Problems with the Big Bang theory

If God is infinite then he occupies all of reality.So either the Universe and everything in it IS God, or there's no room for him. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

To DivineBeginning: Time to stop mentioning God. That doesn't mean he didn't create the universe, lots of us believe that, but this is a science forum where the focus is on the objectively observable.To everyone else: I think DivineBeginning has been trying to avoid bringing his religious beliefs into the discussion, but it's not something he's used to doing, and I think you're making it harder for him to do this. Please help him out a little.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

So you are engaged in special pleading.The fact that you don't like where the logic goes is not my problem.Thanks.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

That sounds fair enough. Thanks for the help

DevineBeginning: I thought this was a science thread about Problems with the Big Bang, not a faith and belief thread about your apparent inability to answer simple questions without feeling insulted.

it is, you're right. It's just that I wasn't getting my questions answered without being ridiculed for being closed minded or an idiot or something of that nature. It seems that my comments and questions are not wanted here. There are a lot of very bitter people that harbor very negative feelings about God. This is out of my control. Oh well. I'll just start another thread. I think taking the moral high ground and not ridiculing everyone that disagrees with me would be the right thing to do however...do you agree?

see Message 30, seeing as continuing this is off topic here.

Please do not call us bitter just because we do not share your same beliefs.We only "indirectly" accused you of being closed-minded because everytime a logical argument was made against your infinite God and His perfect Universe, you refused to respond with a logical answer, and instead responded with things like "God always existed, end of story" or something like that nature. The only (logical) conclusion to be drawn from this is that you have no logical reasoning behind your statements that God is infinite. It is okay to have faith in something, and no one is calling you out on it, but we all just wanted to point out that God is not scientific and so you shouldn't post about Him in the science forums.Now, because Percy already said most of that, I think it's useless to keep arguing this. Either you'll agree and start a new thread, or you'll just end up getting yourself banned.I do hope you start a new thread elsewhere though, it would be a good thing to read and look over. Just post in the Proposed Topics place and someone will transfer it over... Can't wait to read it!J0N

Here are a couple of definitions of the big bang.""A broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. The theory says that the universe started expanding roughly 14 billion years ago from an extremely dense and incredibly hot initial state.
Page not found – Contemporary Physics Education ProjectThe primeval explosion which most astronomers think gave rise to the universe as we see it today, in which clusters of galaxies are moving apart from one another. By "running the film backward'' ” projecting the galaxies' motions backward of time ” astronomers calculate that the Big Bang happened about 10 to 15 billion years ago.
Programs-at-a-Glance : EDUCATION : Astronomical Society of the PacificThe explosion and rapid explansion of matter that occurred at the creation of our universe. In the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang, all matter is thought to have consisted of free quarks and gluons at extremely high temperatures and densities. This plasma then cooled and coalesced into the particles and atoms that now make up all objects in the universe.
http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/glossary.htm""
I could go on. The theory as it appears above, and what most people believe it to be is flawed.Flaw : when something explodes, the particles that fly off all spin in the same direction. The direction of the spinning before the explosion. This contradicts what we observe today. Planets and possibly galaxies spinning in completely oppostie directions.
will post more later. Have to go

quote:

---

when something explodes, the particles that fly off all spin in the same direction.

---

This is false. When something explodes, the eddies in the expanding material will all have angulary momenta in different directions.Added by edit:
And no one has to take my word for it. All they have to do is watch slow motion movies of rabidly expanding material (even material exploding). You can even see the different eddies spinning in different directions.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

I count three... the first vague but fairly indisputable, the latter two erroneous and inadequate in their own way. The Big Bang has NOTHING in common with an explosion. As Percy recently pointed out, the term Big Bang was introduced as an insulting derogatory name by one of the leading opponents of the Big Bang. At that time, the principle complaints against the Big Bang were by atheists who thought that it smacked too much of Creation and seemed far too theistic. Interesting, huh? Really? I've never heard that, and I'm a physicist! Have you any evidence that this is true? Who told you this? There's no known physical process that would suggest that it should be true... very strange. I'm sure you're not going to mention conservation of angular momentum, as obviously that would only insist that the sum of all the ang moms of all the debris would equal the sum of the original ang mom. Of course it says nothing about the individual ang moms. So I'm truly confused...

This erroneous claim has already drawn two responses, so I'll approach it from a different angle.Anyone unfamiliar with physics will hear your explanation and say, "Oh, I see. So that's why the Big Bang is impossible."Anyone familiar with physics will recognize the basic physics errors, as did Chiroptera (using observation) and Cavediver (using theory).So what you're offering us is an explanation that is clearly wrong to both scientists and those familiar with physics, indicating that it has been crafted to convince those not too familiar with physics. In other words, it is something that Kent Hovind might say to an audience of devout Christians at a Bible college where you won't find many serious science majors.So what you've identified isn't a problem with the Big Bang, but a problem with your source of information, which has either a poor grasp of physics or of basic honesty. Take your pick.--Percy

I thought the COBE nailed the whole "Big Bang" theory? It picked up the background radiation for a "beginning" to our universe, right? I think people still have this thought of an explosion in the vacuum of space. I thought it was more of an "expansion" of sorts? I guess what I am trying to type is the inflation theory falls in line with more of what I am reading here, right?If not, then please explain to me how something can just move away from itself without an explosion, pop, whatever, if it is condensed in the first place.

Several points. This is the science section of the board. You have to provide evidence.Second, Jon pointing out that you were using the logical fallacy of
'special pleading' is quite accurate. The problem you 'resolved' by saying 'god did it' just puts the same condition on God.Third, your response to Jon when he pointed out that you were using the logical fallacy of "ad homenin", since you responded attacking Jon
rather than dealing with his point that you had a double standard when dealing witht he 'God/universe' issue.

Of course science can be used anywhere to support a position, even on the faith side.The difference is that on the Faith side, you are free to say that you reject all the evidence simply because it conflicts with your beliefs. On the Faith side a pleading of "Willful Ignorance" is acceptable.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion