Problems with the Big Bang theory

"It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together and, then, explode outward into hydrogen and helium." Quote from SogDecided?Exploded?I always here creationists refer to the big bang as an explosion. As if there was a marble sized ball which eploded like a bomb in the middle of space, the most obvious marker of an uneducated fool. This is a common misconception, the big bang was not an explosion but rather an expansion. Go back to 9th grade science.

---

There are 10 types of people in the world, those who speak binary and those who dont.

Welcome to EvC Forum.We have a set of Forum Guidelines which discourage comments of a personal nature, such as that someone is uneducated or a fool:

10. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

Thanks!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

A little harsh :-) I think we can fairly lay the blame for this misconception with just about every popular science program that has ever tried to depict the big-bang.

Yes, certainly the polular science books back when I was in grade school and junior high left the impression that the Big Bang was an explosion. It wasn't until I was in college that it became more clear what Big Bang really was. In fact, it was only recently that I learned that "Big Bang" was a disparaging term made up by Fred Hoyle.

You do know your history Chiroptera. As far as name calling I apologize. I am just tired of the same old comments from people who are uneducated about certain aspects of science. It seems that there are so many misconceptions about big bang theory, the first being that it is an atheist theory. Creationists have all kinds of bad thoughts about big bang theory yet they have never heard of standing state theory? Whats up with that? This site is about evolution vs. creationism but the two sides are not such opposites as black and white. The big bang, Lamaitres primeval atom, was thought to be the savior of religion in science for it was the moment when the universe was created. If you disagree with creationism, in the context of a creation (maybe not devine creation), then you disagree with big bang theory. Why dont creationists see that? Why dont they attack standing state which isnt a strong theory anyway. Why cant they accept the incredibly strong duo of evolution and big bang theory? You know why? It's because they choose to remain ignorant of such things. How many people exist, who understand big bang theory fairly well, and yet dont agree with it. It is an amazingly small percentage.

Sorry I said uneducated again but what else do I say. It is the simple truth of the matter that this person has never really researched or learned about big bang theory enough to where this person can make such strong accusations. At least I did not call him a fool again. It would be different if this person wanted to learn but it is apparent that he only wants to TRY to make it look bad using contradictions which only appear in misconceptions. You know what they say about throwing rocks in glass houses... At this site however this is bound to happen, unless we were all evolutionists. Sorry if Im still getting myself in trouble, nobody reads the rules.

Don't worry too much about it, notwise. I've gotten a few warnings myself -- mostly when I was behaving like a dick. You'll usually get a warning when you are being rude to a specific member, especially without provacation, or if you don't back up your arguments when challenged.Also, the moderators tend to be tougher on people on the evolution/non-fundamentalist side because they don't want to appear to be biased against fundamentalist Christians.As far as the OP goes, it is true that many people have the misconception that Big Bang was some kind of explosion, and I think that it is because it isn't adequately explained in school.I don't think that this is all that relevant in arguing with a creationist, except that this misconception does make it harder to explain the actual science to the person. And you'll find (if you haven't already) that some people can be very obstinate when it comes to their misconceptions.

I am surprised and saddened that evolutionists , have jumped on this topic. They have nothing to answer here.Pass by, walk on, nothing to see here.First point, nothing in the OP has raised anything new, except raised from the dead the popular objections (read Creationist/ID apologetics websites objections)so long refuted with 2 prongs of attack, namely 1) evolution has never, I repeat , never ever tried to grapple with the CREATION or BIG BANG. 2) evolution has never, I repeat , never ever tried to grapple with the CREATION or BIG BANG.Evolutionary theory aka Theory of Evolution has nothing to say on the creation of the universe, Big Bang or why Chelsea won the Premiership this season. Why try and say it does?Poor old Darwin, he spent many years (God-fearing christian that he was) grappling with the problem of reconciling his theory with the Bible. And he decided to publish. In the interests of science. You do understand this need don't you?

