Jump to content


Who Or What Created That Matter For The Big Bang?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
24 replies to this topic

#21 Christopher_John

Christopher_John

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Messianic Prophecy.<br /><br /> I work very odd hours, I will eventually get back into the discussion with you, just be patient I'm not avoiding any topic.
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 05 March 2006 - 10:58 PM

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so how does talkorigin calim that matter and energy are completely annihilated ? Are talkorigins changing the laws of Physics by means of wikipedia, a perfect example of how not to run things at random.

E=MC2 - Energy and mass are interchangable. At the fundamental level of them all, what was the source of the energy at the momnet of the big bang ?

View Post



Logically speaking, the BIG BANG never happened, it is only a theory, this is where cosmic evolution becomes the Big Dud.

There's no evidence of a Big Bang and even put more ridiculously, the theory states that all the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny small portion of nothing, which also negates the fact that they are taking an existing universe, compressing it, then creating a theory of decompression of the same universe which in itself is self-replicating every 80 - 100 billion years.

Each and every time that the compression was to take place a pre-existing universe was already awaiting to be compressed.

It's circular reasoning and is a weak theory on cosmic evolution and avoids answering the question to when was The begining?

The Big Bang is only a theory for expansion and contraction (Oscillation) of the universe and does not imply first cause.

CJ

#22 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 March 2006 - 01:54 PM

From ‘subduction laid to rest’



chance>  That the Big bang happened is not in doubt (scientifically) but exactly how the big bang started, as you say from nothing, is not known.


Christopher_John> Well I wouldn't say that its not in doubt scientifically, the Big Bang theory is after all a leap of faith. We weren't there to witness it so therefore at present the big bang is more of a fantasy thaan it is a reality.

Yes it is quite a problem, the evolutionist community seems to be split down the middle on cosmic evolution (this I'm pretty sure you're aware). One part of the community will only go as far as to say that the universe was compressed into a smaller extremely dense region, as we have had theories over the past 100 years from a region being trillions of miles across to a few million miles across, hundreds of thousands of miles across to one trillionth the diameter of a proton to as recently as the past month, marble sized, one half inch in diameter.

The other half of the community still wants to know the origins from which the matter came from, in order to be compressed in the first place and ultimately in which capacity and or unknown dimension was this matter being retained by what opposing forces.


The first half of the community wants to remain on the cyclic theory of expansion and contraction via frequency thus avoiding the question of origins but the other half does believe that there had to be a critical point from which the universe evolved.



But neither group would disagree that the big bang happened as they both work from the same evidence (expanding universe and background microwave radiation etc), no leap of faith required it just science. The cause/origin of the big bang is still subject to investigation. Exactly how it started is irrelevant to the facts that are measurable today.





Logically speaking, the BIG BANG never happened, it is only a theory, this is where cosmic evolution becomes the Big Dud.

The big bang is the term that is the current expansion, wind the clock back in time and all the universe condenses, so far nothing unscientific about that. Current theories fall sort of explaining how it started, again nothing unusual about that either.

There's no evidence of a Big Bang and even put more ridiculously, the theory states that all the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny small portion of nothing, which also negates the fact that they are taking an existing universe, compressing it, then creating a theory of decompression of the same universe which in itself is self-replicating every 80 - 100 billion years.

Each and every time that the compression was to take place a pre-existing universe was already awaiting to be compressed.

It's circular reasoning and is a weak theory on cosmic evolution and avoids answering the question to when was The begining?

The Big Bang is only a theory for expansion and contraction (Oscillation) of the universe and does not imply first cause.


The oscillating universe is an interesting idea but the big bang it is not dependant upon it, the universe may indeed oscillate but a crucial piece of evidence is missing, i.e. how much mass/energy is in the universe, this will determine if the expansion will go on indefinitely or the mass/gravity is great enough to halt the expansion and reverse it to the big crunch.

#23 Meth

Meth

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • England

Posted 08 April 2006 - 03:25 PM

Logically speaking, the BIG BANG never happened, it is only a theory, this is where cosmic evolution becomes the Big Dud.

There's no evidence of a Big Bang and even put more ridiculously, the theory states that all the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny small portion of nothing, which also negates the fact that they are taking an existing universe, compressing it, then creating a theory of decompression of the same universe which in itself is self-replicating every 80 - 100 billion years. 

