Did the Big Bang actually happen?

[Xyph]

I'm just wondering what the current consensus is, or, if the consensus is still in the affirmative, whether there are any growing beliefs in alternative theories (besides Creationism, obviously).

 

For a while now I thought that the Big Bang was essentially proven beyond any reasonable doubt, but quite recently I read an article that claimed otherwise, citing (if I remember correctly) the discovery of red giants in galaxies too distant for them to have had time to form if the Big Bang model of the universe holds true. Anyway, there was some other theory proposed, in which the universe could have been trillions of years old, going through oscillations of galaxy formation and decay.

 

I can't find the article now, anyway, so does anyone have any information on this theory, a link to an actual article, comments on it's plausibility, or just general thoughts about it?

[JPQuiceno]

I have heard of the theory of the universe going through infinite an number of oscillations, creating itself, destroying itself, and reapeating the process. I can't really remember what its called at the moment. I read it in a book by Paul Davies, called "The Mind Of God". Very good book, BTW.

[Stumblebum]

If there really was a bang or shockwave I wonder how long until it reached this far away? I assume it isn't going to happen but if it did have a medium to travel through to reach us would it have been here by now or are we still waiting?

[flamingoflie]

The big bang theory gives naturalism a fatal blow. The big bang theory suggests that there was an ultimate start in the world in the first place. And how could there be a beginning when everything just evolved from each other?

In order to avoid that scientist think of stuff like infinite a number of oscillations, basically saying that the earth explodes itself once a while. According to this we are living in one dangerous world!

But as some of you have posted this whole thing goes against the law of physics.

Energy is not eternal, nobody can argue with that. We see that everyday in our very lives.

 

By using up the energy to explode and come together and explode again, sometime the energy would run out right?

Also it goes against the law of decay like "Xyph" have stated.

 

Wondering why there are so many faults in evolution and the big bang theory?

 

Because it is not true, it's basically having the conclusion that we evolved and trying to fit the other stuff with the conclusion.

 

 

The answer to your question is that I don't believe in the big bang theory.

And therefore I deny that it ACTUALLY happened.

 

All this information was based on Colson’s book “How Now Shall We Live?” You should read this book the section about creation because it gives way better explanation on this subject than me.

[[Tycho?]]

The big bang theory gives naturalism a fatal blow. The big bang theory suggest that there was an ultimate start in the world in the first place. And how could there be an beginning when everything just evloved from each other?

In order to avoid that scientist think of stuff like infinite an number of oscillations' date=' basically saying that the earth explodes itself once a while. According to this we are living in one dangerous world!

 

But as some of you have posted this whole thing goes against the law of phsics.

Energy is not eternal, nobody can argue with that. We see that everyday in our very lives.

 

By using up the energy to explode and come together and explode again sometime the energy would run out right?

Also it goes against the law of decay like "Xyph" have stated.

 

Wondering why there is so much fault in evolution and the big bang theory?

 

Because it is not ture, it's basically having the conclusion we evolved and trying to fit the other stuff with the conclusion.

 

 

So as to answer your question. I don't believe in the big bang theory.

And therefore I deny that it ACTUALLY happened.

 

 

All this information was based on the book by Colson "How now shall we live?"

You should read this book the part about creation. It explains the information

above much better than I do.[/quote']

 

 

I should hope it explains it better, your argument was pretty incomprehensible.

 

For one thing I've never heard a scientist say that the universe oscillates, expanding and collapsing. There is zero evidence for that, and no way we will be able to find evidence for quite some time. Laymen seem to say it a lot, just makes the whole thing sound a bit more elegant.

 

We are living on a dangerous world, once the sun goes to its red giant phase we're toast, if nothing happens before that.

 

There isn't so much fault with big bang or evolution. They explain real life events, and so are extremely useful. For the big bang, there is a huge amount we do not know about the large scale structure of the universe, like why the expansion of the universe is accelerating, or what dark matter actually is. Nobody has any idea what actually caused the big band.

 

Its ok to not pretend to know everything about how the universe works. This applies to evolution as well. These systems are incredibly complex, and if we dont know exactly how these systems work? Thats alright. We know a bit, and we know a lot more than we did 50 or 100 or 1000 years ago. We're making progress.

 

Nobody is going to throw out a very useful theory if it has a few holes in it (which it does, which most theories do). If you can come up with a theory which explains where the microwave background radiation comes from or why the universe is expanding or why light is red-shifted, power to you.

 

I dont know why I waste so much time explaining this stuff again and again to people who dont know want to actually understand things, they want to KNOW things. Oh well.

[flamingoflie]

']I should hope it explains it better' date=' your argument was pretty incomprehensible.

 

For one thing I've never heard a scientist say that the universe oscillates, expanding and collapsing. There is zero evidence for that, and no way we will be able to find evidence for quite some time. Laymen seem to say it a lot, just makes the whole thing sound a bit more elegant.

 

We are living on a dangerous world, once the sun goes to its red giant phase we're toast, if nothing happens before that.

 

There isn't so much fault with big bang or evolution. They explain real life events, and so are extremely useful. For the big bang, there is a huge amount we do not know about the large scale structure of the universe, like why the expansion of the universe is accelerating, or what dark matter actually is. Nobody has any idea what actually caused the big band.

 

Its ok to not pretend to know everything about how the universe works. This applies to evolution as well. These systems are incredibly complex, and if we dont know exactly how these systems work? Thats alright. We know a bit, and we know a lot more than we did 50 or 100 or 1000 years ago. We're making progress.

 

Nobody is going to throw out a very useful theory if it has a few holes in it (which it does, which most theories do). If you can come up with a theory which explains where the microwave background radiation comes from or why the universe is expanding or why light is red-shifted, power to you.

 

I dont know why I waste so much time explaining this stuff again and again to people who dont know want to actually understand things, they want to KNOW things. Oh well.[/quote']

 

 

 

So you are basically admitting that there is a hole in the big bang theory?

Is that what you are saying? The "hole" as you would have put it is not just

a hole but a huge gap that misses the whole point of how the universe came to be. That is the problem with most people they want to see things in a positive way when everything states that it is negative.

 

Than how would you expain big bang theory in your own words?

 

And Scientist said themselves about that the universe oscillates. They haven't stated but put it up as a theory to expalin the big bang theory.

If you haven't heard this theory before I suggest you look it up through the internet. (If the Scientist never stated this theory there would be no way for me knowing about it.)

 

Darwin himself stated that " If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive , slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."

Today his theory has been broken down, for we all know that nature is full of complex organs that could not have possibley formed by numerous and slight modifications. For example the DNA there is no way nature could be able to create it over slight modifications for it is complex and contains

as much information as 3o volumes of encyclopedia 3-4times over.

 

Practically the creator of evoultion is not sure and denies it himself and there is evidence against it to prove it also.

 

What are your ideas on this matter???

I would like to know.

[[Tycho?]]

My thoughts on this matter are that you have the education of a 10 year old.

 

For one thing "the Scientist" is a rather odd term. Scientist is plural (there are a few more than one scientist in the world) and is not a title, and so is not capitalized.

 

So you are basically admitting that there is a hole in the big bang theory?

 

I am admitting that the big bang theory is almost certainly not perfect, and probably needs some revision.

 

The "hole" as you would have put it is not just a hole but a huge gap that misses the whole point of how the universe came to be. That is the problem with most people they want to see things in a positive way when everything states that it is negative.

 

Point of how the universe came to be? Seeing things in a positive way? I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Than how would you expain big bang theory in your own words?

 

What the hell are you asking? If you want to know what the theory states look it up, any source will give a better explanation than I possibly could.

 

And Scientist said themselves about that the universe oscillates. They haven't stated but put it up as a theory to expalin the big bang theory.

If you haven't heard this theory before I suggest you look it up through the internet. (If the Scientist never stated this theory there would be no way for me knowing about it.)

 

Lets get a few things out of the way. If a scientist says something, this is not something that everyone in that field thinks. Just because a scientist says something, does not mean its a theory, or that there is any evidence for it. Anyone can come up with an idea like this, not just a scientist.

 

I have looked this up. I've never seen a theory that actually states that the universe oscillates in such a manner, and have never heard of any evidence to back it up. If you can provide a link to a credible source, be my guest, although I dont know what it would prove in this argument.

 

Since this is a physics forum I'm not going to directly argue the evolution based points. There are other forums on this site where people can show you the faults in that.

 

Because of the current laws of physics, there is no way to determine what happend before the big bang. This is why there arn't any decent theories to explain what caused the big bang, and also precludes any that suggest it oscilates.

[Xyph]

The big bang theory gives naturalism a fatal blow. The big bang theory suggests that there was an ultimate start in the world in the first place. And how could there be a beginning when everything just evolved from each other?

In order to avoid that scientist think of stuff like infinite a number of oscillations' date=' basically saying that the earth explodes itself once a while. According to this we are living in one dangerous world!

But as some of you have posted this whole thing goes against the law of physics.

Energy is not eternal, nobody can argue with that. We see that everyday in our very lives.

 

By using up the energy to explode and come together and explode again, sometime the energy would run out right?

Also it goes against the law of decay like "Xyph" have stated.

 

Wondering why there are so many faults in evolution and the big bang theory?

 

Because it is not true, it's basically having the conclusion that we evolved and trying to fit the other stuff with the conclusion.

 

 

The answer to your question is that I don't believe in the big bang theory.

And therefore I deny that it ACTUALLY happened.

 

All this information was based on Colson’s book “How Now Shall We Live?” You should read this book the section about creation because it gives way better explanation on this subject than me.[/quote']No, I wasn't wondering "why there are so many faults in evolution and the big bang theory". The Big Bang theory makes a lot of sense, but I was wondering if there have been any recent scientific alternatives proposed. I am wondering also, in fact, whether you read this part of my post:

 

[b'](besides Creationism, obviously)[/b]

Creationism is moronic unscientific nonsense and everyone worth having much to do with knows it. Kindly take your science-hating deception elsewhere.

 

 

 

Just to clarify, when I said "going through oscillations" I didn't quite mean that as going through Big Bangs and Big Crunches infinitely, but rather, as a whole, galaxies going through periods of apparent decay before (for whatever reason) sudden mass births of new stars, without any universal collapses and expansions.

[flamingoflie]

']My thoughts on this matter are that you have the education of a 10 year old.

 

For one thing "the Scientist" is a rather odd term. Scientist is plural (there are a few more than one scientist in the world) and is not a title' date=' and so is not capitalized.[/quote']

Thank you for reminding me that “Scientist” is not spelled with a capital.

 

It was nice of you to remind me why my grammar was wrong. But I would appreciate it if you focused what I said instead of criticizing me with my horrid grammar. Since you have stated I have an education level of a 10year old, would you be so kind to talk a little more about how you think about this matter.

(Also I would like to inform you that you have grammar errors as well.)

'']although I dont know what it would prove in this argument.

']

Because of the current laws of physics' date=' there is no way to determine what happend before the big bang. This is why there arn't any decent theories to explain what caused the big bang, and also precludes any that suggest it oscilates.[/quote']

 

(happnd= happened, arn’t=aren’t, dont=don’t, oscilates= oscillates)

 

You have said as it is above that you can not throw out a theory because it has some holes in it. Also you have agreed or I think that you agreed that the big bang theory is not perfect as it is.

 

 

But I would like to kindly inform you that a “theory” is a set of assumptions used to explain phenomena. In other words it is a set of hypothesis (an assumption about behavior that is tested through scientific research) that makes up a theory.

 

I think you know about how scientist uses scientific method on their studies. (This information can be found in most text books.) First they ask Questions than make a Hypothesis, Experiment, get Results, and than draw conclusions, form a Theory. And if the theory is tested and rejected(find fault in it) than you have to go back and revise your hypothesis.

 

Theory is not the “Truth” if we find holes in it you have to revise it or throw it out (if I put it in your words.) You have stated that the big bang theory needs revision right? So how do you think it should be revised?

']

 

What the hell are you asking? If you want to know what the theory states look it up' date=' any source will give a better explanation than I possibly could.

