PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Creation Proofs - 1) Big Bang
       A list of issues with evolutionary early big bang stage

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
FifthEdge

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



The following text comes from www.evolution-facts.org, I
 have broken it up into 3 seperate posts and await replies.
 1) Big bang beginings (Issues with the start of the big bang) *WE ARE
 HERE*
 2) Stelar evolution (Issues with stars/elements)
 3) Background radiation &

1 - The Big Bang theory is
 based on theoretical extremes.
It may look good in math calculations, but
 it can’t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together
 that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe.
The Big Bang
 is a theoretical extreme, just as a black hole is.


2 - Nothingness cannot pack together.
 It would have no way to push itself into a pile.

3 - A vacuum has no density.
 It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded.
 But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density. It is said that the nothingness
 got very dense, and that is why it exploded.

4 - There would be no ignition to explode
 nothingness
.
No fire and no match. It could
 not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear
 explosion, for there were no atoms!

5 - There is no way to expand it.
  How can you expand what isn’t there? Even if that magical
 vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the
 pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it
 together would keep it from expanding.

6 - Nothingness cannot produce heat.
 The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed
 the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty
 vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second,
 an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there
 can be no heat without an energy source.

7 – The calculations are too exacting.
 
Too perfect an explosion would be required.
 On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big
 Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too
 exacting.
Knowledgeable scientists call them "too perfect." Mathematical
 limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve.
 The limits for success are simply too narrow.

Most aspects of the theory are impossible,
 and some require parameters that would require miracles to fulfill. One example
 of this is the expansion of the original fireball
from the Big Bang, which
 they place precisely within the narrowest of limits. An evolutionist astronomer,
 *R.H. Dicke, says it well:


 
"If
   the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion
   would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been
   0.1 percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its
   present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary
   matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the present
   mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would
   not have existed long enough to form stars."—*R.H. Dickey, Gravitation
   and the Universe (1969), p. 62.




8 - Such an equation would have produced
 not a universe but a hole
.
*Roger L. St. Peter
 in 1974 developed a complicated mathematical equation that showed that the theorized
 Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. In reality,
 St. Peter says the theoretical explosion (if one could possibly take place)
 would fall back on itself and make a theoretical black hole! This means that
 one imaginary object would swallow another one! 

9 - There is not enough antimatter in
 the universe
.
 This is a big problem for the
 theorists. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive
 matter (matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small amounts of
 antimatter exist. There should be as much antimatter as matter—if the Big Bang
 was true.

 
 
"Since matter and antimatter
   are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness,
   any force [the Big Bang] that would create one should have to create the other,
   and the universe should be made of equal quantities of each. This is a dilemma.
   Theory tells us there should be antimatter out there, and observation refuses
   to back it up."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, p. 343.
 



10 - The antimatter from the Big Bang
 would have destroyed all the regular matter
.

 This fact is well-known to physicists. As soon as the two are produced in the
 laboratory, they instantly come together and annihilate one another. 


We have mentioned ten
 reasons why matter could not be made by a supposed Big Bang. But now we will
 discuss what would happen IF it actually had.


THE OUTWARD
 RUSHING PARTICLES

1 - There
 is no way to unite the particles
.
As
 the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting
 farther and farther apart from one another.


2 - Outer space is frictionless, and there
 would be no way to slow the particles
.
The
 Big Bang is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of all matter, in which
 a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter. There would be no way
 those particles could ever slow. 

3 - The particles would maintain the
 same vector
(speed and direction) forever.

 Assuming the particles were moving outward through totally empty space, there
 is no way they could change direction. They could not get together and begin
 circling one another. 

4 - There is no way to slow the particles.
 They are traveling at supersonic speed
, and every
 kilometer would separate them farther from one other.

5 - There is no way to change the direction
 of even one particle
.
They would keep racing
 on forever, never slowing, never changing direction. There is no way to get
 the particles to form into atoms or cluster into gaseous clouds. Angular momentum
 would be needed, and the laws of physics could not produce it. 

6 - How could their atomic structures
 originate?
Atoms, even hydrogen and helium,
 have complex structures. There is no way that outward shooting particles, continually
 separating farther from each other as they travel, could arrange themselves
 into atomic structures. 


We will now assume
 that, contrary to physical laws, (1) the particles magically that, contrary
 to physical laws, (1) the particles magically DID manage to move toward
 one another together, and (2) the particles COULD slow down and change
 directions.


THE PARTICLES
 CHANGED DIRECTIONS AND FORMED GAS CLOUDS

The theory—Gradually,
 the outward-racing particles are said to have begun circling one another, forming
 atoms. These atoms then changed direction further (this time toward one another)
 and formed gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.


This aspect of the stellar evolution theory
 is as strange as that which preceded it.