---

Apophenia:seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.
Pareidolia:vague or random stimulus being perceived (mistakenly) as recognisable.Ramsey Theoryatterns may exist.Whoops!

sorry got waylaid - there was only one point to my post

Alright first of all Im more of a Big Banger (LOL) than an evolutionist, only because I have studied physics more than any other branch of science. It doesnt have to "grapple" the earth speaks for itself Im just saying that they dont contradict each other and that they coexist well. The earth is the same age according to an evolutionist as it is according to a big banger (big banger ha, will I ever get over it). Life on earth according to evolution fits in neatly with earths "life" in the universe. They both show an underlying progression of the universe. Mans evolution is similiar to the universes evolution. Wouldnt it seem weird if science showed somehow that the universe began with the big bang but god came down and created humans on earth or visa versa? Big Bang and evolution just seem to work together.This message has been edited by notwise, 06-26-2005 11:30 PM

Well when a creationist gets the idea that the big bang was an explosion then finds out later that this was just a misconception it makes science seem inconsistent you know what I mean? If a scientist/enthusiast is ever inconsistent then of course this is proof that every aspect of science is also inconsistent and that god must exist LOL.

I am not sure of your point here but my point was that the theory of evolution and the creation (be it by God or the Big Bang or the Great Arkle seizure) are mutually exclusive. To connect the two is wrong in terms of science and only serves to frustrate Christians that are perfectly at home with evolution but have a problem with the "something out of nothing" argument. Biology based scientist supporting evolution theory do not postulate as to the origin of the cosmos or the original (abiogenesis) of life. Darwin's book is called "The Origin of Species". Not the origin of the (specified species) or the origin of life or the cosmos.We are probably of the same opinion with regards to both but your post and the general posts seem to fail to address the original post. There is nothing for an evolutionist to contribute on this topic.

More creationists that I know have a problem with evolution than with the big bang because the bible says "In the beggining god created the heavens and he earth..." so as to how he created the heavens and the earth is up to interpretation. However it does specify that man was made from the dust of the earth and that eve was then taken from adams rib so I am not quite sure how that fits in with evolution. None the less.While it is true that evolution and the big bang do not have a direct connection to each other in my opinion evolution and BB make a comfortably logical duo. They are amazingly similiar. To leave out one but still except the other makes for an uncomfortable feeling like there is something missing. I probably should have specified that there connection is a matter of opinion.

First of all big bang theory is obviously not simple enough for a genius like you to understand it. I say this because the big bang didnt "explode" outward into hydrogen and helium, you make it sound as if "nothing" turned into hydrogen and helium before the big bang occured."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."
QuotedKinda sounds like gods ingredients huh. Nothing, dirt, etc..."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."
QuotedAlso sounds like god. Are you a creationist or an evil scientist. Stay focused your trying to disprove science not god!!! Disneyland theories, never heard that one before, maybe because it doesnt make any sense.You need to read up on BB and E. Your statements are so full of misconceptions that nobody will answer your questions. WE DONT DEFEND MISCONCEPTIONS. 4 R's.
Research, Rethink, Repost.....REDOOO. (Anyone who wants to use that little phrase can, its kinda catchy).This message has been edited by notwise, 06-28-2005 11:55 AM

Folks; the originator of this thread has not posted here for over four months. Arguing with sog345 is a bit redundant.It was pointed out very early in the thread, with a quite careful and dispassionate post in Message 12, that the word "evolution" is used in various contexts. Biological evolution and stellar evolution are both terms in good standing within the scientific community for two different models working in different domains. I don't think anyone here needs to be persuaded that biological evolution is a different thing from stellar evolution, or that biological evolution is essentially unaffected by the various competing notions that have been used in cosmology over the last century or so.Perception of a philosophical common ground with various different scientific models for "evolution" in the general sense of "change" is a rather subjective impression. I don't think we need to persuade anyone that such a perception is "right" or "wrong".I am inclined to simply close this thread; but I'll leave it for just a bit.If anyone wants to discuss cosmology, I'm all for it. This particular forum is here for that purpose, and it is one of my personal favourite subjects. But in this thread we are presently spinning wheels and chasing phantoms. If anyone has some specific topic they'd like to consider, I think a new thread should be proposed.Cheers -- AdminSylas