A Big Bang Misconception

Discussing what happened supposedly 20 something BILLION years ago?!?!?! What's the point? First, we have absolutely NO idea how physics works in a situation like the proposed "Big Bang", and second, how can we even begin to theorize about something that happened SOOOOO long ago?However, since these topics seem to be the order of the day around here, I guess it's worth talking about.In my oppinion, the first logical question to ask someone who advocates any version of the Big Bang would be this: What is the rediculously, tremendously, ludicrously, unimaginable force required to break up all the matter, space, and time? We believe in the existence of black holes, whose gravitational pull can contain even the most energetic known force in the universe (light, or radioactive energy) and yet people insist that there must have been something to cause this space, time, and matter to explode. How could the matter have "exploded"? There's no known force powerfull enough to separate this matter.However, I would assume that the typical pro-Big Bang response would be that there really was no matter. Well, that's just fine and dandy, because that means that EVERYTHING we see, including the space and time it is located in, came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing. Boy, that kinda sucks the joy out of living, doesn't it?To say that there was nothing and then a nanosecond later thare is EVERYTHING is so logically ignorant, that I wonder how scientists can even ascribe to it. Where have we ever observed, as a species, something coming from nothing? With the physical laws of our universe, it is impossible. So, how to get around that? Well, I would assume that one might say that the laws of physcis were different back then. Another logically ignorant thing to say. If the laws were different back then, how do we know when they changed? And even more scary, how do we know they won't change again?I really wish someone would please show me the scientific evidence for the Big Bang Theory, or any other cosmologic origins theory other than Creation. It would be so nice for me to quit disagreeing with every single scientist I run into on the subject of cosmology. But I just can't take the leap of faith that they do, because unless there is a better explanation, I have to believe that there must have been some type of creation event (I won't get into what kind on this thread, since that's not the topic).

Exactly my point. Why is one theory any better than the next? They both take faith to believe, because the evidence could support either idea. So, it is quite useless debating whether I'm right or you're right if we disagree on something that we have no empirical proof on. Your idea is just as good as mine, so why don't we just leave it at that?Oh, and by the way, the only reason I even discuss this, is because I feel that some ideas, although just as scientific, may not be very logical (obviously, this is just my oppinion. By all means, feel free to disagree).So, my whole point? We all need to grow up and quit using scientific arguments, because in all reality they can be used for either theory. The same could be said about any source of information. For example, if you told me that my brother had murdered someone, I would disagree with you. And if you told me that he was found in our neighbor's house, with a knife in his hand dripping with blood with a dead person lying on the floor next to him, I still would not believe you. What would your response be? Well, I guess you would say that you have all the evidence you need. But you have forgotten one thing...I have a different kind of evidence, the evidence of a RELATIONSHIP with my brother, and through that relationship, I know that he could never murder someone. Here we have a situation in which the scientific information doesn't really matter, at least in my eyes, becuase I know that my brother couldn't have done it. The problem is, my evidence is of a different kind.

quote:

---

There is no such force. The universe used to be in a very hot, very dense state. Space expanded. It was the way things were.

---

Okay then. If there is no such force, and if something didn't come from nothing, and if "it was the way things were" then I don't accept that as a scientific theory or viewpoint. That is completely unscientific and is not science. If you cannot explain how it happened, then I suggest that it is not scientifically provable and is just as valid as the next theory. That is my whole point: one theory is just as good as the next when it comes to cosmology, because we don't have enough evidence or first-hand experience.

But see, these are only evidence for the Big Bang if you assume that the universe is "billions of years old."Okay, let's assume that everything is expanding, and that the universe IS billions of years old. If that's true, then that means that billions of years ago, everything was much closer together. Proponents of the Big Bang (really, I could care less what you call it, it's a naturalistic cosmological theory) will say that this means the universe must have been much smaller. If that's true, then my question would be this: what force was powerful to overtake all that gravity in order to get the universe to spread out? Because if one ascribes to the oscillating universe theory, then gravity will eventually take over and pull everything back together. My question is what force is this that causes the universe to break back apart? Surely there must be some very powerful force to overtake gravity.What about the Law of Angular Momentum? If everything was at once a dot, and that dot spun really, really, really, really fast, then why are things spinning opposite directions? The Law of Angular Momentum says that objects that break off of the original object all spin the same direction. So why are there entire galaxies spinning the wrong direction? And what about our own solar system? What is causing three of the planets to spin the opposite way? Here’s a suggestion . God made it that way.How about the first law of thermodynamics? You cannot get rid of both matter and energy, but you can switch between the two. How does that fit with the Big Bang theory? First there was nothing? Then something? Huh? This makes absolutely no logical sense. I really wish someone would explain this to me please, because if there is no answer for this, then there is no point in saying that the universe must have been smaller in the past. Who cares? That doesn’t prove that it started 24.6 billion years ago and came from nothing! God could have made our universe with a blue shift, and if it was only 6,000 years ago, it wouldn’t have mattered.