The problems of big bang theory. What are they?

Changes in elevations are covered under the word evolution. Not at all. Osmosis is covered under the word ‘evolution’. Not all changes have anything to do with osmosis. So, no, changes don’t say what you claim. No, it doesn’t mean that. Most changes have nothing to do with a membrane as is described in osmosis. No, it isn’t. New properties arise through mutations in DNA, for example. Is that what you believe? Any evidence? A believe without evidence doesn’t mean much. Not at all. We do see changes giving rise to new properties. Look at changes originating from changes in DNA, for example. A sequence in DNA did not exist before, then they do. Brand new. 13.75 billion years younger than the Universe (give or take 0.11 billion years). No, not at all. We can’t change the behaviour of energy and matter. We can just describe that behaviour and call them laws. Changes will happen regardless of how we describe them.PS, what does this have to do with the Big Bang?

Goodness gracious, what a long word salad basically meaning absolutely nothing. Your comments won’t change the fact that evolution does not equal osmosis.I will comment on the following, though: Nothing described in the BB theory is violated by anything you mentioned. Your dreams don’t change reality. What you say is very unimportant and also contradicted by reality. The only way for you to be taken seriously is to publish in a relevant scientific journal. Creationist (religious) websites don't count. Discussion forums on the internet neither.Just remember, word salads won’t impress those real scientists. Empirical evidence is the most important thing that counts for them. I guess that's why the standard scientific answer to the question of what happened during that first Planck second is "I don't know".The perceived issues you have, together with what happened during that first Planck second will be resolved by scientific study. Not by word salads or people writing on forums on the internet. No, science laws don’t ‘have to’ apply. Scientific laws are our descriptions of what we observe happens in nature.In instances where empirical evidence contradicting our descriptions of the behaviour of nature is observed, our descriptions of that behaviour are altered. We call that a change of scientific laws or we can even describe new laws. Maybe that’s what you do. Other people don’t. Don’t project your behaviour on other people.

Then why write it in the first place? Just for the word salad effect? Yes, I have. Nothing about the Big Bang contradicts any of the scientific laws. You have to realize that real physicists and real cosmologists, etc. know way more than you and none of them has ever published anything in any scientific publication about the BB contradicting any scientific laws. If one of them did, he would be very famous and very rich. Another word salad.
From the Concise Oxford Dictionary:
Pristine means: ancient, primitive, old and unspoilt: fresh as if new.Singular means: 1. denoting a single person or thing, not dual or plural.
2. single, individual, unique, unusual, remarkable from rarity; much beyond the average or degree; extraordinary, surprising, eccentric, unconventional, strangely behaved, possessing unique properties; hence distinguish, individualize.Seeing that we don’t know whether the Big bang was single, individual, unique, unusual, remarkable from rarity; much beyond the average or degree; extraordinary, surprising, eccentric, unconventional, strangely behaved, possessing unique properties;, we can’t ascribe these features to the Big Bang. For all we know, there could have been lots of Big Bangs before and after the one described in our theory, the one that we think gave rise to our universe. We do know that it was a rapid expansion of space-time.Entity Means: thing’s existence, as opp. to it’s qualities or relations; thing that has real existence.
This word thus excludes any kind of god, because there’s no evidence for such an entity’s existence. And if one doesn’t? If one only looks at the evidence before accepting anything? Maybe it does. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. Therefore energy may be infinite. You also realize that to say things like before the Big Bang, doesn’t make sense as time itself started then? For this reason, no. What you say is not very important. It is the evidence that counts. I‘m certainly not rubbishing this forum, where people try to have intelligent and meaningful conversations. I am rubbishing your style of trying to impress people with word salads not meaning much. We all know why you do it: no data of your own. Luckily this forum is full of real scientists who don’t get embezzled by word salds, but look at the evidence. Data. That’s why we do have very intelligent people doing research on the issue. People who actually get and also provide data before they come to any conclusion. Err, nature. That’s strange. You do have to realize that your word salads won’t make the sun, neither the birds nor the bees to disappear. They do exist. nature exists. You have a very low ability to comprehend what people write. Maybe it’s because you don't understand people who don't do word salads? Certainly not. The answer I don’t know is a very honest and also a very noble answer. It means that wishful thinking won’t be applied to try and get an answer. Scientific theories all are considered scientific facts. Like the gravity theory. Like the cell theory. Like the atom theory. Like the germ theory. Like the evolution theory. They all are considered scientific facts. Maybe you should brush up on your science before making ignorant statements like the one you just made?
Anyway, scientific theories are way more realiable to get to the truth than statements like Goddidit, which has been proven wrong over and over again. Saying I don’t know is way more credible than saying: Goddidit.

