- Joined
- Nov 30, 2011
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
the Big Band Theory
I was doing my daily devotional on Blue Letter Bible (if you are a Christian, this is a great website) and saw a link to a website called "Encouragement for Believers Science Update". This site isn't affiliated with BLB. It was just advertised on it. The article I read was astonishing. However, I do like to vet my sources and am hoping there are some users on this site that are more read in to this subject. The link to the article is provided below. It is a great read, cites many prominent scientists (Hubble, Hawking, etc), and at least seems to disprove the Big Bang Theory. Now, the article does state that their findings do not prove God exists or the creation "theory". However, it does disprove the Big Bang Theory. Please, do not turn this into a "You're going to hell because you don't believe in God!" or "Christians are just archaic idiots that don't believe real science!" threads. That's not the intent. The intent is good, honest debate citing sources and sound judgement. Thanks.
fms-found
It never ceases to amaze me that people push the BBT as fact, when it is impossible to have occurred.
How so?
Physics,
Science,
Reality, Facts.
Interesting article.
It never ceases to amaze me that people push the BBT as fact, when it is impossible to have occurred.
I was doing my daily devotional on Blue Letter Bible (if you are a Christian, this is a great website) and saw a link to a website called "Encouragement for Believers Science Update". This site isn't affiliated with BLB. It was just advertised on it. The article I read was astonishing. However, I do like to vet my sources and am hoping there are some users on this site that are more read in to this subject. The link to the article is provided below. It is a great read, cites many prominent scientists (Hubble, Hawking, etc), and at least seems to disprove the Big Bang Theory. Now, the article does state that their findings do not prove God exists or the creation "theory". However, it does disprove the Big Bang Theory. Please, do not turn this into a "You're going to hell because you don't believe in God!" or "Christians are just archaic idiots that don't believe real science!" threads. That's not the intent. The intent is good, honest debate citing sources and sound judgement. Thanks.
fms-found
For starters The Big Bang: Mission Impossible
And, I can just post links all day showing actual science journals, etc. For popular reference, I suggest you read "A Universe from Nothing" by Laurence Krauss.For starters The Big Bang: Mission Impossible
Remember the last time we talked, and I told you NOT just to post links when I ask you questions? For Ion's sake, can you just answer me straight up instead of showering my with links to rather unimaginatively designed websites?
I mean seriously, the first paragraph actually says this: " First of all and most importantly, it contradicts the Bible which is absolute Truth."
What nonsense. He goes on to offer no proof as to why the Bible's "Absolute Truth" is superior, instead goes on to create positions for himself to knock down.
Seriously, I don't mind even if you Copy and Paste.
The Big Bang Theory CollapsesThe Big Bang Theory Collapses
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
"Down with the Big Bang;" "The Big Bang Theory Goes Kerplooey;" "The Big Bang Theory Explodes;" "Sorry, Big Bang Theory is a Dud;" "Map Challenges Theory of Universe;" "Astronomers' New Data Jolt Vital Part of Big Bang Theory;" "Quasar Clumps Dim Cosmological Theory." These have been titles of a few of the articles found in newspapers and science journals in the last two or three years, as the Big Bang theory has received one body blow after another. And why not? We know that the universe did not begin with a big bang -- it will end with a big bang, for "but the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (II Peter 3:10 ). Cosmologists have thus miserably failed as to the time, nature, and cause of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang theory concerning the origin of the universe was spawned about 50 years ago, and soon became the dogma of the evolutionary establishment. It has had many dissenters, however, including the British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, the Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven, and astronomers Geoffrey Burbidge and Halton Arp. According to the Big Bang theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago, all of the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg, or plasma ball, consisting of sub-atomic particles and radiation. Nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got there -- it was just there. For some equally inexplicable reason, the cosmic egg exploded. As the matter and radiation expanded, so the theory says, it cooled sufficiently for elements to form, as protons and electrons combined to form hydrogen of atomic weight one, and neutrons were subsequently captured to form helium of atomic weight four. Most of the gas that formed consisted of hydrogen. These gases, it is then supposed, expanded radially in all directions throughout the universe until they were so highly dispersed that an extremely low vacuum and temperature existed. No oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, sulfur, copper, iron, nickel, uranium, or other elements existed. The universe consisted essentially of hydrogen gas. Then somehow, we are told, the molecules of gas that were racing out at an enormous speed in a radial direction began to collapse in on themselves in local areas by gravitational attraction. The molecules within a space of about six trillion miles diameter collapsed to form each star, a hundred billion stars somehow collected to form each of the estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe, and our own solar system formed about five billion years or so ago from a cloud of dust and gas made up of the exploded remnants of previously existing stars. No satisfactory theory exists to explain any of these events, but cosmologists remained firm in their conviction that all of these marvelous events would eventually yield to credible explanations. But now a cruel fate has befallen the grandest theory of all -- the Big Bang theory.