1 - Gas molecules in outer space are
 widely separated
.
By "gas," we mean
 atoms of hydrogen and/or helium which are separated from one another. All
 gas in outer space has a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest
 atmospheric vacuum pressure bottle in any laboratory in the world!
Gas in
 outer space is rarer (less dense; atoms more separated) than anything on earth. 

2 - Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer
 space would clump together
.
In fact, there
 is no gas on earth that clumps together either. Gas pushes apart; it does not
 push together. Separated atoms of hydrogen and/or helium would be even less
 likely to clump together in outer space.


We will now ASSUME that
 the outward-moving, extremely fast, ever separating atoms (shot out by the Big
 Bang explosion) could slow, change direction, and form themselves into immense
 clouds.


GAS CLOUDS 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
.
And if it cannot
 clump together, it cannot form itself into stars. The idea of gas pushing itself
 together in outer space to form stars is more scienceless fiction. Fog, whether
 on earth or in space, cannot push itself into balls. Once together, a star maintains
 its gravity quite well, but there is no way for nature to produce one. Getting
 it together in the first place is the problem. Gas floating in a vacuum cannot
 form itself into stars. Once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational
 attraction. But before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and
 form a star—or a planet, or anything else. Since both hydrogen and helium are
 gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping 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 known expanse of the universe
, so it could
 form itself into stars.
 Evolutionists tell us
 that the Big Bang occurred 10 to 15 billion years ago, and stars were formed
 5 billion years later. They only allow about 2½ billion years for it to clump
 together into stars! Their dating problem has been caused by the discovery of
 supposedly faraway quasars (which we will discuss later), some of which are
 dated at 15 billion light-years, since they have a redshift of 400 percent.
 That would make them 15 billion years old, which is too old to accommodate the
 theory. It doesn’t take a nuclear scientist to figure out the math in this paragraph.
 Simple arithmetic will tell you there is not enough time.

4 - Gas clouds in outer space expand;
 they do not contract
.
Yet they would have
 to contract to form anything. Any one of these points alone is enough to eliminate
 the stellar evolution theory. Yet they would have to contract to form anything.
 

5 - If the Big Bang theory were true, instead
 of a universe of stars, there would only be an outer rim of fast-moving matter.

 The outwardly flowing matter and/or gas clouds would keep moving outward without
 ever slowing. In frictionless space, with no matter ahead of it to collide with,
 the supposed matter from the initial explosion would keep moving outward forever.
 This fact is as solid as the ones mentioned before it.  

6 - In order for the gas to produce
 stars, it would have to move in several directions
.

 First, it would have to stop flowing outward. Then it
 would have to begin moving in circles
(stellar origin theories generally
 require rotating gas). Then the rotating gas would have to move closer
 together
. But there would be nothing to induce these motions. The atoms
 from the supposed Big Bang should just keep rushing outward forever. Linear
 motion
would have to mysteriously change to angular momentum


7 - A quantity of gas moving in the same
 direction in frictionless space is too stable to do anything but keep moving
 forward
.


8 - Gas
 in outer space which was circling a common center would fly apart
, not condense
 together.
 

9 - There is not enough mass in the
 universe
for the various theories of origin of matter and stars.
The
 total mean density of matter in the universe is about 100 times less than the
 amount required by the Big Bang theory. The universe has a low mean density.
 To put it another way, there is not enough matter in the universe. This "missing
 mass" problem is a major hurdle, not only to the Big Bang enthusiasts but
 also to the expanding universe theorists (*P.V. Rizzo, "Review of Mysteries
 of the Universe," Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150).
Astronomers
 are agreed on the existence of this problem. Hoyle, for example, says that without
 enough mass in the universe, it would not have been possible for gas to change
 into stars.


 
"Attempts to explain both the
   expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely
   contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration.
   For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal
   expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local
   condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the
   formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of
   cosmology."—*F. Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe
   in Motion (1984). p. 8.




10  - Hydrogen
 gas in outer space does not clump together
.
*Harwit’s research disproves
 the possibility that hydrogen gas in outer space can clump together. This is
 a major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang and related origin of matter
 and stars theories. The problem is twofold: (1) The density of matter
 in interstellar space is too low
.
(2) There is nothing to attract
 the particles of matter in outer space to stick to one another
.
Think
 about it a minute; don’t those facts make sense?


This point is so important (for it devastates
 the origin of stars theory) that *Harwit’s research should be mentioned:


*Harwit’s research dealt with the mathematical
 likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick together
and form tiny grains
 of several atoms, by the random sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules
 to a single nucleus as they passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable
 conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability for grains, Harwit determined
 that the amount of time needed for gas or other particles to clump together
 into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius—would take
 about 3 billion years!
Using more likely rates, 20 billion years would
 be required—to produce one tiny grain of matter stuck together out in space.
 As with nearly all scientists quoted in our 1,326-page Evolution Disproved
 Series
(which this book is condensed from), *Harwit is not a Creationist
 (
*M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, 1973, p. 394).

11  - *Novotny’s
 research findings
are also very important. *Novotny, in a book published
 by Oxford University, discusses the problem of "gaseous dispersion."
 It is a physical law that gas in a vacuum expands instead of contracts;
 therefore it cannot form itself into stars, planets, etc.
That which
 cannot happen, cannot happen given any amount of time. Do you agree?

 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 1:40 PM on July 20, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello FifthEdge,
Your "tripple-shot" is excellent. I've checked the time you posted it. No answer, just silence.
I guess that proves something.
Anyway I fully agree with you, with them.
Evolution.facts is a terrific site. I ordered two
boxes of "Evolution Cruncher" by Vance Ferrell.
Reading it (900 pages) I am beyond 800 now.
Mighty arguments it contains. I keep distributing the books to those interested.
I think and hope that the days of the evo pseudoscience are numbered and soon it will
end polluting education.

Best regards: Gabor


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 09:14 AM on September 17, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It probably didn't get answered because it is a troll.

It's about cosmology not evolution.


 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 9:30 PM on September 18, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Come on Fithedge, you have no idea what you're talking about!  

You're first 6 points have absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang, a tiny bit of nothing?  What theoretical physicist claims that a "tiny bit of nothing" was packed together?  You also make the simple mistake of equating the Big Bang with an explosion, which it was not.
you say:
"the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting
farther and farther apart from one another."

ONce again, you demonstrate your ignorance.  The Big Bang was not an explosion, it was a rapid expansion.  
You make so many fundamental errors that clearly show you don't know what your talking about.  Do yourself a favor and learn a little about what you are trying to disprove, until then you just sound like an uneducated buffoon.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:46 PM on September 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The "big Bang" is what happens between creationist's ears when they try to debunk evolution and science.

You know, creationists are just science deniers and they share similar methods with holocaust deniers.

It's interesting...Seriously, observe a holocaust denier's website and you'll see the *exact same type of arguments*.

Be afraid, be very afraid....
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:31 PM on September 22, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i need only quote from aquinas:

"Since everything that is moved functions as a sort of instrument of the first mover, if there was no first mover, then whatever things are in motion would be simply instruments. Of course, if an infinite series of movers and things moved were possible, with no first mover, then the whole infinity of movers and things moved would be instruments. Now, it is ridiculous, even to unlearned people, to suppose that instruments are moved but not by any principal agent. For, this would be like supposing that the construction of a box or bed could be accomplished by putting a saw or a hatchet to work without any carpenter to use them. Therefore - there must be a first mover existing above all - and this we call God.
       From Demonstration of God's Existence From Motion

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:04 PM on October 27, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that argument is actually flawed. All of aquinas arguments are.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:12 AM on November 8, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution and the Big Bang are not science! Science is: knowledge acquired by careful observation, by deduction of the laws which govern changes and conditions, and by testing these deductions by experiment.
You cannot prove these things in the big bang therefore they are not science they are theory. No evolution/the big bang are what we would call religion.
Religion is: 1)a system of beliefs and practices relating to the sacred and uniting its adherents in a community/2)Something that has a powerful hold on a person's way of thinking.
Stop calling your religion science!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:40 PM on November 9, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Stick to your primitive myths, you haven't the faintest idea of what science is, let alone the Big Bang or the Theory of evolution!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:15 AM on November 14, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok Demon you are now saying that the big "BANG" had no explosion!!! that it was just a rapid expansion! why then would all of the matter of the universe get together and then suddenly start expanding? Why is it you evolutionists have to keep changing and tweeking your theory?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:52 PM on November 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok Demon you are now saying that the big "BANG" had no explosion!!! that it was just a rapid expansion!


How rapid of an expansion does it take to be an explosion in your mind?

why then would all of the matter of the universe get together and then suddenly start expanding?


Perhaps God spoke it into existance?  That's somewhat more comforting that the collision of branes in M-space.


Why is it you evolutionists have to keep changing and tweeking your theory?


To make it match the observed facts.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:06 PM on November 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Everyone who goes to a public school is being indocrtinated to the "THEORY" of evolution. There are no proofs of it and all of the so called proofs have been disproved many years ago. (Check out Kent Hovind's seminar online at www.drdino.com) So to say that they keep tweeking the theory to match what we observe is completly false.
1) first because it has NEVER been observed and those that say it did are either uneducated in the subject or are strait out lying to you!
2)Secondly, the real reson that they have to continually change the theory is because we constantly find new things disproving such a rediculous theory and they must add or change the theory to make it still work.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:38 PM on December 2, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Then we shouldn't teach children about gravity because it's still the "THEORY" of gravity, or that the Earth orbits the sun because it's still the heliocentric "THEORY" or about atoms because it's still the atomic "THEORY"....You clearly don't understand science or what a scientific theory is.  Evolution is a fact, we do see it happening today, look up nylon eating bacteria for an indisputable example.  All of it's mechanisms aren't completely understood, so it's still the theory of evolution but evolutin happens, that's a fact.  And the theory of evolution is one of the most robust theories in science, we know much more about it than, say, the theory of gravity.  In fact, there is no other scientific theory to explain the diversity of life on our planet.  Kent Hovind is a boob and doesn't know what he is talking about, he's out to make money and doesn't care about the truth.  As I've said, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and just keeps getting stronger every year.  And like all scientific theories, when new evidence is found, the theory either incorporates this new evidence or the theory is falsified, evolution still hasn't been falsified, so the only one lieing here is you.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 08:46 AM on December 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe in both the Big Bang and in Darwins theory, however, I do not believe that it is a "science," Darwins theory is merely a theory about how two cells appeared...how did they appear...the big bang
Does that make sense?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:34 PM on December 10, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But that's not Darwin's theory!  The theory of evolution says nothing about how life first arose, it says nothing about how it formed.  The theory of evolution explains how life changes.  How life first came about is called abiogenesis.  And the Big Bang has nothing to do with either.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:01 PM on December 10, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi   Have never posted before but just have to ask if there no evidence for evolution then why in only  about 150 years scientist in all related fields have gone from almost 100 % creationest to 99% evolutionest
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:46 PM on January 17, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

because if they didnt they are acountable for there life, action and behaviors which means that they would end up in hell. i think you need to pray...
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:17 PM on January 29, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"because if they didnt they are acountable for there life, action and behaviors which means that they would end up in hell. i think you need to pray..."

But most of the Christians in the world accept the theory of evolution. Creationists are the fringe, the superstitious zealots who refuse to accept reality.  Ithink you need to study the facts...

(Edited by admin 1/30/2004 at 07:54 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:19 AM on January 30, 2004 | IP
Killer_KF

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I was wondering if you could give me some hard numbers or prove to me that most of christians accept evolution?

Could you also prove to me that evolution is a fact as you say it is?
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 9:43 PM on March 23, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I was wondering if you could give me some hard numbers or prove to me that most of christians accept evolution?

Well, in America, creationism has a depressingly strong hold but here are the numbers from a 1997 gallup poll:

"45% of Americans believe in creationism and reject evolution completely.
40% of Americans believe in God-guided evolution but reject the "theory of evolution" advocated by neo-Darwinists.
10% of Americans believe in the naturalistic theory of evolution, i.e., neo-Darwinism
5% are undecided "

Of course, the Catholic church finds no problem with evolution and they are the largest christian denomination in the world.

From here:evopoll

"Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:

97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve. 4 "

Could you also prove to me that evolution is a fact as you say it is?

"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."

OR...

" Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

Since we have directly observed evolution in action, it is a fact.  The theory of evolution explains how this happens.  So yes, evolution is a fact.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:32 AM on March 24, 2004 | IP
Killer_KF

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where have you directly observed evolution in action? I thought that evolution took millions of years to accomplish.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 10:48 PM on March 24, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where have you directly observed evolution in action? I thought that evolution took millions of years to accomplish.

Evolution is a change in the allele frequency of a population.  As such, we have observed such changes in nature and in the laboratory.
Technically, a change at or above the species level is a macroevolutionary change, we have seen new species arise in our life time, look up speciation events in insects and for mammals, in mice.  The nylon eating bacteria is also an excellent example of evolution in action in our lifetime.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:09 PM on March 24, 2004 | IP
Astronomer

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1 - The Big Bang theory is
 based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but
 it can’t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together
 that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe.
The Big Bang
 is a theoretical extreme, just as a black hole is.


Except that's not what the Big Bang is. The Big Bang is simply a statement that the universe is expanding and at one time was much more hot and dense than it is today. The speculation about an initial singularity is just that: speculation. We don't know what happened before the Planck time (roughly 10^-43 seconds after a fiducial singularity) because physics breaks down. However, everything after that is basically well-understood from both a theoretical and observational point of view.


2 - Nothingness cannot pack together.
 It would have no way to push itself into a pile.


This doesn't even make sense. You'll need to explain what you mean.


3 - A vacuum has no density.
 It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded.
 But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density. It is said that the nothingness
 got very dense, and that is why it exploded.


