Problems with the Big Bang theory

That was way too many questions for a single post. Most of it completelu off topic in this thread.Why don`t you choose one of this and open a new topic on it?This current thread at 280+ posts is about to be closed anyways and there would be not enough time left to answer all your questions properly

aww, but then he can't successfully do his "gish gallop".we do want to be fair right? and the only way to be fair is to allow them to win sometimes, right?so far, that's the only way they can win, right?(or, we can do what several claim, and shut down the debate de facto before it can start)

I'm with you bro... 110%. But with all due respect, you have a lot to learn. I only say that because I have been there. And I still am, only at a different place of torture. Made a complete ass of myself! I'll be there with you at the temple on a new heaven and new earth, but you have got to roll up your sleeves way more than that if you have any chance of communicating with these folks.You must become all things to all people remember?Slow way down. Way way down. And don't forget to remind me to do the same.Enjoy your sanctification... it's going to be hell. And I really do mean, give thanks for it.I'm with you in spirit, but your post was terrible. Don't give up, but go back to the drawing board.

Care to defend your own assertion in the thread Message 1 before proffering advice to others to do the same?

Im just saying, the theory of a Big Bang that formed the World, correct me if Im wrong, but that doesnt even make sence. Have you ever seen an explosion that created anything but rubble?

Okay, look at your hand. Now, as a scientist tell me that your hand, the very hand that has worked with you for years, it was brought into a blank world with no meaning. Where your hand was only a coincidence. Nothing has any meaning, and a bunch of whack-jobs out of the blue created, a perfect storyline with no holes or contradictions. But instead, your hand was just accidence, created by an explosion from a Universe that has no controller or creator. You tell me that makes more sense?

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.

I honestly do not understand what you are trying to say. I mean, I read your post, and my mind interprets it as saying that you think that scientists say that the Big Bang created hands. But there is no possible way that anyone could believe something so ludicrous, so I'm just completely confused.

Sure, but don't thank me. I'm only telling you what anyone here would tell you about science.We can get even more specific. Science can only study that which is apparent to our five senses. This includes phenomena which can only be made apparent to our five senses through instrumentation, such as telescopes and thermometers. But science does study morality. Psychology is one of the soft sciences, but it is still science. This might sound like an example of something that science cannot study, but it isn't. In fact, this is actually saying what I just said. Much of new science today involves indirect observation. In other words, we don't directly observe the phenomena, but rather infer the phenomena from its effect on things that we *can* observe. A simple example is a thermometer. We can't actually see the temperature of anything, but we infer temperature from its effect upon a thermometer.So when you describe an unobservable universe that affects the natural, this is precisely the same type of thing as measuring temperature, which means it isn't unobservable at all. It only means it isn't directly observable.An example of something not amenable to study by science is God as he is part of the supernatural world and beyond the reach of science.Because your recent posts do not focus on the topic of this thread I'm going to repeat something I said earlier: your concerns seem to have little to do with the Big Bang and more to do with the nature of science. This thread is nearing the 300 message limit, and the remaining bandwidth should be used to focus on the topic. If you want to discuss the nature of science then there are plenty of threads for that in the [forum=-11] forum, or you can propose a new thread over at [forum=-25].--Percy

Hi Apolo. Welcome to EvC. We hope you will become familiar with the site here and get a handle on how things work for the good of productive and interesting discussion and debate. I suggest you do a good deal of reading up on proceedures, Forum Guidelines and how we go about debating the topics, especially in the science field which is quite advanced here.Your points are well taken. I am a creationist also. We need to take care that we creos don't do more harm to the creo and intelligent design debate here than good by becoming familiar with how the forums go and being careful to keep within the areas of debate and discussion we are capable of handling. The advanced science folks who we encounter in the science forums are going to come up with some very tough stuff for those of us who are not educated in the advanced sciences to handle. Unless you are capable of engaging with these folks I suggest that you hang out at some of the forums (abe: here at EvC) where you are more knowledgeable on the topics. Likely there are areas where you may be able to offer some interesting and beneficial input.Cheers and God bless. Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : Add phrase

Almost NOTHING in your message has any relationship to this topic.If you wish to discuss the origin of hands then do it in one of the biology threads.If you want to discuss meaning do it over on the Faith side.If you want to discuss whether or not the Bible is valid or any of the many errors and contradictions in the Bible, do it in Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy.The closest you come to anything related to this topic is: and that is wrong because the Big Bang was not an explosion and it was not from a universe and it has nothing to do with the origin of your hand.I know you are new here and so folk are going easy on you but you seem to be supremely ignorant of what Science says and so have posted message after message that is simply wrong and unrelated to the topic.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Excellent post. Thank you for trying to help Apolo (I hope that's a typo) along.--Percy

Hi Apolo,First, if your "Apolo" alias was actually intended to be the Greek God Apollo, you can create a new alias with the proper spelling on your profile page. The profile link is near the upper left on most pages.Second, I think we are unanimous in our agreement with you that it makes no sense to claim the exquisite human hand was created by an explosion from a universe. Scientists believe the earth and the rest of the solar system condensed from matter scattered about the universe billions of years after the Big Bang, and so what happened on earth after the Big Bang isn't really relevant in this thread. In other words, the evolution of the human hand is not the topic of this thread.This thread is discussing problems with Big Bang theory, but threads here at EvC Forum have a 300 message limit, and we're extremely close to that limit now, so there's really no time to begin a discussion with you about it. But if you're interested I suggest you read up a little on the Big Bang (see Big Bang - Wikipedia for a start), and then you can propose a new thread over at [forum=-25] to discuss the Big Bang.--Percy

Percy, you do not settle for simply getting 'a feel' for the truth do you? That's not a criticism, just noticing that you do not trust your feelings nearly as much as some.You responsd with tenacity and wit. I propose we dig deeper into this issue, you and I. Perhaps Anglgards
thread based on my moral assertion will suffice.As a foretaste, I offer this quote in reply to one of your comments. You are so right Percy. But do you notice that psychology tries to deal with the issue in natural terms? I don't think it can adequately deal with human struggles by reducing them to mere chemicals and mechanics.Appearently, neither do all psychologists, and the debate is an old one. (Hobart Mowrer, "Sin, the Lesser of Two Evils," American Psychologist, 15 (1960): 301-304.)

Psychologists have never reduced such things to mere chemicals and mechanics. Having been married to a practicing clinical psychologist for almost two decades I can personally attest to that.Psychiatrists however do deal with what certainly are those areas where chemistry and mechanics are relevant, and there is abundant evidence that chemistry and mechanics are definitely part of the picture and increasing evidence that genetics also plays a part.BUT again; None of this has anything to do with the Big Bang.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion