Jump to content


Photo

Problems With Big Bang.


  • Please log in to reply
180 replies to this topic

#21 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 31 July 2009 - 03:21 AM

Yeah, the laws aren't given.  They describe observations in the universe and exist at all times.  Why didn't God give Moses Newton's laws when he gave him the 10 commandments???

View Post

I'm not trying to be ignorant but I laughed when I read this. :P

First, you didn't answer de_skudd's question. You made an assertion. The only way you could demonstrate such a request is to invent a universal law and reveal how it did not exist before you conjured it. What you asserted is the omnipresence of something, while we want to infer the omnipresence of someone. What makes your assertion more scientific than our assertion?

Second, what a hoot it would be for God to command people to obey the law of gravity. :lol: :lol:

#22 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 31 July 2009 - 04:41 AM

Yeah, the laws aren't given.  They describe observations in the universe and exist at all times.  Why didn't God give Moses Newton's laws when he gave him the 10 commandments???

View Post



That's evading the question, and you know it as well as I do. If you don't wish to answer the question, then by all means don't. But don't insult the intelligence of everyone by tap dancing around it with an Ad hominem attack against God. He (God) gave Moses the Ten Commandments because that’s what they needed at the time.

It's plasma.  It has it's own set of properties different from any other phase.  When atoms making up a gas become ionized and you no longer have a gas.

View Post


Regardless of the fact that plasma is a partially ionized gas [1], the point he was making is that it’s still matter.



[1] In physics plasma is an electrically neutral, highly ionized gas composed of ions, electrons, and neutral particles. It is a phase of matter distinct from solids, liquids, and normal gases. (http://www.answers.com/topic/plasma) and (http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/plasma)

#23 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 31 July 2009 - 09:00 AM

Why must it be simplified? Expansion is just as easy to convey as an explosion. Here again I think this is science not wanting to admit they ignored a major basic law. And would rather make everyone else look stupid for their mistake.

View Post


Because a simple idea is much easier to convey than a complex one. Also, cosmologists didn't start out with the big bang theory in it's present form. It has undergone refinement as their understanding of the way the universe works increased.

Listening is not the problem.

View Post


Glad to hear it :P

What was created?

View Post


The point is that nothing was created. We were talking about the conservation of mass and energy. The energy you saw in that nuclear explosion came directly from the conversion of a couple of kilos of uranium. Nothing was created or destroyed, just converted from one form to another.

Is it solid, liquid, or gas? Falling into one of these categories makes it matter whether it's energy or not.

View Post


It's none of the above. It's a plasma.

Then is it's not eternal, then it has to have a source at the beginning. What was that source? Did it just poof itself by the matter fairy? I say this because you are dodging the question.

View Post


I'm not dodging the question. I just don't know.

#24 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 31 July 2009 - 10:10 AM

It's none of the above.  It's a plasma.

View Post


And therefore is still matter correct?

#25 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 31 July 2009 - 10:11 AM

Second, what a hoot it would be for God to command people to obey the law of gravity. :P  :lol:

View Post


Dang! And I was so use to flying around :lol:

#26 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 31 July 2009 - 12:44 PM

Because a simple idea is much easier to convey than a complex one.  Also, cosmologists didn't start out with the big bang theory in it's present form.  It has undergone refinement as their understanding of the way the universe works increased.


So everyone else but those who believe in evolution are to stupid to understand expansion, so explosion is used instead? In my opinion, that is basically lying about what supposedly really happened and using an excuse to cover up the mistake.

Question: How much education does one need to understand the difference between an explosion and a expansion? Does it require several college degrees, or will a high school diploma do?

The point is that nothing was created.  We were talking about the conservation of mass and energy.  The energy you saw in that nuclear explosion came directly from the conversion of a couple of kilos of uranium.  Nothing was created or destroyed, just converted from one form to another.
It's none of the above.  It's a plasma.
I'm not dodging the question.  I just don't know.

View Post


Then would it not be a good idea to use deductive reasoning to figure out an idea that works best and go from there?

#27 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 31 July 2009 - 12:46 PM

And therefore is still matter correct?

View Post


The answer is to dodge the question totally instead of answering it directly. In this way one does not commit and therefore cannot be proven wrong.

#28 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 31 July 2009 - 01:00 PM

So everyone else but those who believe in evolution are to stupid to understand expansion, so explosion is used instead? In my opinion, that is basically lying about what supposedly really happened and using an excuse to cover up the mistake.

View Post


Isn't it just easier to say it was an explosion than to say that the early universe was small and filled with an incredibly high homogeneous energy density that was rapidly expanding until energy density levels became low enough to trigger a phase transition that caused the universe to expand exponentially until it consisted of nothing but high energy quarks and gluons?

You don't like the term explosion. Ok. Got it.

Question: How much education does one need to understand the difference between an explosion and a expansion? Does it require several college degrees, or will a high school diploma do?

View Post


Probably not much difference. But to really get a fundamental understanding of what is going on there really requires a degree in physics or cosmology.

Then would it not be a good idea to use deductive reasoning to figure out an idea that works best and go from there?

View Post


That is a capital idea.

#29 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 31 July 2009 - 01:01 PM

The answer is to dodge he question totally instead of answering it directly. In this way one does not commit and therefore cannot be proven wrong.

View Post


Plasma is still matter. I don't think I ever said it wasn't.

#30 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 31 July 2009 - 01:26 PM

Isn't it just easier to say it was an explosion than to say that the early universe was small and filled with an incredibly high homogeneous energy density that was rapidly expanding until energy density levels became low enough to trigger a phase transition that caused the universe to expand exponentially until it consisted of nothing but high energy quarks and gluons?

You don't like the term explosion. Ok.  Got it.


Geez, I have no problem with the term explosion. I do have a problem when people deny it was ever used to explain something when I can prove that it clearly was. How many ways do I have to explain that? Are you just being dumb on purpose for aggravation? With all dues respect, A red neck hick, high school drop out, could understand that.

Probably not much difference. But to really get a fundamental understanding of what is going on there really requires a degree in physics or cosmology.
That is a capital idea.

View Post


Okay, have another problem with big bang.

It is claimed that gravity beyond comprehension is what made the super compression of all matter into a dot, correct? Now what speed of spin would it require for that dot to achieve escape velocity with such a massive gravity pull? And what was the energy source that made it spin up that fast?

You see, when you start breaking down the basics of what is claimed to have happened. There is so much that does not make any sense what so ever. The theory fall apart easily. The only reason it's held onto tightly is because the only alternative is the enemy of evolution. And surely, would not want to go into that direction now would we?

#31 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 31 July 2009 - 03:22 PM

There's way too much topic here for one thread. We could easily double the number of issues presented in the O.P.

Geez, I have no problem with the term explosion. I do have a problem when people deny it was ever used to explain something when I can prove that it clearly was. How many ways do I have to explain that? Are you just being dumb on purpose for aggravation? With all dues respect, A red neck hick, high school drop out, could understand that.
Okay, have another problem with big bang.

I prefer 'explosion' myself. Accurate language is always best.

It is claimed that gravity beyond comprehension is what made the super compression of all matter into a dot, correct? Now what speed of spin would it require for that dot to achieve escape velocity with such a massive gravity pull? And what was the energy source that made it spin up that fast?

This is where you're in for the old switch-a-roo. It is also claimed that the explosion took place before there were any such laws. Had gravity been in effect, there'd be no way to get the black hole to explode. (That's only counting squishing the observed matter down to a dot - it's worse if you throw in "dark" matter.)

You see, when you start breaking down the basics of what is claimed to have happened. There is so much that does not make any sense what so ever. The theory fall apart easily. The only reason it's held onto tightly is because the only alternative is the enemy of evolution. And surely, would not want to go into that direction now would we?

View Post

That's pretty much it. A fantastic (in the strictest sense of the word), self-contradictory story is what philosophical naturalism requires.

#32 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 July 2009 - 04:56 PM

I'm not trying to be ignorant but I laughed when I read this.  :)

First, you didn't answer de_skudd's question. You made an assertion. The only way you could demonstrate such a request is to invent a universal law and reveal how it did not exist before you conjured it. What you asserted is the omnipresence of something, while we want to infer the omnipresence of someone. What makes your assertion more scientific than our assertion?

Second, what a hoot it would be for God to command people to obey the law of gravity. :lol:  :lol:

View Post


The point I was trying to make was that they're not laws in the sense that they're being used. Physical laws always hold true under a given set of circumstances. Find me a "law-giver" who's laws explain how something works and always hold true and I'll concede the point.

#33 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 31 July 2009 - 05:42 PM

Geez, I have no problem with the term explosion. I do have a problem when people deny it was ever used to explain something when I can prove that it clearly was. How many ways do I have to explain that? Are you just being dumb on purpose for aggravation? With all dues respect, A red neck hick, high school drop out, could understand that.

View Post


Ok, I think we're understanding each other there.

Okay, have another problem with big bang.

It is claimed that gravity beyond comprehension is what made the super compression of all matter into a dot, correct?

View Post


No. Right at the very beginning (if the supersymmetry theory is correct) the energy density of the universe was so high that the four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak) were essentially the same force.

As far as I understand it, even after gravity decoupled from the electro-nuclear force, physical characteristics such as mass and charge were essentially meaningless. The energy density of space-time was just too high.