Based on the Big Bang theory, cosmologists predicted that the distribution of matter throughout the universe would be homogeneous. Thus, based upon the so-called Cosmological Principle, it was postulated that the distribution of galaxies in the universe would be essentially uniform. No matter in which direction one looked, if one looked far enough, one would see the same number of galaxies. There would be no large scale clusters of galaxies or great voids in space. Recent research, however, has revealed massive superclusters of galaxies and vast voids in space. We exist in a very "clumpy" universe.
The present crisis in Big Bang cosmologies began in 1986, when R. Brent Tully, of the University of Hawaii, showed that there were ribbons of superclusters of galaxies 300 million light-years long and 100 million light-years thick, stretching out about a billion light-years, and separated by voids about 300 million light-years across.[1] These structures are much too big for the Big Bang theory to produce. At the speeds at which galaxies are supposed to be moving, it would require 80 billion years to create such a huge complex, but the age of the universe is supposed to be somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years.
In November of 1989, Margaret Geller and John Huchra, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, announced the results of their research. Their map of the sky revealed what they termed the "Great Wall" -- a huge sheet of galaxies 200 million light years across and 700 million light years long.[2] A team of American, British, and Hungarian astronomers, it is reported, discovered even larger structures.[3] They found galaxies clustered into thin bands spaced about 600 millon light years apart. The pattern of these clusters stretched across about one-fourth of the diameter of the universe, or about seven billion light years. This huge shell and void pattern would have required nearly 150 billion years to form, based on their speed of movement, if produced by the standard Big Bang cosmology.
Even more recently (January 3, 1991), Will Saunders and nine fellow astronomers published the results of their all-sky redshift survey of galaxies detected by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite. This survey revealed the existence of a far-greater number of massive superclusters of galaxies than can be accounted for by Big Bang cosmologies.[4]
In an attempt to salvage the Big Bang theory, cosmologists have invented hypotheses to explain the failures of their hypotheses. One of these is the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) theory. According to this theory, 90-99% of the matter in the universe cannot be detected. If CDM existed, it would supply sufficient gravitational pull to create large clusters of galaxies. The structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM did exist, it could not account for their formation. Saunders and co-workers thus state that the CDM model can be ruled out to at least the 97% confidence level. In the same issue of Nature, in which is found the article by Saunders, et al, there appears an article by David Lindley in the "News and Views" section (p. 14) entitled "Cold Dark Matter Makes an Exit." Caltech cosmologist S. George Djorgovski, taking into account the astronomical observations that contradict the CDM theory, states that the demise of the notion of the existence of cold dark matter is inevitable.[5]
Also very recently, the U.S.-European Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT), detecting x-ray emissions, discovered evidence of giant superclusters of quasars on the edge of the universe, supposedly eight to 12 billion light years from the earth.[6] Physicist Paul Steinhardt, of the University of Pennsylvania, states that "This may be the start of the death knell of the cold-dark-matter theory. " Even if this hypothetical matter existed, it still could not explain the existence of these giant clusters of quasars.
If all of this weren't bad enough news for Big Bang cosmologists, results from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) should really make them wish they had gone into some other field. Based on the Big Bang theory, it was predicted that there should exist a background radiation equivalent to a few degrees Kelvin. Sure enough, in 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, radio engineers at Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, discovered a microwave background radiation of 2.7° K. Evolutionary cosmologists were absolutely delighted. This discovery was considered proof of the Big Bang, and Penzias and Wilson were duly awarded Nobel Prizes. It now appears, however, that the background radiation may turn out to be additional evidence against the Big Bang theory, rather than its proof.
