Problems with the Big Bang theory

Thank you for agreeing finally that the Big Bang is not a theory but a conclusion based on evidence.As to what you call "Biblical explaination[sic]" there simply is no valid Biblical explanation. We have many threads on Genesis and if you want to discuss Genesis and the Genesis myths, please take it over to the Faith side. Biblical accounts are simply irrelevant here.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well we know that isn't true huh?We know everything!

All theories are "incomplete" - that's the nature of the beast.Your puzzle analogy presupposes a "correct" solution. A better analogy would be a jigsaw puzzle - even if a lot of pieces are missing, we can say, "Hey, that's a Big Bang." As long as we can be pretty sure that it is a Big Bang and not a horsey or a duckie, we have a pretty good theory.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The Big Bang is based on evidence in the same way that evidence wrongly convicts the accused in many a court room.If that is your idea of a conclusion, then that is the conclusion you will get!Unbelievable!

Yes Ringo, you're so right! Now that's clever, but I don;t suppose anyone gets it but you and I? Your jigsaw puzzle has some pretty fuzzy edges... That whole infinite concept thingy is very unnerving.We don't have the whole picture, and I try to tell everyone the missing pieces are found in Christ. In Corinthians it says, 'You are complete in Him.' But then I am dismissed as 'unscientific'. I beg to differ! Experience may be personal, but it is most certainly emperical. And it is a shared empericism. Many a brother in the spirit has put rest any doubts of my own sanity.I can accept that that is irrelevant in the scientific sense. But I don't here anyone declaring that 'you are complete in science!

You realize that that is why some less civilized primates are kept in cages? You extend your hand and they have been known to bite it off!

This is a science thread not a theology thread.... YOu have been warned, take a time out...you'll be welcome back tomorrow.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Scientifically, pieces that Christ has eaten and pieces that fell behind the couch don't count. We can only use the pieces we have, the pieces we can see.So far, those pieces look like a Big Bang. Until you can get Christ to spit 'em out and until you sweep behind the couch, you can't pretend to know what the picture "should" look like.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Just so you know -- your bluff has been called: No Evidence Concerning a Quickly Created Grand Canyon Being "All Over The News"Now it is time for you to present what you think are facts.If you can.I also note, just in passing, that you have still failed to show the problems with my thread on probabilities that you claimed, as a math major, to know all about.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Percy, notice that all you did is disclaim what I said. You didn't brong on any evidence. What doess physics say. Can you quote it and why didn't you. You are trying to raise yourself to the level of scientist with supremem knowledge, yet you didn't even include reasons that contradict what I said. That is your problem. And another thing, you don't know jack about me, or my majors, so back off.

Who cares what physics says? I already told you that if you watch a slow motion movie of an explosion, then you will see, with your own eyes, that your claim was wrong. This is called an experiment. It is very important in verifying scientific claims. Experiments show that your statement is wrong.But if you insist on knowing what physics says, cavediver already told you that, too. Physics says that you are wrong.But why ask anyone what physics says? You can find out for yourself. Go to a library. Ask the librarian to show you the physics texts. Look up angular momentum.

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

Please look at this picture and in this one and this one. In them you will see things moving in every possible direction, up, down, right, left, spinning clockwise, counterclockwise.You can observe the same thing in your own kitchen with no more than your stove, a pot and a can of Alphabet soup. Open the can pour it in the pot. Add a can of water. Bring the mixture to a rolling boil and watch the letters as they rise, fall, spin and twirl.The problem with what you posted as a flaw is not just that it was wrong. The big problem is that it is one of the classic tactics used by folk, all too often Christian Clergy, to fool the gullible. They count on your simple acceptance of their testimony and hope that you will not question.The world is filled with two types of people.Those who look for Answers to questions.Those who look for answers to Question.Edited by jar, : Fix subtitleEdited by jar, : fix formatting

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Which one is which?

quote:

---

The world is filled with two types of people.
Those who look for Answers to questions.

​

Those who look for answers to Question.

​

Which one is which?

---

CS, Look closely at the plural in "question" vs "questions."

What I said was, "This erroneous claim has already drawn two responses, so I'll approach it from a different angle." As I pointed out, Chiroptera had already rebutted your claim from an experimental perspective, and Cavediver from a theoretical perspective. Since your errors had already been clearly identified by previous messages I just moved on to what I felt was an important meta-point.The meta-point concerned your source of information, which seems to either not understand basic physics, or to be misrepresenting it. As I said before, it sounds like something Kent Hovind might saw to an audience of devout Christians at a Bible college where you won't find many serious science majors.If you'd like references to the correct information, give Wikipedia a try. Notice in the 3rd paragraph where it talks about angular momentum being a conserved quantity, just as Cavediver told you: This video of a delta rocket explosion at Cape Canaveral might be helpful: Here's another video, an above water view of an underwater explosion: Here's a water balloon explosion in slow motion. Notice some jets spinning one way, some another: Here's a great video of a smoke ring machine showing spinning smoke eddies in all directions: The above comment concerning Hovind was not a reference to you. I don't know whether you're in college or not, but I've seen videos of Hovind presentations to college audiences where he makes the precise argument you're making. Is that where your argument comes from? From Hovind?--Percy