Quantum mechanics says otherwise. A vacuum DOES have an observable energy density based. Everywhere in a vacuum virtual positron-electron pairs are probabilistically and spontaneously being created and destroyed out of the vacuum. This is because the vacuum has an energy density from which these pairs are created. This is an observed fact, so please don't try to dispute it. I know it goes against fundamental "common sense", but so does the fact that the Earth orbits the sun and not vice versa.

The quantum fluctuations of a proto-universe very easily can have an energy density from a vacuum that was higher than ours: so much so that it allowed for the creation of the universe. The details are not known for the reasons I stated above.


4 - There would be no ignition to explode
 nothingness
.
No fire and no match. It could
 not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear
 explosion, for there were no atoms!


Well, this would be true if this was how the Big Bang happened: but it's not. The Big Bang happened and is happening everywhere. It doesn't need a "match" because a "match" is simply a requirement of activation energy implying there was some potential barrier for the universe to expand. As far as we can observe, there isn't. The universe expands and that's a fact.


5 - There is no way to expand it.
  How can you expand what isn’t there? Even if that magical
 vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the
 pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it
 together would keep it from expanding.


Gravity and the expansion are in a delicate balance which is easily demonstrable from a basic equation about the universe called the Friedman Equation. This is nothing more than a statement that the universe has an expansion factor (let's call it H for the Hubble constant) which is effected directly by the gravity caused by an energy density or a mass.

How does space with nothing in it expand or contract? Well, the answer to that question comes directly from Einstein's Theory of General relativity. In fact, spacetime is warped by gravity and is actually unstable to any energy-density or matter you place into the spacetime. Therefore, in order to be balanced there needs to be one of three things: either an intrinsic curvature to space to counteract the curvature that gravity causes, an intrinsic "anti-gravity" which is another energy source which fights gravity, or an expansion of spacetime itself. It turns out that the expansion of spacetime itself is going on allowing for the universe as we see it and know it to exist. We have measured the curvature of spacetime and from that measurement and from theoretical arguments we think it's very close to zero. Space also appears to have an anti-gravity component to it, but it's very weak right now compared to the expansion of the universe and the force due to gravity.


6 - Nothingness cannot produce heat.
 The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed
 the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty
 vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second,
 an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there
 can be no heat without an energy source.


The universe's energy density is actually constant in a certain sense in that the energy just changes from one form into another and we don't have external energy input since the conservation of energy generally holds for this process. In the beginning, the universe is hot and dense, but as it expands, the universe cools off because it now encompasses a greater volume (thus conserving one measure of the overall energy density). Indeed, matter can come out of energy density in a vacuum by Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2.  Furthermore, the energy density of the universe is simply a fact, it doesn't need a "source". Think of it in terms of the anthropic principle: the universe exists is an observed fact. That it has to have a "source" for existing is a conjecture.



7 – The calculations are too exacting.
 
Too perfect an explosion would be required.
 On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big
 Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too
 exacting.
Knowledgeable scientists call them "too perfect." Mathematical
 limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve.
 The limits for success are simply too narrow.


This glurge is probably in reference to the flatness problem which is resolved satisfactorally by inflation. True, we don't know the details in their full glory as to how the universe evolved from its hot and dense days to its current state, but we do have a very good outline with just the details needing to be filled in. The "fine-tuning" problems are again a matter of perspective. If you think that a number is too "exact" to be reasonable, then you have to have a reason to think that such an "exact" number couldn't be a part of our universe. Indeed, there are sometimes cases where this argument can be made (c.f. the flatness problem), but as far as I'm aware the "fine-tuning" has been pushed back to variables so obscure that I'm not sure we even understand how they may have come about in the first place.

We're still learning: and there's a lot left to do!

By the way: the formation of structure (a big problem about 5 to 10 years ago) is now relatively well-understood by means of a hierarchical model of cold dark matter clustering. In fact, this is how you get to your galaxies, stars, and planets (and life, for that matter).


Most aspects of the theory are impossible,
 and some require parameters that would require miracles to fulfill. One example
 of this is the expansion of the original fireball
from the Big Bang, which
 they place precisely within the narrowest of limits. An evolutionist astronomer,
 *R.H. Dicke, says it well:


 
"If
   the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion
   would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been
   0.1 percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its
   present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary
   matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the present
   mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would
   not have existed long enough to form stars."—*R.H. Dickey, Gravitation
   and the Universe (1969), p. 62.



This is actually a rehash of the "flatness" problem I eluded to above. It is well-understood to be solved by inflation which necessarily creates a flat universe.

Not that inflation also doesn't have its problems, but "problems" in a theory do not invalidate the theory. To say otherwise is to suffer from serious baby-with-bathwater-throwing.


