well breece wouldn't start it so i guess i will.
Discuss your beliefs on the matter.:)
Who figured out this theory? A 5 year old?? This makes no sense whatsoever. Yeah.
There was a Big Bang.... And my little sister was born :)
Why doesn't it make any sense? It makes perfect sense to me.
Imaginedangerous: Oh, I understand what the theory is, it's just ridiculous. " Oh, space blew up like a balloon!" Like, seriously, I just don't see how anyone in their right mind could believe such a bizarre thing. Many people don't ave the same views as I do on hw the world was created, but the Big Bang is kind of well...unintelligent.
Kmeep: It would seem like no one in their right mind would believe that the computer you write on does everything using only 1's and 0's to store information. It seems just as ridiculous to think that pouring a combination of (mostly) carbon and hydrogen into your car would make it run. That doesn't make it not true.
My point is just because something souds ridiculous doesn't mean it is.
RedsFan took the words out of my mouth in reply to the 'that's just ridiculous" argument.
I usually don't post a lot on the Weekends, I have better things to do :P
However I'm here now so I'll just give a few points.
The majority of pretty much everybody in the world who argues against the Big Bang theory really only have 1 argument:
The Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy.
I like to approach this with a comparison:
The Bohr Model of the Atom. If you don't know what this is, you haven't taken enough science classes to aptly argue about the Big Bang theory, so hold off 'till you're a little older :P
The Bohr model of the atom is still taught in physical science classes, it is still taught in Middle School science classes, it is still taught in college in certain contexts.
It is no longer believed to be true by the scientific community though. Yet they still teach it, for the sheer fact that it's an easier place to start off with, and for the fact that the discovery that it is not true is relatively recent and you don't switch curriculum until a little time has passed.
That being said, we know it's not true through the sheer fact that we can force Noble Gasses to react, this proves that electrons are not in fixed orbits as the Bohr model suggests and are, in actuality, simply attracted to those orbits.
When we say a carbon atom has 6 electrons in the Bohr model, in reality what we mean is "there's a high probablity that a Carbon atom has 6 electrons" because the orbits are not, in fact, fixed.
NOW, on to how this relates to the Big Bang:
The Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy is similar to the Bohr model in the fact that it is still taught, and yet considered by the majority of the scientific community to be outdated.
That's right, you heard me, the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy does not necessarily apply in all situations and is an out-dated concept that is still taught for the same reasons the Bohr Model is still taught. It's recent, and it gives us a place to start.
In relatively recent scientific studies (within the last few decades or so) we've discovered a phenomenon known as "quantum fluctuations".
Now if you don't know what the heck "quantum" means, you probably haven't taken Chemistry yet. So that's where you stop arguing this part and wait a 'lil bit :)
Anyways, quantum physics have to do with the physics of subatomic particles, most commonly with the physics of electrons.
However a quantum fluctuation is an occurence that has been recorded countless times where a subatomic particle is created, seemingly out of nothing, usually acompanied by it's repiprocal antiparticle and usually anihilating shortly afterwards. Some of them don't anihilate though, keep that in mind.
This only happens at a very small scale, subatomic particle small, and in reality it is very common, there's probably quantum fluctuations occuring in your body right now.
Even your brains. In fact now that I think about it, mass spontaneously appearing and disappearing in your brain would kind of explain a lot of you guys' opinions.
:P Anyways, you get the point :)
Here's a neat link for more info on quantum fluctuations:
RedsFan: Is that how you think the world was created then? I'm sure there's things you doubt, too! But as artgirl asked, where did this 'bang' come from?
If I might throw my opinion in here :)
By "come from", you mean "cause", correct?
Causality is a concept restricted to time. You cannot have a cause and effect without a timespan, before the Big Bang, there was no universe, therefore no time.
Saying it required a cause is illogical because there was no time.
Just my two cents, goin' to bed now :)
Breece: Probably won't see you until morning but... So what you are saying is that there was no universe, no time, nothing , and this explosion came from nowhere, causing a universe to be created. Hold on, this is getting really far-fetched now, isn't it?
breece6: i haven't taken chemistry yet. but a child can tell you that the big bang theory is STUPID. alright first of all it is spontanoeous generation. and if you don't know that was proven wrong quite a few years ago.