#34 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 August 2009 - 02:28 AM

Ok, I think we're understanding each other there.
No.  Right at the very beginning (if the supersymmetry theory is correct) the energy density of the universe was so high that the four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak) were essentially the same force.

As far as I understand it, even after gravity decoupled from the electro-nuclear force, physical characteristics such as mass and charge were essentially meaningless.  The energy density of space-time was just too high.

View Post


Just as I thought. If it cannot be explained naturally, envoke a "god did it" type situation where anything you want to happen can happen. Because it cannot happen naturally.

#35 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 02 August 2009 - 11:42 AM

Just as I thought. If it cannot be explained naturally, envoke a "god did it" type situation where anything you want to happen can happen. Because it cannot happen naturally.

View Post


I found this essay, Cosmology for Beginners that might help lend some weight to what I'm saying.

#36 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 03 August 2009 - 03:58 AM

I found this essay, Cosmology for Beginners that might help lend some weight to what I'm saying.

View Post


You might think it's because I don't understand something, right? Nope. When science invokes a anything can happen condition so that a "claimed" idea or theory can work. It is just like calling upon God to do it.

Example: I believe a certain thing happened. You come back and say: That cannot be because it breaks this and that law. I say: Because it was the beginning,this and that law did not apply therefore it did happen exactly the way I said.

Now what scientific rules did I apply to make my idea work? Nothing. I dismissed laws to "make" it work. Can I prove my claim that the laws did no exist? No. So what makes my claim scientifically true? Nothing. It is only a possibility that has zero evidence to back it up. One that had to invoke a situation where it could happen barring all known laws.

So basically, I cheated to make it work by calling up a different reality where laws do not exist, even though I can never prove such a time where laws did not exist ever existed.

So to apply this to your post, I'm going to point out the places where you did this:

Ok, I think we're understanding each other there.
No.  Right at the very beginning (if the supersymmetry theory is correct) the energy density of the universe was so high that the four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak) were essentially the same force.

As far as I understand it, even after gravity decoupled from the electro-nuclear force, physical characteristics such as mass and charge were essentially meaningless.  The energy density of space-time was just too high.


1) if the supersymmetry theory is correct....First you are using a questionable theory.
2) (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak) were essentially the same force...Then You draw from it's conclusions to make your point. Which requires the theory to invoke a situation where anything can happen.
3) physical characteristics such as mass and charge were essentially meaningless. The energy density of space-time was just too high..... Then your conclusion is based upon a questionable theory.


So the flow chart goes like this: First comes a problem that cannot be solved while known natural laws exist-------So come up with a theory that eliminates these conditions so that the problem will be solved (which is invoking a god did it type situation)-----Problem solved theory is now correct. And all known laws had to be broken to do it.

So what is scientific about making situations where what you "want" to be true, can be true? Because if breaking laws to make the natural to work is permitted, then so should be the supernatural.

So basically this is a irony situation where you would have a problem if I claimed the power of God, which breaks natural laws, did something. But yet science will invoke the same situation by claiming certain laws did not exist so that certain things can happen.

#37 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 03 August 2009 - 04:40 AM

The point is that nothing was created.  We were talking about the conservation of mass and energy. 

View Post


If nothing was created, then where did the energy, mass and matter come from? It seems you are speculating, and then attempting to pass it off as fact based upon your own authority.

I found this essay, Cosmology for Beginners that might help lend some weight to what I'm saying.

View Post


That's a good Primer for the Cosmological religion. Seeing that is based mostly on speculation.


Find me a "law-giver" who's laws explain how something works and always hold true and I'll concede the point.

View Post


Find me evidence of a Law that wasn't given by a "Law Giver", then we can discuss the point further.

#38 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 August 2009 - 06:49 PM

Find me evidence of a Law that wasn't given by a "Law Giver", then we can discuss the point further.

View Post


No need. You can't distinguish between the meanings, but they are different. Can you provide such a law giver???

#39 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 03 August 2009 - 07:30 PM

No need.  You can't distinguish between the meanings, but they are different.  Can you provide such a law giver???

View Post


If ou cannot provide even one bit of evidence that laws happen naturally, and balance themselves naturally to work together. Then all alternatives must be considered. Can you provide such things?

I also notice your world view. Do you not believe in a law giver? Or is your world view wrong?

#40 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 August 2009 - 08:25 PM

If ou cannot provide even one bit of evidence that laws happen naturally, and balance themselves naturally to work together. Then all alternatives must be considered. Can you provide such things?

I also notice your world view. Do you not believe in a law giver? Or is your world view wrong?

View Post



I don't believe in a need for a law giver under these circumstances if that answers your question.


My point here is that scientific law is different from the legal term which must be laid down. Scientific laws explain what we see.

Things as simple as arithmetic operations qualify as scientific laws.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users