Then why did you use the word osmosis in the first place? I think I know the answer: you used the word osmosis to sound as if you knew a lot about the subject. When you were shown that you were incorrect, you just pretended that the word was not important. Maybe it’s because your word salads were so ridiculously stupid and not understandable at all with the result that nobody even gave them a second thought. Those words were used because, we don’t know. Incorrect. Our laws break down when we get to the first Planck second of the Big Bang. We don’t know what happened exactly. Maybe some laws applied, maybe not. Why? Maybe it did. Maybe it didn’t. Our evidence indicate that it did. Why? The evidence we have indicate that the BB happened, whether laws applied or not. Maybe the scientific laws were different then. Maybe not. Maybe different laws applied. Maybe not. Who knows. It has been answered. The fact that you just don’t want to accept it, reflects badly on you, not on the theory. No, it has been shown to you why in the previous post. The fact that you want to change the meanings of words in your word salads, reflects badly on you. Not on the Big bang. I actually did deal with that premise. The fact that you don’t want to accept it is a bad reflection on you. Not on the Big Bang. Why? Some things just happen with no external impacter involved. I can refer to quantum mechanics, for example. No, not necessarily. Look at quantum mechanics. Some things just happen. No trigger involved. No independent, precedent force involved at all. No, postulating a trigger, when there’s no evidence for a trigger, is very unscientific. Why? Why? So far it seems as if there’s at least one infinite entity in our finite universe. It’s called energy. My argument surely is not breaking down. Religionists don’t have arguments. They’ve got faith. What you are trying to do now, disguised as word salads. Why? It seems as if energy, for example, could be eternal. Maybe it’s because you don’t realize that the Big bang could be a singularity only in our Universe? Nowhere else? Yes. The Big Bang is one example. The science of physics. Word salad again. Your basicargument, if you can call it that, is: because my parrott didn’t exist at a stage, it doesn’t exist now. Even if it sits on my shoulder now. All of the above. You still haven’t read all those posts trying to inform you of what scientific laws are, have you? Word salads won’t hide your ignorance. No, we’ve got plenty of verifiable, empirical evidence that nature exists. Not one little piece of evidence that any kind of god exists. We’ve got plenty of empirical, verifiable evidence that nature exists. That’s what science investigates. By definition. It’s called science. Your word salads won’t make nature, the definition of science or the scientific method disappear. Who said that no laws may or may not have applied? We know it can. Empirical evidence works very well on me. As I said earlier: maybe you don’t understand people who don’t use word salads. No, all scientific theories are accepted as scientific fact, until someone can provide an alternative that not only explains everything covered in the theory, but also more. Scientific theories are regarded as scientific facts by the scientific community. Publish it in a scientific journal. You will become very famous and very rich. You can’t do it on a forum like this. Lots of people have. The fact that you don’t see it, reflects on your cognitive dissonance. Not on the other posters here. It certainly does. It means I don’t know. Where has anybody said this? Easy. See if you can convince scientists who actually know more about the subject you do. Follow the scientific method. Word salads won’t work on them. Data would. That means empirical evidence for your point.

Yes, you said lots of stupid things.