Since the Big Bang theory predicted a homogeneous universe with matter evenly distributed throughout the universe (which it most certainly is not, as described above), evolutionary cosmologists expected that the background radiation would be perfectly smooth. That is, no matter in which direction one looked, the background radiation would be the same. Just as predicted, the background radiation was perfectly smooth. Theorists were delighted, smug in the assurance that this background radiation was the leftover whimper of the Big Bang. Now, however, it turns out that the universe is not homogeneous, but is extremely lumpy, with massive superclusters of galaxies and great voids in space. Thus , if the background radiation is left over from the Big Bang, it should not be smooth, but should be more intense in certain directions than in others, indicating inhomogeneities at the very start of the universe, immediately following the initial moments of the Big Bang. Astronomers thus began to search for differences in the background radiations. All measurements showed it to be perfectly smooth. Thus COBE was launched to an orbit 559 miles above the earth, carrying sensitive instruments to measure the background radiation. Alas, preliminary data from COBE announced in January, show absolutely no evidence of inhomogeneity in the background radiation. It is perfectly smooth.[7]
"No energetic processes, even unknown ones, could have occurred that were vigorous enough to either create the large-scale structures astronomers have observed or stop their headlong motion once created. There is simply no way to form these structures in the 20 billion years since the Big Bang."[8]
Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies."[9],[10],[11]
Eventually, all such theories will fail, for "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1 ). "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1 ).
-- References --
R. B. Tully, Astrophysics Journal 303:25-38 (1986).
M. J. Geller and J. P. Huchra, Science 246:897-903 (1990).
E. G. Lerner, Aerospace America, March 1990, pp. 38-43.
Will Saunders, et al, Nature 349:32-38 (1991).
T. H. Maugh, II, Los Angeles Times, San Diego Edition, January 5, 1991, p. A29.
R. Cowen, Science News 139:52 (1991).
Reference 3, p. 41.
Reference 3, p. 42.
Reference 3, p. 43.
A. L. Peratt, The Sciences, January/February 1990, p. 24.
H. C. Arp, G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J. V. Narlikar, and N. C. Wickramasinghe, Nature 346:807-812 (1990).
* At the time of publication, Dr. Duane T. Gish was Vice-President of the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Gish, D. 1991. The Big Bang Theory Collapses. Acts & Facts. 20 (6).
Related Notes
Home
Home Home Celebrate Recovery is a biblical and balanced program that helps us overcome our hurts, hang-ups, and habits. It is based on the actual words of Jesus rather tha...
EBSCOhost: Rogerian theory: a critique of the effectiveness of pure client-centred the...
ROGERIAN THEORY: A CRITIQUE OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PURE CLIENT-CENTRED THERAPY THEORY AND PRACTICE ABSTRACT Rogers' Client-Centered Therapy (RCCT) included the phenomena `phenomenology' (i.e., multip...
I mean seriously, the first paragraph actually says this: " First of all and most importantly, it contradicts the Bible which is absolute Truth."
What nonsense. He goes on to offer no proof as to why the Bible's "Absolute Truth" is superior, instead goes on to create positions for himself to knock down.
Seriously, I don't mind even if you Copy and Paste.
The Big Bang Theory Collapses
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
"Down with the Big Bang;" "The Big Bang Theory Goes Kerplooey;" "The Big Bang Theory Explodes;" "Sorry, Big Bang Theory is a Dud;" "Map Challenges Theory of Universe;" "Astronomers' New Data Jolt Vital Part of Big Bang Theory;" "Quasar Clumps Dim Cosmological Theory." These have been titles of a few of the articles found in newspapers and science journals in the last two or three years, as the Big Bang theory has received one body blow after another. And why not? We know that the universe did not begin with a big bang -- it will end with a big bang, for "but the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (II Peter 3:10 ). Cosmologists have thus miserably failed as to the time, nature, and cause of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang theory concerning the origin of the universe was spawned about 50 years ago, and soon became the dogma of the evolutionary establishment. It has had many dissenters, however, including the British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, the Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven, and astronomers Geoffrey Burbidge and Halton Arp. According to the Big Bang theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago, all of the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg, or plasma ball, consisting of sub-atomic particles and radiation. Nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got there -- it was just there. For some equally inexplicable reason, the cosmic egg exploded. As the matter and radiation expanded, so the theory says, it cooled sufficiently for elements to form, as protons and electrons combined to form hydrogen of atomic weight one, and neutrons were subsequently captured to form helium of atomic weight four. Most of the gas that formed consisted of hydrogen. These gases, it is then supposed, expanded radially in all directions throughout the universe until they were so highly dispersed that an extremely low vacuum and temperature existed. No oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, sulfur, copper, iron, nickel, uranium, or other elements existed. The universe consisted essentially of hydrogen gas. Then somehow, we are told, the molecules of gas that were racing out at an enormous speed in a radial direction began to collapse in on themselves in local areas by gravitational attraction. The molecules within a space of about six trillion miles diameter collapsed to form each star, a hundred billion stars somehow collected to form each of the estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe, and our own solar system formed about five billion years or so ago from a cloud of dust and gas made up of the exploded remnants of previously existing stars. No satisfactory theory exists to explain any of these events, but cosmologists remained firm in their conviction that all of these marvelous events would eventually yield to credible explanations. But now a cruel fate has befallen the grandest theory of all -- the Big Bang theory.