8 - Such an equation would have produced
 not a universe but a hole
.
*Roger L. St. Peter
 in 1974 developed a complicated mathematical equation that showed that the theorized
 Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. In reality,
 St. Peter says the theoretical explosion (if one could possibly take place)
 would fall back on itself and make a theoretical black hole! This means that
 one imaginary object would swallow another one!


Well, black holes are far from imaginary. There is plenty of evidence now supporting their existence. Furthermore, St. Peter's work on a closed universe is correct: however we don't live in such a universe: we live in a flat universe which will not collapse back in on itself.


9 - There is not enough antimatter in
 the universe
.
 This is a big problem for the
 theorists. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive
 matter (matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small amounts of
 antimatter exist. There should be as much antimatter as matter—if the Big Bang
 was true.


Actually, the matter/antimatter balance was extremely good (up to several orders of magnitude the matter and antimatter were made in equal abundances). However, a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of matter was created more than antimatter. It is this matter which is the stuff that you and I are made of. The rest of the matter annihilated with the antimatter and created the background radiation which is the strongest evidence we have to date for the Big Bang.

Why was there this slight imbalance? Scientists have a pretty good idea: it has to do with observed processes in particle physics called "symmetry breaking" processes. For some reason, the laws of nature conspire so that there is a preference of matter over antimatter. This is on the cutting edge of science and is really quite exciting!

1 - There
 is no way to unite the particles
.
As
 the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting
 farther and farther apart from one another.


The "particles" aren't created in the Early Universe. You need to get local energy densities that are low enough to allow for particles as we know and interact with them to be created. In the Early Universe, things were much more "soupy".


2 - Outer space is frictionless, and there
 would be no way to slow the particles
.
The
 Big Bang is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of all matter, in which
 a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter. There would be no way
 those particles could ever slow.


Just because there are no dissipation forces (friction) doesn't mean you cannot have any time evolution of trajectories. In fact, this is well understood through an equation called the "Boltzmann Equation". In effect, we can map out an ensemble of particles as they interact with one another through forces like gravity and atomic forces. If you ignore forces, then you have the situation outlined above, but the fact remains the universe is filled with forces.


3 - The particles would maintain the
 same vector
(speed and direction) forever.

 Assuming the particles were moving outward through totally empty space, there
 is no way they could change direction. They could not get together and begin
 circling one another.


I suppose this would be true if you didn't believe in gravity. But I think that's a pretty silly thing not to believe in.


4 - There is no way to slow the particles.
 They are traveling at supersonic speed
, and every
 kilometer would separate them farther from one other.


Supersonic particles can be slowed through particle interactions and through the effects of gravity.


5 - There is no way to change the direction
 of even one particle
.
They would keep racing
 on forever, never slowing, never changing direction. There is no way to get
 the particles to form into atoms or cluster into gaseous clouds. Angular momentum
 would be needed, and the laws of physics could not produce it.


Again, gravity change the trajectories of particles.

Angular momentum can be produced through quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations are a well-documented and observed fact of nature related to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In effect, what you have are places in space that are a little-bit inhomogeneous because of the rules of quantum mechanics (which are well-documented and observationally tested, by the way). These inhomogenities start out tiny, but given enough time (which the universe certainly has a lot of) and a central force like gravity, the conservation of angular momentum takes these small little fluctuations and turns them into swirling masses and quickly spinning objects we see today.


6 - How could their atomic structures
 originate?
Atoms, even hydrogen and helium,
 have complex structures. There is no way that outward shooting particles, continually
 separating farther from each other as they travel, could arrange themselves
 into atomic structures.


Again, the early universe was actually more of a "soup" with energy, particles, light, and all kinds of weird things constantly interacting, annhiliating, and coming back into existence. This is very much the same sort of material that we create in particle accelerators today. What happens as the unverse expands is that the soup "cools off". This causes various particles to begin to "freeze-out" of the soup since there is no longer enough energy for them to collide and annihilate with the rest of the soup. All of the particles you see today have their beginnings there. They froze out of the soup and were no longer subject to being annihilated and recreated. The protons and neutrons froze out first, and then nuclear reactions commensed creating the abundance of hydrogen and helium we see today.

This is a very well-understood and well-studied phenomenon and is one of the great successes of the Big Bang model as it predicts precisely the abundance of hydrogen and helium we see today.


The theory—Gradually,
 the outward-racing particles are said to have begun circling one another, forming
 atoms. These atoms then changed direction further (this time toward one another)
 and formed gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.


This aspect of the stellar evolution theory
 is as strange as that which preceded it.


I explained the macroscopic models for this well-understood physical theory above. It is true that a lot of the details of stellar evolution remain to be worked out, but gravity is a very strong force and does allow for the creation of stars!


