The Big Bang Theory is Wrong

reply to post by Urn


agree

A creator ony needs a creator when constrained by the common or garden physics...

I'm a skeptic of the Big Bang Theory. The major reason is that it is contradictory to the Law of Gravity.
Gravitational constant is believed to be, well, a constant and black hole is a reality. So how all the matter in the universe could suddenly escape the immense gravitational pull greater than that of the biggest black hole now existing and exploded into the present universe is never explained in scientific terms by proponents of the Big Bang Theory even though it contradicts the Law of Gravity.
If all the matter in the present day universe were concentrated at one point in the past, it would have been the biggest black hole that ever existed. No matter, not even light, can escape a black hole. If you ask Big Bang believers what held the matter together at the theoretical point called singularity before the Big Bang, they would say gravity. Then it appears that all of a sudden, the Law of Gravity didn't exist briefly during the Big Bang. Then the Law of Gravity would appear again in the universe after the Big Bang. It just doesn't make sense at all. The proponents of Big Bang have no scientific explanation of all these appearing and disappearing of the Law of Gravity required for Big Bang to have happened.
If gravity that held the matter together in the theoretical singularity did not disappear during the Big Bang, the proponents of Big Bang are unable to nor do they even try to explain what physical process is able to make matter explode out of the Ultimate Black Hole they deceptively call singularity.
I am very disappointed that many famous astrophysicists keep on telling us about the Big Bang as if is a confirmed fact without thinking about the contradictions it would pose on the laws of physics relating to Black Holes.

SimonPang it's the universe/space itself that was that small. It wasn't all the matter compacted into 1 point in space itself. So it's space that expanded and is still expanding...

Originally posted by DarkSide
Even if the big bang turns out to be false, it's not a religion.
If it does fall out, I guess the steady state theory comes back and that's the worst case scenario for any believer since an eternal universe doesn't need a creator at all.

Ya know some of you really need to drop the idea that science and religion can't be mutually exclusive.

It seems every time Science discovers something that substantiates a biblical account, Atheists go on a mission to accuse that Scientist of using science behind the guise of religion. It's as if they want a monopoly on inductive argumets and the protocols of engagement for critical thinking. They hate when the bible is used as a roberts rules or stable datum so if we try their way its a trojan horse for religion.

It's how they kept ID out of schools using the separation of church and state when it pertains to no specific religion but a creator. Well then THAT MUST MEAN GOD!

Call it what you like but if it happens to substantiate what ever it did that does't make it religion it just makes Atheists wrong and they can't handle that. It's much easier for them to accept a Science that is devoid of a GOD in any shape make or form no way no how.

If any science has a bias where they can't even consider the postulate or mere idea a possibility that exists then they aren't using science to find the truth,

they're ignoring it to hide from the truth.

- Con

Here is a link that might help how a creator could pull off the ignition sequence for the universe
plato.stanford.edu...

This is a podcast that should explain the one the threads creator says he particulary likes www.cosmicfingerprints.com...






[edit on 17-12-2007 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by DarkSide
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Cute sig. You wanna an answer to that or you just use it to ask a perpetual question so others will?

Answer is here and covers all the scientific inductive arguments presented as questions in your sig

plato.stanford.edu...

[edit on 17-12-2007 by Conspiriology]

Mind if I ask when did science discover something that substantiates biblical accounts?

Originally posted by DarkSide
SimonPang it's the universe/space itself that was that small. It wasn't all the matter compacted into 1 point in space itself. So it's space that expanded and is still expanding...

Yes, but all the matter also had to be compressed down to a singularity. And while space is expanding, so too is all the matter in it flying away from the other matter.

However to address another's comment, since matter can be converted to energy or may have been in some unknown other form, gravity may not have been an issue at the very start.

Originally posted by DarkSide
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Conspiriology, Darkside won't be able to answer his sig, but I can since I know somebody who got an answer straight from God.

Just to preface, I knew somebody (now dead) who lost his faith and spent a lot of time in religious forums telling people about contradictions in the bible and saying the bible was fictitious in many parts.