Based on the Big Bang theory, cosmologists predicted that the distribution of matter throughout the universe would be homogeneous. Thus, based upon the so-called Cosmological Principle, it was postulated that the distribution of galaxies in the universe would be essentially uniform. No matter in which direction one looked, if one looked far enough, one would see the same number of galaxies. There would be no large scale clusters of galaxies or great voids in space. Recent research, however, has revealed massive superclusters of galaxies and vast voids in space. We exist in a very "clumpy" universe.
The present crisis in Big Bang cosmologies began in 1986, when R. Brent Tully, of the University of Hawaii, showed that there were ribbons of superclusters of galaxies 300 million light-years long and 100 million light-years thick, stretching out about a billion light-years, and separated by voids about 300 million light-years across.[1] These structures are much too big for the Big Bang theory to produce. At the speeds at which galaxies are supposed to be moving, it would require 80 billion years to create such a huge complex, but the age of the universe is supposed to be somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years.
In November of 1989, Margaret Geller and John Huchra, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, announced the results of their research. Their map of the sky revealed what they termed the "Great Wall" -- a huge sheet of galaxies 200 million light years across and 700 million light years long.[2] A team of American, British, and Hungarian astronomers, it is reported, discovered even larger structures.[3] They found galaxies clustered into thin bands spaced about 600 millon light years apart. The pattern of these clusters stretched across about one-fourth of the diameter of the universe, or about seven billion light years. This huge shell and void pattern would have required nearly 150 billion years to form, based on their speed of movement, if produced by the standard Big Bang cosmology.
Even more recently (January 3, 1991), Will Saunders and nine fellow astronomers published the results of their all-sky redshift survey of galaxies detected by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite. This survey revealed the existence of a far-greater number of massive superclusters of galaxies than can be accounted for by Big Bang cosmologies.[4]
In an attempt to salvage the Big Bang theory, cosmologists have invented hypotheses to explain the failures of their hypotheses. One of these is the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) theory. According to this theory, 90-99% of the matter in the universe cannot be detected. If CDM existed, it would supply sufficient gravitational pull to create large clusters of galaxies. The structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM did exist, it could not account for their formation. Saunders and co-workers thus state that the CDM model can be ruled out to at least the 97% confidence level. In the same issue of Nature, in which is found the article by Saunders, et al, there appears an article by David Lindley in the "News and Views" section (p. 14) entitled "Cold Dark Matter Makes an Exit." Caltech cosmologist S. George Djorgovski, taking into account the astronomical observations that contradict the CDM theory, states that the demise of the notion of the existence of cold dark matter is inevitable.[5]
Also very recently, the U.S.-European Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT), detecting x-ray emissions, discovered evidence of giant superclusters of quasars on the edge of the universe, supposedly eight to 12 billion light years from the earth.[6] Physicist Paul Steinhardt, of the University of Pennsylvania, states that "This may be the start of the death knell of the cold-dark-matter theory. " Even if this hypothetical matter existed, it still could not explain the existence of these giant clusters of quasars.
If all of this weren't bad enough news for Big Bang cosmologists, results from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) should really make them wish they had gone into some other field. Based on the Big Bang theory, it was predicted that there should exist a background radiation equivalent to a few degrees Kelvin. Sure enough, in 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, radio engineers at Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, discovered a microwave background radiation of 2.7° K. Evolutionary cosmologists were absolutely delighted. This discovery was considered proof of the Big Bang, and Penzias and Wilson were duly awarded Nobel Prizes. It now appears, however, that the background radiation may turn out to be additional evidence against the Big Bang theory, rather than its proof.
