OK mistake #1 - never get a cosmological definition from a book such as this. I can guess already what it's going to fuck up.
In the realm of the universe nothing really means nothing. Not only would matter and energy disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion 16.6 billion years ago.
Yep I was right - just knew the word explosion would be in there. Wrong, of course, but expected. The date is wrong but since it's a 1989 reference that is excusable.
Also from the Scientific American May 1984 Edition Page 128.
The observable universe could have formed from an infinitesimal region The entire universe evolved from literally nothing.
Sci Am is not a great source (good for high school essays I guess) but nothing really wrong here. Of course a big red flag for Creationists pops up at the word nothing. They see Jesus disappearing so they tend to panic.
As stated above in the beginning there was nothing than it exploded. Does everybody know what the first law of thermodynamics says? Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Here matter is definitely being formed from nothing. This is just bad science; even the most basic scientist knows that matter could not have arising from nothing exploding.
OK the meat of the matter. Exploded is a misnomer as hinted at earlier. Yes funnily enough I do know what the 1st law is - and I'll wager you don't. What you needed to say was energy cannot be created or destroyed. But wait - that isn't necessarily true. Don't like this statement do you. In fact you think Eta is full of shit right about now. You see the 1st Law is a consequence of the time translational symmetry of spacetime. This hints at a couple of problems. At the initial Big Bang singularity you don't have this symmetry. In fact in the Universe today on a global scale you also don't have this symmetry. It applies really only to a asymptotically flat spacetime.
So your statement is bad science - which I expect from someone who has never heard of Noether's theorem or anything about General Relativity. I will add though that no one knows what exactly happened at the singularity. Until we have a quantum theory of gravity we wont. Maybe some new form of a conservation law(s) will show themselves but until then it's a guess.
On page 61 of the 1992 Edition Prentice Hall General Science textbook it states.
Most scientists believe that 18 to 20 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was concentrated into a very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason this region exploded. This explosion is called the Big Bang.
Another terrible source. Dates wrong too. Use of the word explosion. Damn those Nova shows and popular press articles. This should be exorcised!
In this at least there is matter to begin with.
That make you happy. Because it's wrong - just thought I'd let you know that.
On page 69 the book states that as the nebula shrank it spun faster and faster. So this region is spinning. Does everybody know what the law of conservation of angular momentum is? This law states that in a frictionless environment, remember above it said all the matter in the universe was concentrated, if a spinning object brakes up the pieces will spin in the same direction as the original object.
Two planets spin backwards, one spins on its side, and Jupiter has several moons that orbit the planet backwards and spin backwards. Doesn’t this seem just a little strange to you? You may say that maybe something struck the planets to make them spin backwards. Do you know what it would take to reverse the spin of a planet? I think it would leave a dent.
OK this is just crap. For one thing you have gone from bad Big Bang descriptions to something about the nebular hypothesis of star/planet formation. And what is more you didn't even know it. ROTFLMAO - you didn't even know it did you?
The rest is just hogwash. Do you know what the conservation of angular momentum is? There are many methods of transporting and changing angular momentum. It's total conservation not individual pieces. Anyway - this isn't about the Big Bang. You have mistakenly grabbed info about star/planet formation - it's UNRELATED!!!!!!
Evolution is every bit as much as a religion as creation is. When you get right down to it, you must believe something without knowing why it happened. For some unknown reason this region exploded.
By the way the Big Bang and star/planet formation HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION WHICH IS A BIOLOGY THEORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Has this helped?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CreationScientist, posted 03-30-2004 6:04 PM CreationScientist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-31-2004 1:09 AM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 287 (96206)
03-31-2004 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Eta_Carinae
03-30-2004 11:51 PM


Re: I agree
quote:
You hide behind the nonsense to divert away from your lack of comprehension
Sounds very hard to dispute. Almost like a bulletproof high priest theory, where your sacred arguments are too high to be wasted on lower castes. Forgive me if I don't kiss the nethermost parts of your garments, and make it clear I think you could not overthrow the theory I proposed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-30-2004 11:51 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-31-2004 12:42 AM simple has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024