Big Bang Theory?!
The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted as the most logical creation of everything since we really don't have all that much to go on. There's been observation in trajectory and the like that leads towards some sort of outward explosion from what we can see.
Though, once again, it's the most widely accepted theory only because we have evidence supporting it. But not enough to prove it.
Even if you do believe in creationism, I think it might still be possible to believe in the big bang but have a totally different reason behind it happening. Whatever works for you.
Only thing that makes sense.
Side Score: 25
|
 |
It's a crock.
Side Score: 15
|
|
|
|
|
5
points
It's a theory. A little fact, a little logic; that's what theory's are! I doubt we'll ever know the answer to the beginning of the universe. This is just the the most logical explanation of our time. It'll change and be tweaked as time continues to move forward. Side: Only thing that makes sense.
Hello beinglostats, It's a pleasure to read of some honesty of the limitations of human knowledge. Bare in mind though, logic can never teach the truth, and no truth is learned without logic. We can be logical in what we think is truth, but being logical is no assurance of learning the truth. Side: untestable
well, it's not the ONLY thing that makes sense... after all, no one can really explain it fully and it ends up just being a paradox. so it makes as much sense as every other theory out there. Really, the only thing that makes sense is the notion that we have very little understanding and that the Universe is much more than how we perceive it. Think of this: Our brains, in being the rational kinds of the animal kingdom, end up being irrational in trying to rationalize everything. I'm not saying DON'T try to figure everything out just because technically we can't, just understand that our brains are INCAPABLE of perceiving the Universe and its foundations. But, the Big Bang is really just a start, and could be dead wrong. But hey, what else you got? Side: Only thing that makes sense.
The intellectual integrity in your answer of this question has been noted by me. I did not say dishonesty! The Big Bang: The theory doesn't posit what exactly did bang or what is the cause of the bang. The theory also overlooks the fact that something could bang and be heard without an atmosphere. I grant some would say, "Oh, it was a singularity of matter!" And I would say, "Really, a singularity of which matter?" This is a comment....not a rebuttal. Side: untestable
The Big Bang theory is not a theory of origination. It postulates a singularity at the "beginning", but only because the mechanics of General Relativity break down at those size scales; a full quantum theory of gravity might give a better idea of what happened then, but we won't know until one is formulated. What the Big Bang describes is the evolution of the universe very shortly after the Beginning (~10^-43 seconds). From that point on, there is overwhelming evidence that the Inflationary model is a very accurate description of what happened. That said, the Big Bang, being based on General Relativity without quantum considerations, is known to be an incomplete theory. No one suggests that it is The Truth. Potentially better models have been suggested—using more complicated metrics, string theory, or semiclassical gravity—but as they are newer they have had less time for review than the Big Bang model. Nevertheless, they all still essentially reduce to the Big Bang model at appropriate scales, meaning that while the Big Bang may not be the ultimate reality of what happened, it will almost certainly remain the best "simple model" in the same way that classical mechanics represents the best physical model of everyday interactions. Side: Only thing that makes sense.
1
point
I love Anne Rice's vision of the Big Bang, as recounted in Memnoch, the Devil. Basically, God existed, it was Heaven, and he got bored and created angels and made the place rock. But he got bored with that, and decided one day to create matter. And when he did...BIG BANG. Anyway, I do believe the theory, but not as an alternative to God. Side: Only thing that makes sense.
1
point
This theory is the only alternative to a purely religious based belief. For example the collision of parallel universes (called branes in M-theory) would not explain the existence of the parallel universes. The collision theory would have the over all effect of reducing the observable universe to mere sub-universe while leaving unexplained the universe as whole. So from a scientific view point there is no real alternative to the big bang. The big bang as a theoretical entity is versatile. For example one can make a distinction between a spatial expansion phase verses a stellar(i.e. matter) expansion phase. One could characterize different theories of the big bang as either a spatial big bang (the classical approach) vs a stellar big bang (non-classical approach which would be incorrect theory but it can be view in that way). Then you could ask exactly at what point did matter form; here you can develop ideas along several paths: e.g. you can say space expanded to its maximum size which caused a shock that then produce a stellar big bang that we see now, or you could say matter formed almost immediately after space popped into existence. Ultimately what form would be correct will be determined by equations. For now this will due some things I will leave for a full debate. Side: Only thing that makes sense.