Then one night while asleep, he had a dream interrupted by God who told my friend basically to knock off his activity because it was people's faith that was important. My friend asked God a few questions, one of them "Why there was so much evil in the world", the answer he got was something like "Reality (or the world) is like my (God's) dream, and just as a nightmare can't exist without the dreamer, evil can't exist without me (God)".

It's an interesting answer for a couple of reasons. One is that it's similar to the verse in the Bible, "I am the lord God, I make peace and I create evil". But also because it got me thinking about nightmares or horrible dreams which couldn't exist without me, the dreamer. But does that make me malevolent? I'm the creator of my own dreams, but I don't have control over them. Perhaps that's how God operates.

However, whether God is all knowing and all powerful, doesn't mean he should step in and control things his way, as that would take away freewill. And what is the point of creating beings with freewill, only to control them like string puppets? Evil exists because of people's freewill.

I should also point out that the last question my friend asked was how does he know this isn't just a dream he was having, at which point he was shown something that looked like a newspaper heading saying something about Manila Burning. He woke up, didn't understand what that meant. But one year later to the day, there were fires in Manila, fulfilling the prophecy, confirming he was communicating with a higher intelligence (he says God).

Originally posted by DarkSide
Mind if I ask when did science discover something that substantiates biblical accounts?

Read my post, the links are provided.

reply to post by Elhardt


Thats some testimony you gave there. Yeah I see darkside is and always has been antagonistic towards ID Christianity etc.

You would really enjoy that link I left from Stanford, it is the most comprehensive article explaining free will and unties many of the fallacy dichotomy's that Christians get tripped up on by atheists.

Powerful stuff

- Con

Originally posted by DarkSide
Mind if I ask when did science discover something that substantiates biblical accounts?

Here,,, rawstory.com...

Thats a Biblical account

Merry Christmas.

- Con

Yes, but all the matter also had to be compressed down to a singularity. And while space is expanding, so too is all the matter in it flying away from the other matter.

Technically it wasn't even matter. Particles appeared as early space began to cool down.

Then one night while asleep, he had a dream interrupted by God who told my friend basically to knock off his activity because it was people's faith that was important. My friend asked God a few questions, one of them "Why there was so much evil in the world", the answer he got was something like "Reality (or the world) is like my (God's) dream, and just as a nightmare can't exist without the dreamer, evil can't exist without me (God)".

A dream is a dream

Yeah I see darkside is and always has been antagonistic towards ID Christianity etc.

I'm for reason not blind faith. I doubt your god is for blind faith either.

Here,,, rawstory.com...

Wow, proof there was a bright star 2000 years ago, powerful stuff indeed. You know there's "bright lights" in the sky several times a year and there can be "exceptionnal events" like supernovae and stuff. Doesn't mean it's a holy spirit flying through the sky.

heres an interesting aside that provides plenty of food for thought...

white holes.

(a simple google of - white holes +quantum - will give you this same info)

wiki - en.wikipedia.org...

everything2.com...

ask.yahoo.com...

Grock

reply to post by Conspiriology


that's not proof, that media sensationalism from one of the least reliable newsources on television

his first words are "there is no proof"

um.....you lose

I'm with Einstein. Einstein never liked the idea of a finite universe that has a beginning.

For some reason I find it easier to comprehend a universe with no beginning or end - in both time and space. Although a lot of people find that hard to comprehend.

The current evidience for the big bang based on our observation of the universe could be skewed by our limited abilities to see, hear, smell, touch and taste. Scientific theories are based on observation. And we are limited in our observation by our own perceptions. There are other species that exist, like some on earth see the universe in a different way than us. Imagine a fish at the bottom of the ocean for example, which can't comprehend that there's more outside of the water it swims in. The ocean is perceived to be the entire universe for that organism.

Perhaps some day if the human species develop more senses, we may have more evidence or even proof of the big bang.



[edit on 19-12-2007 by curiousbeliever]

Ya know some of you really need to drop the idea that science and religion can't be mutually exclusive.

