just a question

I just want to ask a question of anyone who believes in the big bang theory.First, some background. There are two accepted scientific laws I would like to restate here.1. Matter can neither be created or destroyed.
2. (I'm not exactly sure how it's stated) The law of entropy, or everything goes from a state of higher order to a state of lower order(or order to chaos)My question? How do these laws mesh with the Big Bang Theory?
Let the flaming begin

They offer no conflict. Energy is conserved from the first moment of time and the universe has been winding down ever since.

In particle accerators, many particles of very heavy mass are routinely created. Mass can be created. Particles and their antiparticles will annihilate each other, destroying mass. This has been experimentally confirmed. So matter can be created and destroyed. (Actually, I admit to being disengenuous here - but I don't have time to explain why the wording of your question is wrong, change your question to the correct wording, and then answer that. Maybe someelse will do this - hint: the correct question will use the word energy somewhere in it.)As far as entropy, the univese began in a state of very low entropy. So far, our current laws of physics only work after a very small time after the Big Bang. Our current understanding is still not enough to come up with definite answers as to the very beginning of it all. If you want to believe that God made the Big Bang 12 billion years ago, by all means do so.

Okay, what I meant was, if energy and matter are interchangeable and can't be destroyed, only change form, then where did the original energy/mass for the big bang come from?And, if, according to the law of entropy, everything degenerates from order to disorder, then how did we come from just a lot of energy/mass blowing up to the different elements and then to planets, suns, people, etc. This seems to be a progression from less order to higher order to me. I might be wrong though, that's why I'm asking.Feel free to flame.

We don't know much about the instant of "creation". Our laws of physics only work to within a minute fraction of a second afterwards - we need better theories to go back further. All we can say at this point is that the universe began, that there was energy (although, taking into account the negative gravitational energy of the early universe, the net energy may have been zero, as Beercules pointed out). And the universe began in a state of very low entropy, which has been increasing ever since. Why? How? No one knows (yet). If you want to say God created it that way, then do so. However, the evidence is incontrovertible that there was a Big Bang.

like i've said, chiroptera, what evidence? we can guess, but that's all we can do. Educated guesses, yes, but still guesses.

ChiopteraI just wanted to help clarify a point that may be lost. You state this in post #3."Particles and their antiparticles will annihilate each other, destroying mass. This has been experimentally confirmed. So matter can be created and destroyed."It has to be realized that altough matter can be created and destroyed the total amount of energy in the universe remains the same.I also wish to point out,in the interest of clarity,mass and matter are not the same.------------------
"Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry."

Yes, you are right, but I admitted that I was being "disengenuous". I just didn't feel like correcting the question. But thinker corrected it him/herself (like I hoped he would) in the next post. Sorry if it sounded like I was ignorant. I should have taken the time to reask the question after all, I guess.

ChiopteraNo worries I just wanted to make sure that readers who do not no it are not confused when they are being told these things.I just nw corrected the same error in a post by holmes.

Not guesses; a well established hypothesis, tested again and again by repeated observations.I found this in a simple web search. Notice that the first paragraph is about evidence. It is only a very brief description, however. If you want to know more, I suggest going to your local library - they will have books written for the layperson about cosmology - most will describe in some detail the history of the field, and the observations that are made that confirm it. But, whatever you do, avoid creationist literature. They get even simple science facts wrong, and often completely distort the actual evidence. They are not to be trusted.

You are quite right, sidelined. No need for me to say silly things and make evolutionists look foolish - the creationists are already really good at making evolution look silly. (wink)

Evidence for what?
As has been stated the initial instant of the big bang and any possible "cause" is barely out of the speculation stage as yet. There is no evidence and it would be a bit early to expect any. It was made clear you may create your own speculation in this area and don't have to supply evidence to support it and still be on an even footing (in that regard) with other ideas.After that initial instant there is a lot of evidence and very good predictive ability for what happened and how. Do you have a replacement that has a similar capability?

i realize this. I made a statement in another subject about people not accepting facts that conflict with their own points of view. All i'm trying to do is break people from being so dogmatic. I've read many discussions on this forum where people just accept things because "such and such a scientist said so" or "the bible said so" or even "so and so wrote something making fun of it". People have a mind and should use it. All i want is to make people think and question things, not accept them just because someone else said so. I believe many things have to be taken on faith, but on your own personal faith, not on someone elses statement that it happened/is/was. Anyway, that's the end of my rant. As always, feel free to say what you like.

quote:

---

I've read many discussions on this forum where people just accept things because "such and such a scientist said so" or "the bible said so" or even "so and so wrote something making fun of it". People have a mind and should use it.

---

Would it help if I were to admit that I was once a fundamentalist Christian? A creationist and very strong conservative? And that now I accept evolution, I am an atheist, and a Marxist? And that I changed my positions on these broad issues (and even now continue to modify my positions) based on what I read in the papers, read in books (on many subjects, from many points of view), and even what I see with my own eyes as I walk down the street, or what I hear when I listen to people talk about themselves and their own beliefs? You are correct, it is a bad thing to be dogmatic in any belief, to refuse to think about facts that contradict what you want to believe, but, then, not every one who has strong beliefs is necessarily dogmatic.

that is true, people can change, and many do; and having a strong belief is not being dogmatic, but most people choose not to. The path of least resistance is usually the one you've been traveling. It would take a lot to make most people change their fundamental views. Now to change what they say is their views is something different. That is the easiest thing in the world to do, especially if you are being mocked/persecuted/discriminated against for them. That is what most people do. If you do change your fundamentals, I commend you. I like to think i do also. As for me, I'm a Christian(i don't know the accepted meaning of "fundamental" so i can't say if i am one or not), I am very interested in science, and I believe in democracy. For all i know, evolution could work. But I don't know all the answers, no human does, and i accept that. Because of that, i question everything. But i do have fundamental beliefs also. Sorry, this turned into another rant. Feel free to reply however you like. Just, please think about what i've said.------------------
All I know is that I know nothing at all.