1 - Gas molecules in outer space are
 widely separated
.
By "gas," we mean
 atoms of hydrogen and/or helium which are separated from one another. All
 gas in outer space has a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest
 atmospheric vacuum pressure bottle in any laboratory in the world!
Gas in
 outer space is rarer (less dense; atoms more separated) than anything on earth.

2 - Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer
 space would clump together
.
In fact, there
 is no gas on earth that clumps together either. Gas pushes apart; it does not
 push together. Separated atoms of hydrogen and/or helium would be even less
 likely to clump together in outer space.


This would be true if there was no way for gases to cool. If you have a gas at a constant temperature, it will not cool. However, as the density of a gas increases in space, atomic processes allow the gas to cool. Most of these processes involve the radiation of light that the gas then cannot reabsorb so the radiation is effectively lost. This cooling causes the gas to contract even further which is helped along in part by gravity (a good friend of ours whenever we want to see how structure is formed). This is how stars are born: out of gas clouds that cool down and become dense enough to start gravitating and eventually: voila! a star!

GAS CLOUDS 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
.
And if it cannot
 clump together, it cannot form itself into stars. The idea of gas pushing itself
 together in outer space to form stars is more scienceless fiction. Fog, whether
 on earth or in space, cannot push itself into balls. Once together, a star maintains
 its gravity quite well, but there is no way for nature to produce one. Getting
 it together in the first place is the problem. Gas floating in a vacuum cannot
 form itself into stars. Once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational
 attraction. But before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and
 form a star—or a planet, or anything else. Since both hydrogen and helium are
 gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping together.


This, again, is assuming that you don't have a mechanism to cool gas down. However, we do have such mechanism.

A dominant mechanism in today's universe are heavier elements that can radiate at frequencies that aren't easily absorbed by the gas. This allows for the gas to cool and contract. It isn't technically true that a "fog" can never collapse: it collapses every time it cools. This is a good thing because its exactly what allows for rain to fall on Earth: a cloud cools, collapses and water vapor coallesces to form rain.

Similarly, on a much larger scale, gases in outer space cool, collapse, and form stars!


2 - Careful analysis has revealed that there
 is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars
.



This just plain isn't true. Gas clouds are enormous things: many contain masses that are in excess of a thousand solar masses: plenty of stuff to create stars!


3 - There would not be enough time for
 the gas to reach the currently known expanse of the universe
, so it could
 form itself into stars.
 Evolutionists tell us
 that the Big Bang occurred 10 to 15 billion years ago, and stars were formed
 5 billion years later. They only allow about 2½ billion years for it to clump
 together into stars! Their dating problem has been caused by the discovery of
 supposedly faraway quasars (which we will discuss later), some of which are
 dated at 15 billion light-years, since they have a redshift of 400 percent.
That would make them 15 billion years old, which is too old to accommodate the
 theory. It doesn’t take a nuclear scientist to figure out the math in this paragraph.
 Simple arithmetic will tell you there is not enough time.


Actually, the "dating problem" was a result of an incorrect model. Quasars at a redshift of 4 have formed when the universe is roughly 3 billion years old: plenty of time to create them.

The math that is cited is particularly bad: there given that you need five billion years (which is a lot for current models) to cool down a cloud enough to create stars, the universe at 13.7 billion years of age has plenty of time to create these stars: and a number of generations of them as well. This is exactly what we observe!

 
4 - Gas clouds in outer space expand;
 they do not contract
.
Yet they would have
 to contract to form anything. Any one of these points alone is enough to eliminate
 the stellar evolution theory. Yet they would have to contract to form anything.
 


Gas clouds in space do contract. The contract by means of cooling. This is well understood.


5 - If the Big Bang theory were true, instead
 of a universe of stars, there would only be an outer rim of fast-moving matter.

 The outwardly flowing matter and/or gas clouds would keep moving outward without
 ever slowing. In frictionless space, with no matter ahead of it to collide with,
 the supposed matter from the initial explosion would keep moving outward forever.
 This fact is as solid as the ones mentioned before it.  


This fact actually isn't solid at all: it's just plain not true. The universe expands uniformly: EVERYWHERE in space. It is not "exploding" outwards as is insinuated above.


6 - In order for the gas to produce
 stars, it would have to move in several directions
.

 First, it would have to stop flowing outward. Then it
 would have to begin moving in circles
(stellar origin theories generally
 require rotating gas). Then the rotating gas would have to move closer
 together
. But there would be nothing to induce these motions. The atoms
 from the supposed Big Bang should just keep rushing outward forever. Linear
 motion
would have to mysteriously change to angular momentum.



All these problems were addressed above. Basically, there is no "linearity" to the Big Bang: it is a uniform expansion through all of space.


7 - A quantity of gas moving in the same
 direction in frictionless space is too stable to do anything but keep moving
 forward
.



Unless there are quantum fluctuations and density seeds of dark matter. This is exactly what allows for structure to form.