No it doesn't. Do you know what quantum mechanics entails? A ball in the wood stands out from the surroundings. Anyone who gives the answer you gave has to be a bit mentally ill. No sane person would say that. Of coarse someone made it. That's how you can distinguish the ball from the 'woods'. You can immediately see that the ball does not fit into the surroundings. They are different. No, the other person says: "Of coarse someone made it. That's how you can distinguish the ball from the 'woods'. They are different." Stupid answer. Not all people are as intellectually challenged as creationists, remember. I would answer: "If" the ball was made out of cheese, then what?" Why would he say that? "If" the earth was also made out of plastic, maybe. You can't compare, as balls were made by humans. The earth not. The universe is not. Remember, you can distinguish a naturallay occuring object from an artificial (made) one. Your straw man of an argument isn't. The fact is that you can distinguish between a ball, which was made by humans, and trees, not made by humans, tells us that your example is flawed and doesn't relate to reality. Apart from that, trees propagate all on their own. If you walk in the woods, you can see that. Balls don't.Anyway, if everything needs a cause, who caused your god? Who caused the 'maker' of you god? Who caused the maker of the maker of your god? Or are you going to use special pleading as an 'argument'?Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentences and words

Yet, for some reason nothing else can be. Just wait for the special pleading.

Special pleading. If you want to provide 'evidence' in the form of an 'argument', logical falacies really are completely unconvincing. This atheist certainly doesn't believe anything like that. This atheist doesn't know what happened and that's it. Except they don't. You set up a straw-man on what you think atheists actually 'believe'. This atheist just does not believe the story about a woman made from the ribs of a man made from mud who got a 'a breath of life' from some spook. And then the spook apparantly got mad at the mud man and the rib women with the 'breath from a spook' and chased them out of a garden. I don't believe ridiculously crazy stories like that. That's it. That's your argument, not mine. Don't reflect your bad 'arguments' on atheists. You've got a very bad 'argument', relying on special pleading and on nothing else. It isn't. That's why atheists don't use that 'argument'.I think that you, Portillo, still have a problem in distinguishing what the differences between atheism and science actually are. They are completely different things, you know? Then, after that, you reflect your bad arguments on other people. Straw-man arguments.I am an atheist, because there is no objective evidence for the existence of any kind of god. That's it. Very bad "arguments', relying on special pleading, like the one's you used in this thread, (special pleading and straw-men) don't do theists like you any favours.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Very few atheists would even think of the Big Bang. Atheists are atheists because there is absolutely no evidence for any kind of god. That's it.
You still are confusing the words "atheism" and "science". They are two different things. If a person doesn't know what the Big Bang Theory actually is, is it their fault. Not the fault of science.I, for example, find the physics and maths behind the Big Bang way to difficult to comprehend. I wouldn't have a clue whether or not the Big Bang Theory relates to "eternity" or "non-eternity" at all. My fault, not the fault of science.There still is absolutely no objective evidence for any kind of god at all. None. Even if the whole Big Bang Theory somehow is wrong, there still is no objective evidence for any kind of god. Your logical fallacies (special pleading and straw-man arguments) would still be very bad arguments.Edited by Pressie, : Fixed spelling mistakes and added a sentence.

Look at creationist websites. There's lots of them. They are the overwhelming majority of people who reject the Big Bang Theory, because they still insist that their particular chosen god (s) created everything (by speaking a word according to the Christian variety of reality-deniers) as is less than 10 000 years ago. Nothing to do with science.I haven't heard about anyone else lately who's rejected the Big Bang for scientific reasons. During earlier decades up to the mid eighties, some physicists, cosmologists, etc (people with relevant qualifications) did. Nowadays, with all the evidence they obtained (through Hubble, etc.), these scientific doubters seem to have all but disappeared (apart from a few creationists, who give religious reasons). These creationists make up less than 0.1% of the scientific community.From what I understand (I don't have a relevant qualification, so I don't really understand the science) no scientific concensus on whether or not the Universe had a beginning has been reached. Research is still being done on it. They simply don't know. This does not influence the fact that a phenomena called the Big Bang (rapid expansion of space/time) happened.Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentences

You see it here, Portillo; scientists and also atheists don't have a problem with the Big Bang. The only people who do are creationists. Only a certain type of them, too.Please leave atheists out of a conversation like this next time. You do seem rather...prejudised....when you put in writing that 'atheists' have a 'problem' with the Big Bang. They don't. The people who see a 'problem' are some theists. And they can't even string a meaningful and coherent sentence together, but can only use very vague word salads.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : Deleted an extra "this".