Since the Big Bang theory predicted a homogeneous universe with matter evenly distributed throughout the universe (which it most certainly is not, as described above), evolutionary cosmologists expected that the background radiation would be perfectly smooth. That is, no matter in which direction one looked, the background radiation would be the same. Just as predicted, the background radiation was perfectly smooth. Theorists were delighted, smug in the assurance that this background radiation was the leftover whimper of the Big Bang. Now, however, it turns out that the universe is not homogeneous, but is extremely lumpy, with massive superclusters of galaxies and great voids in space. Thus , if the background radiation is left over from the Big Bang, it should not be smooth, but should be more intense in certain directions than in others, indicating inhomogeneities at the very start of the universe, immediately following the initial moments of the Big Bang. Astronomers thus began to search for differences in the background radiations. All measurements showed it to be perfectly smooth. Thus COBE was launched to an orbit 559 miles above the earth, carrying sensitive instruments to measure the background radiation. Alas, preliminary data from COBE announced in January, show absolutely no evidence of inhomogeneity in the background radiation. It is perfectly smooth.[7]
"No energetic processes, even unknown ones, could have occurred that were vigorous enough to either create the large-scale structures astronomers have observed or stop their headlong motion once created. There is simply no way to form these structures in the 20 billion years since the Big Bang."[8]
Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies."[9],[10],[11]
Eventually, all such theories will fail, for "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1 ). "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1 ).
-- References --
R. B. Tully, Astrophysics Journal 303:25-38 (1986).
M. J. Geller and J. P. Huchra, Science 246:897-903 (1990).
E. G. Lerner, Aerospace America, March 1990, pp. 38-43.
Will Saunders, et al, Nature 349:32-38 (1991).
T. H. Maugh, II, Los Angeles Times, San Diego Edition, January 5, 1991, p. A29.
R. Cowen, Science News 139:52 (1991).
Reference 3, p. 41.
Reference 3, p. 42.
Reference 3, p. 43.
A. L. Peratt, The Sciences, January/February 1990, p. 24.
H. C. Arp, G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J. V. Narlikar, and N. C. Wickramasinghe, Nature 346:807-812 (1990).
* At the time of publication, Dr. Duane T. Gish was Vice-President of the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Gish, D. 1991. The Big Bang Theory Collapses. Acts & Facts. 20 (6).
Related Notes
Home
Home Home Celebrate Recovery is a biblical and balanced program that helps us overcome our hurts, hang-ups, and habits. It is based on the actual words of Jesus rather tha...
EBSCOhost: Rogerian theory: a critique of the effectiveness of pure client-centred the...
ROGERIAN THEORY: A CRITIQUE OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PURE CLIENT-CENTRED THERAPY THEORY AND PRACTICE ABSTRACT Rogers' Client-Centered Therapy (RCCT) included the phenomena `phenomenology' (i.e., multip...
Sorry, the article is complete bunk. As SmokeAndMirrors said, it's relying on the author's Christianity to find a predetermined conclusion and on the scientific ignorance of the general population to get away with false claims.The article I read was astonishing. However, I do like to vet my sources and am hoping there are some users on this site that are more read in to this subject. The link to the article is provided below.
Awww poor baby, the Big Bang is nothing more than fiction.....
Simply put, Darwin’s theory is easier to believe and has more immediate gratification. Men would rather believe that they are the gods of their own lives, than admit a responsibility to a higher, unseen being.
First of all and most importantly, it contradicts the Bible which is absolute Truth. It would destroy the entire foundation on which Christianity stands- God’s love and personal care for us, despite our sin.
econd of all, it is obviously false when compared to logical reason and scientific findings and laws.
Basically, it’s wrong and its detrimental to society.
The scientific definition of evolution is genetic change over time.
If God specially created us, how were we created by chance refined by natural selection? Beware of logical fallacies and general misconceptions.
Big Bang- in the beginning was, was…? A flaming ball of mass?
No wait, what came before that?
And where did all this energy come from?
Where did the mass come from?
Where did time come from?
Where did the scientific laws come from?
Where did this dimension come from?
Science is the study of natural causes and effects.
hat made the apple fall? Ahhh, gravitational forces. In the natural world, it is completely impossible for something to cause itself. Any scientists who argues this would be laughed out of science. A conversation might go something like this-
Scientist 1: So, how did you get here?
Scientist 2: Well, that’s obvious, I created myself.
Scientist 1: It’s a well known fact that everything has a beginning and an end, stop being ridiculous, now how did you get here?
Scientist 2: I’m dead serious, I created myself!
