Problems with the Big Bang theory

This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 02-15-2005 17:53 AM

I will start at the begining of the Evolutionairy theory: The Big Bang.For over a century, efforts have been made to explain scientific discoveries by mid-19th century theory, known as "evolution." It has formed the foundation for many theories. Yet none of them are founded on scientific facts!
Here are the two premises on which the various theories of evolution are based:
1 - This is the evolutionairy formula for making a universe:
Nothing+nothing=two elements+time=92 natural elements+ time = all physical laws and a completely structures universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.
2 - This is the evolutionairy formula for making life:
Dirt + water + time = living creatures.The Big Bang TheoryThe Big Bang theory has been accepted by a majority of scientists today. It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together and, then, explode outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space ("frictionless," so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons. It all sound so simple, just as you would find in a science fiction novel. And that is all it is.Problems with the Big Bang Theory
(Why it won't work)1 - Th Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can't actually happen. A tiny of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a big fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as a black hole is. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen anf there is no definitive evidence that it exists or happened. But let's not mistake Disneyland theories for science.
2 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.
3 - A Vacuum has no desity. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.More to come.....

Hello, sog.I'm afraid that there are a few misconceptions in you post.

quote:

---

For over a century, efforts have been made to explain scientific discoveries by mid-19th century theory, known as "evolution."

---

Evolution is merely a word. It means "change", usually with a connotation that there is some definite history in the change. It is a fact that things change: you changed from an unborn fetus to an adult, my political views have changed over my life, the boundaries and demographic make-up of the U.S. has changed over time. Evolution is an appropriate word to use in these situations.So, it is not a surprise that this word, evolution, meaning change, should be used to describe, as the title, of various theories that describe or explain changes. Darwin postulated that all living species have descended from a small number of ancestral species, and that successive generations of populations exhibit minute changes over ancestral ones, leading to large changes in the morphology of the species. That is, species change over time, hence we call Darwin's theory the theory of evolution.Astronomers can model the history of stars on a computer, using the known laws of physics. They note that over the life-time of a star it will undergo predictable changes in its composition, appearance, and other characteristics. So we talk about stellar evolution.Cosmologists have presented a theory for the history of the universe. According to this theory, the nature of the very early universe was very different than the universe now. That is, the universe has changed over time. So we can speak of the evolution of the universe.However, this word is the only thing that these theories have in common. They are not in any way connected, except that the theories try to account for the changes in the objects of their respective subjects.--

quote:

---

It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together and, then, explode outward into hydrogen and helium.

---

This is false. The Big Bang Theory says, as of yet, nothing about how the universe originated. Our present knowledge of the laws of physics are insufficient to understand what was happening in the first 10 to the minus 14th of a second of the history of the universe. Here is the Big Bang Theory in a nut shell:We observe that distant galaxies are receding from ours. There further away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away. This is most simply explained by saying the universe is expanding -- in fact, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, in its simplest form, states that the universe should either be expanding or contracting.If we extrapolate backwards in time, about 14 billion years ago or so, all the matter in the known universe would have been crowded together, so much so that stars could not have existed. It should have been much hotter -- inconceivably hot. The further back in time one goes, the denser and hotter the universe was.Using the known laws of physics, we can determine what the character of the early universe should have been. There are several scenarios possible as to what the universe was like in its early period. Using the laws of physics, we can then determine what the later universe would have been like under the various scenarios -- by comparing these determinations with what we actually observe we can rule out various scenarios.This is the Big Bang Theory.--

quote:

---

It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen anf there is no definitive evidence that it exists or happened.

---

What matters is the predictions that can be made from the theory. According to the Big Bang Theory, the entire known universe was in a very hot and dense state. There should have been a lot of electromagnetic radiation due to this heat. As the universe expanded, this radiation should still be here, but should exist as background microwave radiation. So, according to Big Bang, it was predicted that there should be a more or less uniform background microwave radiation. Sure enough, this radiation was detected after it was predicted that it should exist.Big Bang is not simply a bunch of armchair theories. One can use it, and the known laws of physics, to predict what we should be able to observe today if we know what to look for. The past always leaves evidence in the present -- and the Big Bang predicts the nature of the evidence that should exist now, and this evidence is observed.--This is why the Big Bang is not a fairy tale. It makes predictions, like the existence of the microwave background radiation, that is then observed. It is repeatedly tested, and it passes its tests. The Big Bang is not about the origin of the universe -- that is presently unknowable, and may always be unknowable (although people are working in it right now). It is a description of the history of the universe starting at a very hot and dense state.Edited to correct minor grammatical and punctuation errors.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 02-15-2005 21:41 AM

Thread reincarnated.This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 02-15-2005 17:55 AM

I don't see anything in your post beyond cartoonish parodies of scientific thought and open ridicule on your part.It's clear that you don't believe the theories; but you offer no reason why any of us should agree with you.

