[article]The "Big Bang" is just religion disguised as science.

We already know that in the cataclysm of a supernova, the heavier elements are created.

Wrong. The heavier elements are created before supernova, during millions of years of burning lighter elements. Also, supernova and big bang are quite different things.


If someone wants to argue against any theory, he has to understand it first. The author of this article obviously doesnt.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by Maslo]


Actually this is not quite true.

Elements up to and including iron are formed in stars but fusion becomes endothermic for all elements above iron and are created only in supernovas where temperatures and pressures are sufficient to create these elements via fusion.

If someone want to argue against a theory arguing against a theory, understand the first theory thoroughly first!

reply to post by OZtracized


Yeah, you are right. Those are elements heavier than iron.

Big bang theory predicts that there should be hydrogen, helium and lithium in the early universe. This agrees with observation.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Big bang theory is nothing like supernova.

The source of the OP article is a right-wing-mad-dog web site. Hardly the place to find reliable scientific information. Which this most definitely isn't.

reply to post by Astyanax

Poisoning the Well Fallacy

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua.[1]
The origin of the term lies in the ancient practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army in order to diminish the invading army's strength. In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information that may pro duce a biased result. For example, if a woman tells her friend, "I think I might buy this beautiful dress", then asks how it looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect her friend's response.
An even simpler example of poisoning the well is by tautology and definition, or circular reasoning. This is similar to equivocation, where the use of words communicate a confusing meaning (often called a subtle lie). For example, if one starts an argument with "Everything I say is correct, no matter what you say", the well is poisoned and nothing a person says (be it true or false) will matter by the initiator's definition.

SOURCE

And welcome back knew you'd be back.

Whether Big-Bang-Theory is a Religion or not depends on how it is used. If it is used in the sense of "OK, this finally explains our origins, life, the universe and everything" then it does sound like a religious cult.

Thinking in linear terms of "primary cause", "first cause", "what was before that" etc. will never uncover the source of Life, imo, because you will always have some cause that precedes the prior cause. Thats why Spiritual-Thought hypothesizes a Reality/Dimension beyond linear cause and effect.

If I shoot an arrow at an apple and the apple falls down and squashes a Bug, what "caused" the Bug to die? The arrow? The apple? The gust of wind that put the Bug there in the first place? Or did the Big Bang cause the Bugs death? Maybe nothing caused it. Maybe Linear-Cause is an Illusion that is only valid within a small frame of reference called daily life. If i have the Intention to squash the Bug and squash it with my boot, for practical purposes, one can say "I caused it". But what caused my impulse to want to squash it? What caused it being there? What caused the Big Bang? There really is no primary cause of anything

reply to post by Skyfloating


I think the author of the article did as a lot of atheists do. Myths = religion.

To be honest, I do not accept the Big Bang theory as fact. I find the theory itself ludicrous.

Plasma theory is a much more plausible and a better theory of the universe:
bigbangneverhappened.org...

reply to post by sphinx551


It's not whether *you* find the theory ludicrous, but whether the evidence does. And, at the moment, the evidence finds plasma cosmology ludicrous. Science doesn't work by opinion, but evidence.

You can read some more about why your boy Lerner is wrong.

reply to post by davesidious


Um. Yes it does. Intrepretation of "evidence" is a matter of opinion. Just as what constitutes "evidence" is a matter of opinion.