It seems every time Science discovers something that substantiates a biblical account, Atheists go on a mission to accuse that Scientist of using science behind the guise of religion. It's as if they want a monopoly on inductive argumets and the protocols of engagement for critical thinking. They hate when the bible is used as a roberts rules or stable datum so if we try their way its a trojan horse for religion.

It's how they kept ID out of schools using the separation of church and state when it pertains to no specific religion but a creator. Well then THAT MUST MEAN GOD!

Call it what you like but if it happens to substantiate what ever it did that does't make it religion it just makes Atheists wrong and they can't handle that. It's much easier for them to accept a Science that is devoid of a GOD in any shape make or form no way no how.

If any science has a bias where they can't even consider the postulate or mere idea a possibility that exists then they aren't using science to find the truth,

they're ignoring it to hide from the truth.

- Con

Here is a link that might help how a creator could pull off the ignition sequence for the universe
plato.stanford.edu...

This is a podcast that should explain the one the threads creator says he particulary likes www.cosmicfingerprints.com...






[edit on 17-12-2007 by Conspiriology]




The problem with atheists is that they cannot grasp alternate thought. They would rather believe either that the universe always was (makes them comfortable), or that it magically just appeared one day, got itself all organized, and self created life, and all this from nothing at all. That's majic too. So you see, these atheists that keep slamming Christians, do so because they see the Bible validated every time a scientific revelation comes about. I think they actually really believe in majic. I coudn't figure this out for the longest time untill now. Their scientific ideas are all just hocus-pocus ala-kazam! Can you imagine what it must be like going through life never being able to have any certain answers to anything at all? How sad that is. I guess if I had to live like that I would be an angry atheist too.

BTW, I support the Big Bang theory for it is written (in the Bible) that God "stretched forth the heavens..."

Originally posted by Fromabove
The problem with atheists is that they cannot grasp alternate thought. They would rather believe either that the universe always was (makes them comfortable), or that it magically just appeared one day, got itself all organized, and self created life, and all this from nothing at all. That's majic too.

And you believe that a everlasting bearded wizard created the universe out of nothing, that his son was magically born without a father, that he magically multiplied bead and fish before he was killed by mortals to absorb all the evil of the world. You see anyone can ridicule anything.

So you see, these atheists that keep slamming Christians, do so because they see the Bible validated every time a scientific revelation comes about. I think they actually really believe in majic. I coudn't figure this out for the longest time untill now. Their scientific ideas are all just hocus-pocus ala-kazam! Can you imagine what it must be like going through life never being able to have any certain answers to anything at all? How sad that is. I guess if I had to live like that I would be an angry atheist too.

Which scientific discoveries validate what the bible says? And I don't get where you find this "angry atheist" thing, i'm not angry at anyone..

BTW, I support the Big Bang theory for it is written (in the Bible) that God "stretched forth the heavens..."

You'll find that a scientific theory is a whole more complex than "god stretched forth the heavens", which can be interpreted in a thousand ways... Funny how you call science hocus pocus and then say your support the big bang theory only because of a verse of the bible.