[/quote']

When I asked you to put your theory into your own words I was asking your opinion not the definition about the theory. If I didn’t even know what I was talking about I would be a 3year old instead of 10. ^-^ All you have said was information but not how you feel about it or your exact opinion. So you believe in the big bang theory, right? And plus you think it needs revision right? I’m pretty sure you’re not a scientist, and you know that it needs revision. Then here is the question, are you really smart to realize that the theory has limits or are the scientists really dumb not realizing it? If a theory has limits you do throw it out, since it is only a theory.

 

']

 

 

Lets get a few things out of the way. If a scientist says something' date=' this is not something that everyone in that field thinks. Just because a scientist says something, does not mean its a theory, or that there is any evidence for it. Anyone can come up with an idea like this, not just a scientist.

[/quote']

 

What you say is true. I should have made it clearer. Not all scientist think this way.

But than how can they explain how the Earth came about? There has to be something to explode from right? Big bang like I have stated above gives evidence that the universe was formed by an abrupt start.

1960’s the big bang theory came into the world. The big bang states a start which means science can trace back in time only to a certain point. Because of this, when the theory was first proposed a large number of scientists resisted this theory because this very reason.

The great physicist Arthur Eddington summed up feelings of many students when he stated that the idea of a beginning is philosophically “repugnant.” (Arthur Eddington, as quoted in Hugh Ross,” Astronomical Evidences for a Personal, Transcendent God,” in The creation hypothesis, ed. J.P. Moreland, pg145-46)

Albert Einstein tried everything with his equations to try avoiding that universe had a beginning. Robert Jastrow said that science had reached it limits. (Robert Jastrow, Until the Sun Dies –New York: Norton,1977)

Yet many are trying to avoid the clear implications of the theory. So some argue that the

universe oscillates. And that someone is Carl Sagon(Carl Sagan, Cosmos-New York:Random, 1980 pg259) stated that the universe would explode itself again. ((And the reason why I had talked about oscillation is because the person who questioned asked. So oscillation is only part of how scientists answer when dealing with the big bang theory.))

Still others try to avoid the fact by saying that the earth generated itself. (I have mentioned this earlier.)

Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University, the best-known theoretical physicist today, proposed that the early universe existed in “imaginary time” an idea that is for all purposes little more than fantasy.

Others like professor Quentin Smith proposes that the universe “came from nothing, by nothing, for nothing.” (William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology-N.Y. : Oxford University Press, 1993) pg 135 But this make science into sheer magic. Because something can’t come out of nothing and you can’t argue with that. We don’t see coke appear in the atmosphere all of a sudden.

So we have to raise questions like “What came before the big bang?” What do you think??

If the big bang was the origin of the universe itself, then its cause must be something outside the universe.

Because these reasons that is what I believe.

Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

 

[flamingoflie]

I'm sorry that I didn't give you the information that you asked for. But your Title states the question "Did the big bang actually happen?" so I was trying to give an answer to your question. I apologize that I didn't grasp what you were really looking for.

 

I know that you have said "besides Creationism" but you can't leave creationism out when you are talking about the big bang theory. If you look through what I wrote to Tycho you would probably get what I am talking about.

 

And I want to inform that I do not hate science. I'm thinking that you are beginning to say that religion hate science and have nothing to do with it. However everything has to do with religion (Christianity). They don't try to disprove or deny science; we are not that stupid as some people would say.

We question about what we believe in and use scientific ways to prove it.(If you want to know more about scientific ways of proving Creationism feel free to ask me. I can give you the facts.)

 

Just because I disagree with the big bang theory does not mean I hate science.

It would be the same as saying just because I hate basketball it doesn't mean I hate sports.

Big bang is not everything in science, it is theory which could not be proved.

 

Thank you for making your point to me. I appreciate it.

[Xyph]

you can't leave creationism out when you are talking about the big bang theory.

Yes you can. Creationism isn't science.

 

If you look through what I wrote to Tycho you would probably get what I am talking about.

What you've said to Tycho amounts to "The Big Bang theory isn't perfect. People have proposed alternatives. Therefore Creationists must be right." This is obviously nonsense.

 

And I want to inform that I do not hate science. I'm thinking that you are beginning to say that religion hate science and have nothing to do with it. However everything has to do with religion (Christianity).