Each and every time that the compression was to take place a pre-existing universe was already awaiting to be compressed.

It's circular reasoning and is a weak theory on cosmic evolution and avoids answering the question to when was The begining?

The Big Bang is only a theory for expansion and contraction (Oscillation) of the universe and does not imply first cause.

CJ

View Post


One point to bear in mind is that the compression/decompression cycle you are talking about is only one conjecture about many regarding the formation of the universe, and since the universe at the moment is accelerating further outwards, it does not appear to stand up to current evidence.

There are, however, myriad other theories with absolutely no observable evidence to back them up, since all the laws of physics, and indeed time itself, only came into existence after the Big Bang.

So it is wrong to say that the Big Bang is incorrect since one interpretation of it does not hold up to scrutiny. There are many other explanations that are mathematically watertight.

In addition, as with much of science, we cannot categorically state whether the Big Bang theory is correct. However, as with all scientific theories, it is the best explanation we have at the current time based on the observable, testable evidence we have available to us.

The two main criteria we have as evidence for the Big Bang are the acceleration in expansion of the universe (as mentioned above) and the "cosmic background radiation" of the universe. The first of these was the reason for the Big Bang theory being initially proposed, and the second was the theory's greatest triumph. One of the things expected of a scientific theory is that it make testable predictions. In this case, it was expected that the rapid expansion of the universe would leave a fair amount of excess energy lying around the place. This was detected in 1965 as microwave radiation at a temperature of 2.7K (quite a lot considering it pervades the entire universe).

And I think the word you were looking for is "cosmogony". "Cosmic evolution" is a phrase used by nobody unless they wish to somehow debunk evolution and the Big Bang is one go, which, considering the two are completely seperate theories in utterly different branches of science, is not going to be possible.

#24 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 08 April 2006 - 04:20 PM

One point to bear in mind is that the compression/decompression cycle you are talking about is only one conjecture about many regarding the formation of the universe, and since the universe at the moment is accelerating further outwards, it does not appear to stand up to current evidence.

There are, however, myriad other theories with absolutely no observable evidence to back them up, since all the laws of physics, and indeed time itself, only came into existence after the Big Bang.

So it is wrong to say that the Big Bang is incorrect since one interpretation of it does not hold up to scrutiny. There are many other explanations that are mathematically watertight.

In addition, as with much of science, we cannot categorically state whether the Big Bang theory is correct. However, as with all scientific theories, it is the best explanation we have at the current time based on the observable, testable evidence we have available to us.

The two main criteria we have as evidence for the Big Bang are the acceleration in expansion of the universe (as mentioned above) and the "cosmic background radiation" of the universe. The first of these was the reason for the Big Bang theory being initially proposed, and the second was the theory's greatest triumph. One of the things expected of a scientific theory is that it make testable predictions. In this case, it was expected that the rapid expansion of the universe would leave a fair amount of excess energy lying around the place. This was detected in 1965 as microwave radiation at a temperature of 2.7K (quite a lot considering it pervades the entire universe).

And I think the word you were looking for is "cosmogony". "Cosmic evolution" is a phrase used by nobody unless they wish to somehow debunk evolution and the Big Bang is one go, which, considering the two are completely seperate theories in utterly different branches of science, is not going to be possible.

View Post




All interpretations of the big bang are all ridiculous because they all have one thing in common, they are all nothing but guesses made up from sheer imagination.(Vain Imagination/Romans 1:21)
No matter how many big words you want to throw into the evolution hat, it does not change that it's all guesses/assumption/imagined.
At best you could call evolution a hypothesis, not even a theory, definitely not a fact.

We the human race have two options, take Gods word/the bible at face value and believe what he tells us happened thu-out history, or we can listen to the guesses that fallible men make as to how we originated.
We must ask ourselves, do we want to believe God who was there at creation, or men who like to make up stories as to how things got started?



Louie BurenOur web site

Attached Files



#25 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 09 April 2006 - 02:10 PM

All interpretations of the big bang are all ridiculous because they all have one thing in common, they are all nothing but guesses made up from sheer imagination


Yet repeatable no matter who performs them, that should account for something, should it not? And the explanation does fit the evidence, i.e. the big bang, therefore until a better scientific model can replace the current theory or some hugely problematic bit of evidence discounts the Big bang, the model works. It’s the bet science can do for the time being.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users