I'm going to bump this thread, too, in case sog345 doesn't realize his thread has been reopened. Although I fear that he has lost interest in discussing these topics with us.Edited to add:
Oops, I hit the wrong button. I wasn't intending this to be directed toward Crashfrog.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 02-17-2005 09:01 AM

As opposed to a supernatural diety creating the Earth in 6 days. Really and what would those be? And you know this to be fact because of some further evidence you have privy too? Please share. This is funny, It is easy to theorize something is true, when it has never been seen. Kinda like a god? There is no definitive evidence that it exist or happened? lmao!! kinda like Genesis? So all the evidence collected over the past few decades that the Bang happened, and the evidence that Black holes do exist has been shown to be false? Please share the articles or papers that have debunked the Big Bang and the existance of Black holes. Otherwise your just full of crap.

SOQ is a student. From the nature of the posts, I can see that he is probably a high school student at that (my apologies if I am incorrect, SOQ). So first, welcome. Second, SOQ, I would bet a dollar to a doughnut that you are cutting and pasting from another creationist website, or alternatively you are regurgitating something your pastor told you, right? Here's a point: Would you go to a physicist for advice and interpretation of the bible? If not, don't go to a minister for his interpretation of the Big Bang. Physics is a complicated subject. I would suggest that you take a good high school level course in it as a first step so that you can understand some of the basic principles. Then I would suggest reading some of the great popular books on the Big Bang: The First Three Minutes by Steven Weinberg, The Moment of Creation by James Trefil, A Brief History of Time by Steven Hawking and there are many others. This is not to say that you need a Ph.D. in physics to understand the subject (you do if you want to understand the mathematical underpinnings), but you do need to understand the concepts and evidence before making up your mind.Good luck. And keep posting what you have been told are objections to the big bang cosmology. They make for entertaining reading at the least. Just don't believe everything a minister tells you about evolution and cosmology.SLD

Hello, sog, and welcome to the forum.You might want to read up a bit on evolution and the Big Bang before you attempt to debate them. It is obvious that you have much to learn about both. The people who have contributed to these theories and shaped them over hundreds of years did not just pick a really simple explanation as you seem to think they did. They genuinely sought out answers to their own questions and hypotheses using the scientific method and then chose the best explanation for the data that they had available to them. These are not mere hypotheses that can be knocked down like a house of cards, but at the same time, given evidence, they can be disproven, if that evidence is reliable.First of all, one of the subjects you are referring to as evolution is actually known as abiogeneis. This is the process by which living things can arise from nonliving materials. There is more to it than dirt and water, since if you probably already know that if you take dirt and put it in water, no living things arise unless they were in the dirt and water to begin with. However, experiments show that certain chemicals can produce complex molecules such as RNA on their own. It is also known that some strands of RNA can replicate on their own, given the right materials to do so. Also, other molecules can form spherical "bubbles" called micelles, and that larger micelles called protobionts can provide an environment in which metabolic reactions can take place. A similar mechanism is soap dissolving grease - a micelle of soap molecules surrounds the grease molecules to carry them away.If metabolic reactions can occur in protobionts, and some of those reactions involve complex molecules that can reproduce themselves, what differentiates such a protobiont from a living organism? The first life forms were far simpler than modern ones, even less complex than a bacteria such as E. coli for example. It isn't unreasonable to assume that life started out in this way.Of course, this is only my simple understanding of the process of abiogenesis. Others will probably take the other points in your topic and might expand upon and correct my explanation. I do hope that you read some of the arguments that differ from your own. A good place to start would be here but there are many other articles and FAQs on that site and others which you can look at too.

do you know the recipe of a "protobiont" or have a link to one or a picture??

Well my understanding of it is that it is a bubble with a phospholipid bilayer membrane, and on the inside there are proteins and/or nucleic acids which perform various metabolic activities, including budding to make new protobionts. I couldn't make on from scratch, but here's a picture I found on Google Image Search that looks like the one that was in my Biology textbook a couple years ago.
Click for larger imageThis message has been edited by Admin, 02-23-2005 12:52 AM

Ok, thanks! I wasnt sure if "photobionts" had some other higher level property or not. I guess then I would have to go back to the opening post and the more physical "bang" then. 1+1= or =/= 2? I do not know a lot about the expts on light biochemical rxns.

Please take the biology discussion to the appropriate forum.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Sorry Percy- Will DO.
I only asked because if Gary had somehing MORE emergent in mind then I was willing to consider to try to think to 1 from 2 as in the opening post.

quote:

---

1 - This is the evolutionairy formula for making a universe:
Nothing+nothing=two elements+time=92 natural elements+ time = all physical laws and a completely structures universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.
2 - This is the evolutionairy formula for making life:
Dirt + water + time = living creatures.

---

and hence from a what'' I personally consider to be the "nothing" in an emergent property that some one else might have had, to at least an element etc etc.

Alright, I'll stand back for now and let this thread go where it may. I'd like to learn more about the Big Bang myself anyway.