I'm not about to say religion hates science. Whether or not you hate science individually, the Creationist movement as a whole is a science-hating one, because it isn't scientific yet pretends to be and the more educated of it's proponents will use everything short of outright lies to present their flawed "science" as fact. And by the way, religion doesn't equal Christianity.

 

If you want to know more about scientific ways of proving Creationism feel free to ask me.

No thanks. I've seen the so-called "proofs" and their refutations. But you don't need to be a scientist to know that starting from a conclusion and looking for proof to support it is not science whether the proofs are credible or not (but more often than not, they're not, nonetheless).

 

 

But look, I don't want to turn this into another ridiculous debate about Creationism versus Evolution. If you want to continue, start a new thread, or something.

[[Tycho?]]

You have said as it is above that you can not throw out a theory because it has some holes in it. Also you have agreed or I think that you agreed that the big bang theory is not perfect as it is.

 

I did not say that. A theory will not be thrown out the instant someone finds a possible error. The big bang explains a lot of things, so contradictions may be the result of bad data. If the theory itself is flawed, then it will only be rejected once a superior theory is proposed.

 

The big bang is not as perfect as it is? This doesn't make sense. And I've never heard it said that the big bang theory is perfect anyway.

 

Theory is not the “Truth” if we find holes in it you have to revise it or throw it out (if I put it in your words.) You have stated that the big bang theory needs revision right? So how do you think it should be revised?

 

Right, Theory is not truth. I stated that the theory will probably need revision. I'm just saying this because there are a lot of big unanswered questions about the universe and the big bang itself (like how inflation works). The theory could be bang on at this moment, but since there is so much we dont know I'd bet on it needing some changes at some point. I dont know how it would be revised because there aren't any fatal flaws in the theory yet that need revising.

 

So you believe in the big bang theory, right? And plus you think it needs revision right? I’m pretty sure you’re not a scientist, and you know that it needs revision. Then here is the question, are you really smart to realize that the theory has limits or are the scientists really dumb not realizing it? If a theory has limits you do throw it out, since it is only a theory.

 

I dont "believe" in the big bang theory. I accept that its the best theory we have at the moment, but I am perfectly willing to reject it if a better one comes along. Again, it MIGHT need revision, thats just opinion on my part. All scientists know that theories have limits, they know it far better than laypeople.

 

No you dont throw out a theory if it has limits (unless these limits are very large). General Relativity does not explain things on quantum scales, this is quite the limit. Do we throw it out? No, because its extremely useful. But at some point something is going to have to change in order to get quantum mechanics and general relativity to work together.

 

Einstein worked his theories to make the universe steady state. Once it was shown the universe was expanding he immediately fixed his blunder.

 

As for the rest, who cares? Carl Sagan thinks the universe will collapse and expand again. Good for him. Once he has evidence to back this up, I might start to believe him. At the moment the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating, meaning that it seems rather unlikely the universe will collapse at all.

 

So we have to raise questions like “What came before the big bang?” What do you think??

 

I dont know what came before the big bang, nobody does, because we have no way of observing or predicting it at this time.

 

If god made the universe, then what made god? If your response is that god doesn't need to be made, then why do you say the universe does have to be made?

[Locrian]

Yes, contrary to what many uninformed people would have you believe, there are new models constantly being introduced in most of science. This includes cosmology. However, also contrary to what these same uninformed people would have you believe, these new models are generally inferior to the most recent big bang models.

 

I did a quick search on arxiv and turned up the following preprints. I've only glanced through them, so I'm not sure how useful you'll find them all, but at least the first should prove interesting to you.

 

New trends in cosmology.

 

A cyclic universe scenario.

 

An informal introduction to the cyclic universe.

 

Another alternative model.

[Severian]

The problem with this thread is that no-one has bothere to define what the Big Bang actually is. There are rather a lot of different definitions, and if you want to ask if the Big Bang happened then you must define what you mean.

 

For example, is the 'Big Bang' the point where space and time were created? If so, then we can never answer the question. If time was created at the instant, then we cannot probe earlier times because there were no earlier times, but we cannot definitively say there are no earlier times because there may simply have been a machanism for removing all the information from the system. If this is your definition, then your question is unsceintific and we need to move this thread to Philosophy and Religion.