Darkside, The Big Bang Theory doesn't state that the universe was created from a huge lump of matter in a finite space expanding into the present day universe as you mention. The theory says the universe exploded and expanded from an infinitesimal point called singularity to the present day universe.
Even if all the matter of the universe concentrated in a finite space completely occupied by matter, it would still be the biggest black hole ever existed. We know that black holes do not explode, so your scenario is still against the laws of physics.
Elhardt, you point out that it need not be matter that exploded out from the singularity. It could just be some form of energy in the singularity so that the Law of Gravity would not be contradicted. This scenario has two problems:
1/ As far as we know, only matter can be held together by it's own gravity but energy in the form of electromagnetic waves does not have any physical mechanism to concentrate itself at a single point or in a finite space. As a matter of fact pure energy in the form of electromagnetic waves always travels through space with the speed of light instead of staying at one point like matter does.
2/ Matter is a higher concentration of energy per unite space than matter. Just compare the size of the volume of hydrogen used in the H-bomb with the size of the huge ball of energy it creates and you will know what I mean. I have to remind you the huge ball of energy also include the expanding ball of electromagnetic radiations. So it makes more sense that the theoretical singularity be made up of super concentrated matter instead of super concentrated energy.
So if the theoretical singularity was made up of super concentrated matter, there is a problem with contradicting the Law of Gravity for the ultimate black hole to explode.
If the theoretical singularity was made up of super concentrated energy, then there are problems with unknown energy type, unknown energy confining mechanism and unknown explosion trigger mechanism. To have so many unknowns in the Big Bang Theory against the known laws of physics makes it sound more like a Creation Belief than a scientific theory.
The Big Bang theory is created based on the assumption that the observed cosmological red shift is entirely due to Doppler effect of stars and galaxies moving away from earth. John Kierein proposes that the red shift is due to the Compton effect of light's energy being absorbed by electrons in space. The further away the star is from earth, the more energy of the light is absorbed on it's long journey to earth, hence the greater red shift.
Since greater red shift is always observed from galaxies of greater distance, the Big Bang proponents believe that the further away the galaxies are from earth, the faster they move away from earth. Lately scientists have even observed red shift which would only be possible when the galaxies, which are composed of matter, move away from earth at speed greater than that of light. In order to keep Big Bang Theory alive, some scientists claim that those galaxies do move faster than the speed of light even though the Theory of Relativity dictates that matter cannot be accelerated to the speed of light as it would require infinity amount of energy.
Another problem with the explanation of red shift arise from the Big Bang Theory is that the speed of distant galaxies move away from earth with a speed proportional to the distance from earth. In fact this scenario is only true if the earth were the center of the whole universe during and after the Big Bang. If the earth is not in the center and we look towards the direction of the center, we should see galaxies slow down with distance first then increase speed with distance after passing the center region. Red shifts indicating such scenario have never been observed in any direction from earth. How come the Big Bang proponents can’t see such simple dynamics of explosion?
The Big Bang Theory is wrong.

Originally posted by DarkSide

Originally posted by Fromabove
The problem with atheists is that they cannot grasp alternate thought. They would rather believe either that the universe always was (makes them comfortable), or that it magically just appeared one day, got itself all organized, and self created life, and all this from nothing at all. That's majic too.

And you believe that a everlasting bearded wizard created the universe out of nothing, that his son was magically born without a father, that he magically multiplied bead and fish before he was killed by mortals to absorb all the evil of the world. You see anyone can ridicule anything.

So you see, these atheists that keep slamming Christians, do so because they see the Bible validated every time a scientific revelation comes about. I think they actually really believe in majic. I coudn't figure this out for the longest time untill now. Their scientific ideas are all just hocus-pocus ala-kazam! Can you imagine what it must be like going through life never being able to have any certain answers to anything at all? How sad that is. I guess if I had to live like that I would be an angry atheist too.

Which scientific discoveries validate what the bible says? And I don't get where you find this "angry atheist" thing, i'm not angry at anyone..

BTW, I support the Big Bang theory for it is written (in the Bible) that God "stretched forth the heavens..."

You'll find that a scientific theory is a whole more complex than "god stretched forth the heavens", which can be interpreted in a thousand ways... Funny how you call science hocus pocus and then say your support the big bang theory only because of a verse of the bible.

No, I did not say that science was hocus pocus, but that atheistic ideas on science are. When you don't have the answer to any fact such as the existence of the universe, and it's origin, then all possibilities are open. But when you refuse one because you don't like it, your science becomes meaningless, and that's why I call it "hocus pocus". You cannot exclude one possiblity if you don't have the answer. It's like the global warming debate, if you are Al Gore, the thought that it could be caused by the sun and cosmic radiation is alien to you. It has to be caused by man, so you jiggle a few numbers and leave out that one possibility and Ala-Kazam..! Presto-chango ! there it is... "majic science"... It's man's fault.