I have a queston do you think the earth came from the big bang or the whole galaxy?( some people have mixed beliefs on this so just wondering.)
sorry i won't reply anymore today it's Purim and yeterday was my sabbath:)
I think you just exemplified one of the major problems with science.
Whenever they discover a new theory or new "evidence" it takes them years for everyone to get caught up.
The average person has the illusion that all the scientists are on the same page and believe the same things, but this is untrue. The scientific community is not the organized entity that they'd have us believe. Often one area of research will be following old ideas that another area has already disproved.
And I don't blame them. There is research going on all over the planet, and a lot of information to sort through.
As for the quantum flunctuations, I will definitely look into them, though at first glance, I don't think they go far in proving the Big Bang.
We should discuss the Sabbath some time. I've never talked to someone on TI before who keeps Saturday as the Sabbath like I do.
But rather than derail your Big Bang thread I'll bump a thread called "Bible Study" in which we ended off discussing the Sabbath.
God bless. ♥
Has anyone actually been able to prove the Big Bang theory? And since most "rational" people need physical evidence or to see the thing they believe in, has anyone made a replica experimet of something coming from nothing? It's because believing that the Big Bang created all of this takes more faith than believing that an eternal, Almighty God did it:) Scientisits spend their whole lives trying to prove something they can't fully know exists. That's faith to me. As it takes faith to NOT believe in the Big Bang. Oh, you can present all the evidence you want, but at the end of the day, people will believe what they want to believe, and it doesn't matter what some guy in a labcoat says:)
Morning everyone! :)
RarelyJaded is right. Just because some scientist said "Oh hey, the world came from an explosion out of nowhere" doesn't mean you have to believe it. Think it through. Now it seems absurd.
Evidence? Hmm. Background radiation indicating a massive explosion in the distant past? The fact that the universe is expanding?
The theory actually doesn't boot God from the picture. As I think I mentioned elsewhere, apologists have adopted it as their best new argument for God in centuries.
It always surprises me when I find Christians (or people of Judeo-Islamo-Christian beliefs) think that the Big Bang theory is the craziest thing ever thought up.
It seems almost as if certain, more conservative Abhrahamists just want to deny science just for the sake of denying science.
Which is strange, since in the "old days," science and that sort of learning used to be thought of as a way to further prove your Christianity/Islam.
Hi guys! Typing this on a phone on a car ride so excuse the lack of prettiness :) Kmeep and Packerbacker: If you havent taken Chemistry or Physics yet, I can almost gurantee they will blow your mind. Saying "That's crazy!" isn't an argument. Kmeep: You missed the point ofmy pot. Keep in mind I'm speaking hypothetically here but what I'm saying is that a cause is not necessarily necessary :). What I'm saying is that even the concept of a "cause" is not necessarily applicable because "causes" are a notion that requires time to exist. Think about it like this, we are human, and there are physical limitations of our brains that limit our ability to imagine. Can we imagine colors that don't exist? Nope, in the same sense we cannot imagine a lack of time either. Collin goes much more in depth about evidence in his post, I advise you to take a look, without the mindset of trying to automatically disprove it ;P
Collin: Like I said before, theories such as these definitely DON'T boot God from the picture, but as for evidene..... it changes. ANd it changes in signifiance. For example, carbon dating. There are things that disprove its accuracy and that might point to accuracy. The difference is, the here and now. WE CANNOT RECREATED THINGS WITH ACCURACY. Big Bang, carbon dating. Call it scientific error or innaccurate knowledge, but when we actually try and implement our "theories" it comes out wrong. Look up problems with carbon dating if you don't believe me. How do we know if the things we think happened a bazillion years ago actually happened, when the things we do to prove it/recreate it don't work?
And anyway, the question Christians have to ask themselves is, does it matter? This is why I've been avoiding evolution and big bang threads: It doesn't:)