 

Alternatively, one can define the Big Bang as the moment reheating starts after cold inflation. Then the 'Big Bang' is not the point of creation of space-time, and we can definitely ask if it happened or not. Since the jury is still out on inflation (never mind anything else) we cannot definitively answer this yet.

 

Then there are Ekpyrotic models, where the big bang is the collision of two 'branes' (manifolds moving in a higher dimensinal space). I personally don't have much time for this model, and this definition is certainly not confirmed.

 

Irrespective of the definition though, I think the answer to the question is: We don't know.

[brokenbin]

The big bang theory is just a theory, not a fact. Although it is the best theory ever proposed, it is afterall still a theory, and being a theory, it cannot be proven (at least not for now). For the moment, they do not even know where the center of big bang is, so how could they estimate that that object they observed is too far away from the center? That just makes no sense. Big bang is an explosion, and just like any explosion, it is suppose to look different. Have you seen an explosion that is perfectly sperical? Guess not. So, there is always something farther than other things from the center. So, I don't think the discovery of sucy a celectial body will do much effect on the world recognized theory of Big Bang.

[Xyph]

The big bang theory is just a theory, not a fact.

All of science is a theory.

 

 

 

The problem with this thread is that no-one has bothere to define what the Big Bang actually is. There are rather a lot of different definitions' date=' and if you want to ask if the Big Bang happened then you must define what you mean.

 

For example, is the 'Big Bang' the point where space and time were created? If so, then we can never answer the question. If time was created at the instant, then we cannot probe earlier times because there were no earlier times, but we cannot definitively say there are no earlier times because there may simply have been a machanism for removing all the information from the system. If this is your definition, then your question is unsceintific and we need to move this thread to Philosophy and Religion.

 

Alternatively, one can define the Big Bang as the moment reheating starts after cold inflation. Then the 'Big Bang' is not the point of creation of space-time, and we can definitely ask if it happened or not. Since the jury is still out on inflation (never mind anything else) we cannot definitively answer this yet.

 

Then there are Ekpyrotic models, where the big bang is the collision of two 'branes' (manifolds moving in a higher dimensinal space). I personally don't have much time for this model, and this definition is certainly not confirmed.

 

Irrespective of the definition though, I think the answer to the question is: We don't know.[/quote']I don't think the exact definition of the Big Bang is that relevant to the question, since I wasn't asking about the specifics of it, just whether a "bang" of any sort happened at all. All models of the Big Bang include the universe beginning roughly 15 billion years ago with a "bang" of some sort, but thanks for your input nonetheless.

 

 

 

Yes' date=' contrary to what many uninformed people would have you believe, there are new models constantly being introduced in most of science. This includes cosmology. However, also contrary to what these same uninformed people would have you believe, these new models are generally inferior to the most recent big bang models.

 

I did a quick search on arxiv and turned up the following preprints. I've only glanced through them, so I'm not sure how useful you'll find them all, but at least the first should prove interesting to you.

 

New trends in cosmology.

 

A cyclic universe scenario.

 

An informal introduction to the cyclic universe.

 

Another alternative model.[/quote'] Thanks, that's the sort of thing I was looking for.

[Locrian]

The big bang theory is just a theory, not a fact. Although it is the best theory ever proposed,

 

The best theory ever? I'm not sure what that means, but I am sure that there needs to be a reality show about it. We could put all the great theories in a really small apartment together and see which one predicts the ensuing hilarities the best.

[[Tycho?]]

The best theory ever? I'm not sure what that means, but I am sure that there needs to be a reality show about it. We could put all the great theories in a really small apartment together and see which one predicts the ensuing hilarities the best.

 

I think he means best theory yet proposed to describe these phenomenon. I doubt he's saying that Big Bang is so much cooler than General Relativity, or whatever.

[Dave]

I'd appreciate it if people didn't bring creationism into threads where it blatently isn't implied or needed. This is a science forum, and you are posting on a thread in the Physics section. Please refrain from doing it in future, please.

[flamingoflie]

]

Yes you can. Creationism isn't science.

What makes you think that way? Creationism is also called a theory in science. And didn’t you state that science was all theory? Then why is Creationism not science??