It is as far back as we have evidence for. That's the time that's elapsed since the Big Bang. Who has ever said that time evolved into time? I think you didn't get proper information when making a statement like that. No, it doesn't. It's the same as: how can a cloud of gas evolve to be a star? That star didn't exist, now it does. The star had no time or age, now it does. You don't even need math that the particular star didn't exist. It didn't. Now it does. That star had no time. Now it does. Lots of things have existed while we haven't observed their existence. It existed, we just haven't observed it before. Those things still have age. However, a new species of bacteria was observed last year. In a lab. It didn't exist before. Now it does. The time of existence was zerod to last year.
We've also seen new stars forming. We had evidence that it didn't exist, now we have evidence that it does. Those star's ages are very young. Whether we observe it or not doesn't matter. Whether we observe it or not won't change when it started. It's called reality.
Tell me, maartin100, do you have any training in science?

No, I certainly did not. I said the overwhelming majority of people who reject the BB are creationists. Please don’t put words in my mouth. No, only a very small percentage of those people who signed had any relevant scientific training to even have an authoritative opinion on the Big Bang. I wouldn’t actually put much trust in the opinions of people like Engineers, Geologists, Philosophers, and Janitors when they discuss the Big Bang. From John Maddox - Wikipedia How deliberately wrong can a person be, in contradiction with observed reality and scientific consensus. I would thus not really take his opinions very seriously. Philosophically unacceptable doesn’t mean scientifically unsound. It just means that it doesn’t agree with his philosophy.

What do you call plenty? Even if it is a hundred, I hope you realize that scientists relevant to the Big Bang (Physicists, Cosmologists, etc.) number more than a million in this world. A list of, even if it gets to 100 (it does not), does not mean ‘plenty’. Einstein died in 1955. The BB theory started gaining wide-spread acceptance in the relevant scientific community after 1964, due to some important discoveries. From Big Bang - Wikipedia Einstein had no idea what evidence for a Big Bang that was discovered after his death. Died 1944. Why do you even mention him? Please note that from your quote he said :I would like to reject it .. What did he say afterwards in that same sentence? I know, I’ve got the reference. See if you can find it. It suffices to say the he accepted the BB. It’s the same as you quoting me saying : I would like to reject the fact that smoking is bad for me , then not quoting the rest of my sentence:..but, people die from it, therefore I accept that smoking is bad for me. See if you can find the full quote Phillip Morrison. (Hint: you won’t find it in creationist sources. Try scientific sources!). Oh, did he? Any reference to this? Can’t find it anywhere except in creationist web pages who all refer to each other. He did support the BB theory, because he said the following about the BB.: "....the circumstances of the big bang- the fiery holocaust that destroyed the record of the past"Robert Jastrow - Wikipedia So, your homework, Portillo, is to find the full quote from Phillip Morrison. I'm not going to spoon-feed you all the actual and factual information. Can't you think for yourself before writing something down? Aren't you even a little bit inquisitive on whether something you read is actually based on reality and the truth and/or whether the information might have been upgraded by more evidence since it was written down all those years ago? Edited by Pressie, : Added a referenceEdited by Pressie, : Changed another sentenceEdited by Pressie, : Added the last paragraphEdited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I'm not a native English speaker, but can normally comfortably understand what is written down on web sites such as these.Please try writing this in English. I didn't understand anything. I even tried to decipher it using my native language, but is still is one long word salad. Then I also tried the Oxford dictionary, but it still makes no sense.A few more full stops, commas and paragraphs would go a long way in deciphering this. Then all those irrelevant phrases. I caught the words "nutritional value" strung together (both words make sense, strung together they also make sense) somewhere near the end (or was it near the end, I don't know where it fits, although it was written down near the end). How does it fit in with the Big Bang Theory? That doesn't make sense.Why do all these creationists always have to write in riddles or Cantonese or Hebrew or something else, using apples and tomatoes and all other types of fruit and veggies to write something about scientific phenomena on an English language web site? Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.