Scientist 1: Everyone is born and…
Scientist 2: Listen, scientifically all I know is that I’m here and I don’t remember being born. I must have just always been here…
Scientist 1: HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Let’s say that matter, energy, time, and scientific law simply created themselves out of nothing. Now, all the mass and energy in the initial flaming mass would have had to have been sufficient for the entire cosmos, according to the conservation laws of matter and energy.
You know how much mass would be in the initial ball?
The big mass would in fact become a black hole and would sit dormant in space forever. The Darwinist would have you believe that the explosion happened before natural law came into existence and then a few years afterward it set in. How scientific is this? Any more scientific than God? Certainly not. Any more logical than God? It is based upon a logical impossibility, since nothing can create itself. God is actually the only rational conclusion.
Let’s say that the previous two strikes were ignored. I’d like for you to conduct an experiment. Take a sheet of paper and shred it. Then toss the shreds in all directions up in the air and run around kicking and stomping on them. After a few seconds of this, check and see if the paper has generated an organized pattern on the floor. Specially look for information, such as distinct words on the floor or perhaps meaningful pictures, such as one representing the Mona Lisa.
No, that was crap. I didn't mean Copy and Paste the entire ****ing thing.
Jesus, now I have to dissect this whole thing.
What? Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of mankind. That's a different topic.
Amount of evidence offered for above claim: 0
Whole lotta' claims, no evidence.
Um, how?
"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."
I love how he complains about them and then goes on and uses them in the next several sentences.
A gravitational singularity no larger than a proton.
Asking what existed before the Big Bang is like asking what is North of the North Pole.
All energy resided in that gravitational singularity.
All mass resided in that gravitational singularity.
Time is relative.
Scientific laws are human interpretations of reality to the best of our knowledge.
Define 'dimension.'
"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied."
Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The only thing laughable about this is how he sets up the argument so he can answer it, and then acts as if he just scored a major victory in this debate.
I like how he started out talking about evolution and then somehow connected this to the Big Bang Theory.
Hence, gravitational singularity.
Wha- what? What makes you think that would mean it become a black hole? Also, what does this have to do with Darwinism?
Repeat this experiment trillions of times and over the course of 13.7 billion years and tell me what happens.
The guy who wrote this does't even understand what he's talking about, and yet he thinks he has disproved it.
Did you actually read the article I quoted? :roll:
. According to the Big Bang theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago,
Nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got there -- it was just there.
Then somehow, we are told, the molecules of gas that were racing out at an enormous speed in a radial direction began to collapse in on themselves in local areas by gravitational attraction. The molecules within a space of about six trillion miles diameter collapsed to form each star, a hundred billion stars somehow collected to form each of the estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe, and our own solar system formed about five billion years or so ago from a cloud of dust and gas made up of the exploded remnants of previously existing stars. No satisfactory theory exists to explain any of these events, but cosmologists remained firm in their conviction that all of these marvelous events would eventually yield to credible explanations.
Based on the Big Bang theory, cosmologists predicted that the distribution of matter throughout the universe would be homogeneous. Thus, based upon the so-called Cosmological Principle, it was postulated that the distribution of galaxies in the universe would be essentially uniform. No matter in which direction one looked, if one looked far enough, one would see the same number of galaxies. There would be no large scale clusters of galaxies or great voids in space. Recent research, however, has revealed massive superclusters of galaxies and vast voids in space. We exist in a very "clumpy" universe.
The present crisis in Big Bang cosmologies began in 1986, when R. Brent Tully, of the University of Hawaii, showed that there were ribbons of superclusters of galaxies 300 million light-years long and 100 million light-years thick, stretching out about a billion light-years, and separated by voids about 300 million light-years across.[1] These structures are much too big for the Big Bang theory to produce. At the speeds at which galaxies are supposed to be moving, it would require 80 billion years to create such a huge complex, but the age of the universe is supposed to be somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years.
Physics, Science, Reality, Facts.
n an attempt to salvage the Big Bang theory, cosmologists have invented hypotheses to explain the failures of their hypotheses. One of these is the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) theory. According to this theory, 90-99% of the matter in the universe cannot be detected. If CDM existed, it would supply sufficient gravitational pull to create large clusters of galaxies. The structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM did exist, it could not account for their formation.
Thus , if the background radiation is left over from the Big Bang, it should not be smooth, but should be more intense in certain directions than in others, indicating inhomogeneities at the very start of the universe, immediately following the initial moments of the Big Bang.
Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories.
Eventually, all such theories will fail, for "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1 ). "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1 ).
Proof?
Proof?
Proof and proof?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?