1
point
There are substantial facts supporting the theory (including the cosmic background microwave radiation), however, there are some issues that must be determined, such as the observed asymmetrical distribution of matter and antimatter in the universe. Side: Only thing that makes sense.
1
point
|
While it's the only thing that makes sense right now, something about my logic train tells me that you cant explode an entire universe from nothing. Even if that is how it happened, where did that come from? How do we know the big bang was the beginning? What if it was just a super massive explosion? Not that it matters but, I just can't comprehend it. Side: It's a crock.
Well according to every evolutionist on this site, the Big Bang was from an extreme dense piece of matter (I agree). But where did this come from? None of them have an answer! They all thing the universe has always been there. As in it explodes and unites and explodes and unites and so on. Even if THIS is true, there had to be a first explosion! Side: Only thing that makes sense.
2
points
"Well according to every evolutionist on this site, the Big Bang was from an extreme dense piece of matter (I agree)." Why do you think it meaningful or appropriate to mention "evolutionists" when talking about an issue of cosmology? Shouldn't you be more concerned with what cosmologists, astronomers and physicists have to say about the matter? "But where did this come from? None of them have an answer!" No answer at all or no answer you accept? How much of the scientific literature have you read? Go to a journal and do a relevant search and I'm sure you'll find plenty of answers. "They all thing the universe has always been there." Well, the universe in its currently inflating state has not always been there. Matter - on the other hand - has, in some form or another. "Even if THIS is true, there had to be a first explosion!" Well, it's not an explosion. It's an expansion (like cookie dough being baked) of pre-existing matter. But, so what if there had to be a "first expansion"? Side: Only thing that makes sense.
Despite what a lot of religious people like to claim, the big bang theory doesn't assert that "nothing exploded". The big bang theory doesn't address the question of what came before or what may exist outside of our universe. It's just a simple fact that the universe is expanding and therefore must be expanding from a single point -- that's it. It's impossible to know anything about the stuff that may or may not exist beyond or before our universe. Side: Only thing that makes sense.
1
point
well lets see if we can understand this theory. are you saying that in the beginning when the universe was no bigger than a speck of dust, it exploded? wouldn't it seem rational if in fact the universe began so small that even before its existence it was nothing? it has expanded from nothing? could nothing explode and create something? how? why? if it were nothing how can it be? this the unfortunate reality of scientific explanations bordering on an almighty as the true explanation. what came first, the chicken or the egg? how can an egg exist without a chicken? maybe you are only, as is all of this around you, a creation of your own imagination! limitless speculation, the sky is the limit! swim within the confines of the mind as it expands much like the universe! by the way, it wasn't a big bang, it was a big splash!!! Side: It's a crock.
1
point
THE BIG BANG THEORY: Theorizes that a large quantity of NOTHINGNESS decided to pack tightly together, ----and EXPLODE outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space ("frictionless ", so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons. According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this nothingness condensed by gravity into a single, tiny spot; and it decided to explode! This produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which flowed outward at incredible speed throughout empty space; for there was no other matter in the universe. As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at supersonic speed, they are said to have formed themselves into typical atomic structures of mutually orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms. Gradually, the outward-racing atoms are said to have begun circling one another, producing gas clouds which then pushed together into stars. These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of the stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosions of each star to produce our heavier elements. Gamow describe it like this "In violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space and rushed into a superdense core, that had a density of 10 94 gm/cm2 and a temperature in exess of 10/39 degrees absolute. (That is a lot of heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness, especially when it is impossible for nothing to get hot). This theory stands in clear violation of physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common sense. Here are a number of scientific reasons why the BIG BANG THEORY is unworkable and fallacious. 1. Nothingness can not pack together 2. a Vacuum has no density 3. There would be no ignition to explode nothingness 4. How do you expand what isn't there. 5. Nothingness cannot produce heat 6. The anti-matter would have destroyed all the regular matter. Now lets look at the outward pushing particles 1. There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, tehy would keep getting farther apart. 2. Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles. 3. The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. They could not get together and begin circling one another. 4. No way to change the direction of even one particle Now look at the gases (lets imagine the particles could get together) 1. Gas molecules in outer space are widely separated 2. Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together Look at "Push themselves into stars" 1. Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together 2. Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars 3. There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently know expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars. 4. Gas clouds in outer space to not contract. We could go on and on. This information came from "The evolution handbook" by Vance Ferrell this book has over 3,000 facts which annihilate evolutionary theory Side: It's a crock.
|