]

What you've said to Tycho amounts to "The Big Bang theory isn't perfect. People have proposed alternatives. Therefore Creationists must be right." This is obviously nonsense.

 

Why is it nonsense? You can’t state that it’s nonsense. How can you when you have already stated that science is a theory? Theory is something that you can’t prove isn’t it? (That’s what you would say' date=' right?) If you can explain why it is nonsense ? Explain to me.

I have stated my belief or you would call it an opinion and have given some evidence why I think that way. All you say that it’s “nonsense” and didn’t give enough information to back your belief. So how can you just out right say you’re right and I’m wrong?

 

]

I'm not about to say religion hates science. Whether or not you hate science individually, the Creationist movement as a whole is a science-hating one, because it isn't scientific yet pretends to be and the more educated of it's proponents will use everything short of outright lies to present their flawed "science" as fact. And by the way, religion doesn't equal Christianity.

Okay, now I’m beginning to get confused here. “Creationist is the science hating one” you have stated, what makes you think so? Do you know a Creationist that said “I hate science, I’m totally sick of it!” ? If you do I would like to know who it was. Also you have also said you don’t have anything to say about religion. Did you know that most religion start out with some god creating the world? So how can you say you’re not talking about religion since almost all religion believe in some god that created the universe, so basically you’re saying religion hate science.

]

Whether or not you hate science individually' date='

[/quote']

Your question was for me right?

 

You got the answer, I have said that I didn’t hate science, then why do you go from there to a Creationist view? You probably think I’m one of the Creationist right? If I am, I have said that I didn’t hate science and you said they all do,(You didn’t put the world ‘all’ in your words but there is no word that tells that some of them do.) which makes your statement logically wrong.

 

]

And by the way' date=' religion doesn't equal Christianity.

[/quote']

 

I know religion doesn’t equal Christianity. Did I say that? I just made () sign to give you an example. If you thought I did, I’m sorry I didn’t.

 

]

No thanks. I've seen the so-called "proofs" and their refutations. But you don't need to be a scientist to know that starting from a conclusion and looking for proof to support it is not science whether the proofs are credible or not (but more often than not' date=' they're not, nonetheless).

[/quote']

 

Well,,, what proofs or so called proofs have you seen?

Yes you don’t have to be scientist to know that. So you’re saying that Creationism is starting from a conclusion? Then what about evolution? Evolution starts from the conclusion. Did any of the evolutionists state that they have proof which started from the beginning? They just see the world today and think back what might have happened millions billion years ago. So basically you’re discrediting evolution by saying this. You said that looking for proof to support is not science which includes evolution as well. You have just said that science is theories, and theories as most of you all know are not the truth. And scientist try to find proof to support their theory. So is theories not science?

[flamingoflie]

]

The big bang explains a lot of things' date=' so contradictions may be the result of bad data. If the theory itself is flawed, then it will only be rejected once a superior theory is proposed.

[/quote']

So contradictions are result of bad data and you believe in this bad data? I thought bad is something opposite from good, or is my dictionary wrong?

]

I dont know how it would be revised because there aren't any fatal flaws in the theory yet that need revising.

There are no fatal flaws? Are you sure you read my answer carefully? All the people I’ve mentioned noticed the fatal flaw the big bang theory offers. ((I think I’ve said that they(scientist) rejected the big bang theory all because it indicates a ultimate beginning.)) The big bang states that there is a start to all this. A start! How can there be start? Are you agreeing with Quentin Smith? (That from nothing something came?)

]

I dont "believe" in the big bang theory. I accept that its the best theory we have at the moment.

 

Sorry' date=' (since I have an education of a 10 year old I seem to not understand your statement here.) what is the difference between believing and accepting? (Again I’m asking you this question not because I don’t have a dictionary around here. I want your definition.) So if I said I accepted Creationism would it be the same as saying that I believe in Creationism?

]

No you dont throw out a theory if it has limits (unless these limits are very large).

 

I have stated that the limits are very large in my answer. So what you’re saying doesn’t make a difference.

