Problems with the Big Bang theory

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.

Could you open a new thread and explain why you believe this to be the case? I can't concieve of a reason why someone's faith should be off-limits from discussion.

No, but when you pop up with a username like "DivineBeginning" and take potshots with Answers in Genesis-class material, it doesn't exactly take Sherlock Holmes to suss out your true position. If your faith has nothing to do with it, why have you made it such a large part of the discussion, to the near-exclusion of everything else?

I don't think anybody denies that this is probably the case. Knowledge advances, after all; it doesn't stay static.Which is exactly why creationism is false - it's been static all this time. Knowledge isn't like a stopped clock, right twice a day; knowledge does loop around to catch those who stood still. Those who don't advance and change as a result of new evidence are left behind.Knowledge does not advance to a position of ignorance.

Well, great. Lucky for you, the Big Bang doesn't say anything about the cause. There'd pretty much be no way to know, right? I mean how could we detect something outside the universe? Jar is a Christian, funnily enough. I suspect you're simply trolling for a fight, hoping for a convinient atheist to pop up. The trouble is, you've already determined that anybody who doesn't believe exactly like you is an atheist, which is why you've made this hilariously inaccurate attack against Jar.(I am an atheist, on the other hand; I'm curious what slanders you can muster in my direction.) Four-century fad, huh? That's some fad. How long does a "fad" have to last before you're convinced that there's something to it?

Well, let's make a bet, then. When mankind abandons the vast breadth and depth of knowledge resulting from the intelligent application of the scientific method, I owe you a Coke.

Huh. Why are Christians so often drug addicts, I wonder? I've never known an atheist who did anything more serious than a couple of beers on a Friday night. Right. Those laws are the laws that prove the Big Bang. I doubt it, somehow.

Well, the Grand Canyon is a mile deep, and we (that is to say, white people) discovered it in 1540, when it was as deep as it is now. If you think a river can cut a mile-deep channel in hundreds of years, why isn't the Grand Canyon twice as deep after another couple hundred years?

Well, ok, since you asked, here's the answer - the Grand Canyon took millions of years to erode.That's the answer - it's impossible for it to have formed in "hundreds of years." Some of those layers are granite. You've seen granite, right? Does it seem like granite erodes easily?We're not talking about a river making a little channel through the mud. We're talking about the Colorado river eroding a mile-deep channel through solid rock. Several different kinds of really hard solid rock.Hundreds of years? Is that really something that seems likely to you?

Well, if you say so. I'm Lawful Neutral, myself.

Well, that's simply untrue. Scientists do organize into consensus(es) on scientific issues. Sometimes the consensus is divided. But on the basic accuracy of the theory of evolution as an explanation for the diversity and history of life on Earth? There's no real dispute. Well, no, it doesn't; but when the subject is something that it takes years of technical study to arrive at a considered opinion on, for people who don't have the time to devote to the subject, it's appropriate to defer to the consensus judgement of experts.Don't you think? We can't all be experts on everything. It's no crime to defer to the consensus of experts; but neither should we expect that the consensus reflects anything but what is understood from the evidence we have now.The only alternative is to become an expert, yourself, and then arrive at your own opinion. There's nothing to be disappointed about. Nobody's going to be up in your face if you say "I don't know" or "I want to learn more" or even "I was wrong." But I know (believe me) that those are hard things to say.

I think what you'll find is that it takes a lot less faith to be an atheist, but it takes a lot more education. For instance, in this post alone you've made more than ten different factual claims, and absolutely none of them are true. You're 100% wrong about just about everything you've said, just now.Sure, reject evolution and inflationary cosmology, if you want. But doesn't it make a bit more sense to actually learn about it before you reject it? I mean, like this: Do you think that scientists are idiots? That they set a thousand-year timeline for the age of the universe and a multi-million year age for the Earth... and didn't notice?Really? You really think they did that? Sheesh. Look, scientists are smarter than you. Equally smart, at the very least. Do you really think they wouldn't notice the fact that they had proposed a younger universe than the age of the Earth? You need to apply the smell test, here.The truth of the matter is, you're misinformed. The scientific consensus is that the universe is somewhere around 14 billion years old, and the Earth is slightly more than 4 billion years old. See? Works out perfectly. You were simply wrong about how old scientists think the universe and Earth are.The rest of your post is a lot like this. You're rejecting nonsense (and rightly so), but your error is assuming that the nonsense you're rejecting is what science is putting forth. You're misinformed.

Well, no, your ridiculous misapprehension doesn't make sense.The inflationary cosmology proposed by scientists, on the other hand, makes perfect sense:

quote:

---

In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The theory is based on the observations indicating the expansion of space (in accord with the Robertson-Walker model of general relativity) as indicated by the Hubble redshift of distant galaxies taken together with the cosmological principle.

​

Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity (for reporting on some of the more notable speculation on this issue, see cosmogony).

---

Big Bang - WikipediaYou need to understand that, from every indication you've presented so far, nearly everything you know about these matters is probably wrong.