]

As for the rest' date=' who cares? Carl Sagan thinks the universe will collapse and expand again. Good for him. Once he has evidence to back this up, I might start to believe him. At the moment the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating, meaning that it seems rather unlikely the universe will collapse at all.

[/quote']

 

So you don’t believe that the universe is going to collapse. Good for you!

 

Carl Sagan came up with this conclusion just so that he can explain the flaw in to big bang theory.

Since you disagree with him how would you explain the flaw?(I don’t agree with Carl Sagan and since you don’t seem to we have something in common.

How would you explain the flaw then? You can’t deny the fact that there is a flaw though. YOU know that and all scientists do also. If they didn’t then why would they come up with all these assumptions?)

]

If god made the universe' date=' then what made god? If your response is that god doesn't need to be made, then why do you say the universe does have to be made?

 

[/quote']

 

I’m sorry I lost you here again. What is the definition of ‘God’ in your dictionary? After that look up ‘universe’. By saying this you’re stating that ‘universe=God.’ Do you think this way? I don’t think anybody would agree with that.

[insane_alien]

creationism is not a theory! i know of no (reputable) scientist of any area of expertise who regards creationism as a theory as it has never been published in a scientific journal,

there is no empirical evidence, it defies several established theories and some laws.

[flamingoflie]

]I'd appreciate it if people didn't bring creationism into threads where it blatently isn't implied or needed. This is a science forum' date=' and you are posting on a thread in the Physics section. Please refrain from doing it in future, please.

[/quote']

 

I’m sorry you don’t like other people’s beliefs and I feel quite offended for you to state that I don’t have a right to say what I want. (‘implied or needed’ so I can’t say how I feel about this matter since someone else is not needing it? Well if that is so what if I feel that I don’t need your opinion? I thought this was a debating forum. Just because someone has beliefs opposed from yours and you feel like you don’t need it means that you can shut their mouth closed. If we put that into some kind of rule the word ‘debate’ won’t even exist.)

 

And I would like to say that I respect other people’s thoughts as well as their opinion so I don’t state leave evolution out of this because it has no proof.

 

Creationism seems to be the problem since it’s a science forum right? Science. Creationism is not science is what you’re trying to say right now. Why do you think creationism is not science?

[the tree]

What makes you think that way? Creationism is also called a theory in science. And didn’t you state that science was all theory? Then why is Creationism not science??

Because science uses any of logic observation and/or evidence.

 

Why is it nonsense? You can’t state that it’s nonsense. How can you when you have already stated that science is a theory?

Sure you can, stating that redshift is caused by a giant photographic gel in the sky is both a theory and nonsense.

 

Theory is something that you can’t prove isn’t it? (That’s what you would say, right?) If you can explain why it is nonsense ? Explain to me.

It is nonsense because it does not make sense to ignore observation (e.g. the fact that dog breeders earn a living) in favour of a self contradictory book.

 

I have stated my belief or you would call it an opinion and have given some evidence why I think that way. All you say that it’s “nonsense” and didn’t give enough information to back your belief. So how can you just out right say you’re right and I’m wrong?

Between a total absense of evidence, and any evidence at all it's pretty easy to see who wins.

 

Creationism is starting from a conclusion? Then what about evolution? Evolution starts from the conclusion. Did any of the evolutionists state that they have proof which started from the beginning?

Evolution doesn't start from the conclusion at all. It starts from the observation that living things tend to be adapted to thier enviroment and that characteristics tend to get passed down the generations, the hypothesis that more desirable characteristics last longer. This hypothesis can be tested with bacteria and when the test results fit with the hypothesis, only then, can a conclusion be formed.

[flamingoflie]

]

creationism is not a theory! i know of no (reputable) scientist of any area of expertise who regards creationism as a theory as it has never been published in a scientific journal' date='

there is no empirical evidence, it defies several established theories and some laws.

[/quote']

Okay, then what is Creationism then?

And as far as I know they do regard creationism as a theory. If you have empirical evidence that it is not would you kindly show me why? Why do you think this way?

Then do you think evolution has empirical evidence? After all evolution is also a theory is it not?

 

Also you said if theories defies some laws and other theories it is wrong. So what about big bang then? It defies some laws than is that wrong to?

What about evolution?