8 - Gas
 in outer space which was circling a common center would fly apart
, not condense
 together.
 


Only if there is no cooling. (Is there an echo in here?)


9 - There is not enough mass in the
 universe
for the various theories of origin of matter and stars.
The
 total mean density of matter in the universe is about 100 times less than the
 amount required by the Big Bang theory. The universe has a low mean density.
 To put it another way, there is not enough matter in the universe. This "missing
 mass" problem is a major hurdle, not only to the Big Bang enthusiasts but
 also to the expanding universe theorists (*P.V. Rizzo, "Review of Mysteries
 of the Universe," Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150).
Astronomers
 are agreed on the existence of this problem. Hoyle, for example, says that without
 enough mass in the universe, it would not have been possible for gas to change
 into stars.


The "missing mass" problem has been solved! This is done by means of Dark Matter which is an observed form of matter that doesn't interact with light. When you take into account the observed dark matter it turns out there is just enough for the structure we see today to form.



"Attempts to explain both the
   expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely
   contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration.
   For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal
   expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local
   condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the
   formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of
   cosmology."—*F. Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe
   in Motion (1984). p. 8.




What Hoyle (may he rest in peace) didn't understand at the time was that there was a form of matter which didn't interact with light and therefore, with no pressure, just clumped together to form the seeds of galaxies we see today. This is exactly the "hierachical model" that I outlined above.


10  - Hydrogen
 gas in outer space does not clump together
.
*Harwit’s research disproves
 the possibility that hydrogen gas in outer space can clump together. This is
 a major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang and related origin of matter
 and stars theories. The problem is twofold: (1) The density of matter
 in interstellar space is too low
.
(2) There is nothing to attract
 the particles of matter in outer space to stick to one another
.
Think
 about it a minute; don’t those facts make sense?



Well, it's true the cooling of hydrogen clouds is a problem since hydrogen clouds by definition don't have any heavier elements in them. However, it turns out that hydrogen can cool hydrogen clouds given enough time through some rather Byzantine processes which create light that hydrgoen cannot then reabsorb. An important coolant in this process is molecular hydrogen which creates light that hydrogen not in the molecular form cannot reabsorb. This allows for hydrogen clouds to cool and collapse.


This point is so important (for it devastates
 the origin of stars theory) that *Harwit’s research should be mentioned:


*Harwit’s research dealt with the mathematical
 likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick together
and form tiny grains
 of several atoms, by the random sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules
 to a single nucleus as they passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable
 conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability for grains, Harwit determined
 that the amount of time needed for gas or other particles to clump together
 into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius—would take
 about 3 billion years!
Using more likely rates, 20 billion years would
 be required—to produce one tiny grain of matter stuck together out in space.
 As with nearly all scientists quoted in our 1,326-page Evolution Disproved
 Series
(which this book is condensed from), *Harwit is not a Creationist
 (
*M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, 1973, p. 394).


But actually, the point of this article is to show that another proposed cooling process (condensation onto dust grains) isn't important. This isn't by any means the only way to get hydrogen to "clump". In fact, it doesn't appear to be important for the reasons outlined above.

I mentioned exactly how interstellar gas clouds form and end up created stars earlier.


11  - *Novotny’s
 research findings
are also very important. *Novotny, in a book published
 by Oxford University, discusses the problem of "gaseous dispersion."
 It is a physical law that gas in a vacuum expands instead of contracts;
 therefore it cannot form itself into stars, planets, etc.
That which
 cannot happen, cannot happen given any amount of time. Do you agree?



I disagree. What we need are adequate coolants which have been identified (see above).

So I think I have addressed every "objection" to the Big Bang and stellar evolution brought up. I think that this is quite straightforward: there are simple explanations for these supposed problems.


I disagree. What we need are adequate coolants which have been identified (see above).

So I think I have addressed every "objection" to the Big Bang and stellar evolution brought up. I think that this is quite straightforward: there are simple explanations for these supposed problems.




(Edited by Astronomer 5/21/2004 at 9:26 PM).

(Edited by Astronomer 5/21/2004 at 9:27 PM).
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 7:12 PM on May 21, 2004 | IP
VINCE

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I came across your site by chance when looking at the big bang theory that is no longer a theory. You see guys and girls the big bang theory was made by mans obverations of the know matter that is out there.  You shouldnt be questioning the theory but rather be trying to find answers to your questions, and you will be all surprised to find that the theories do conpley to obveration.

 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 08:38 AM on January 12, 2005 | IP
Yod Heh Vav Heh

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Killer_KF at 10:48 PM on March 24, 2004 :
Where have you directly observed evolution in action? I thought that evolution took millions of years to accomplish.


No, that's creationist spin-doctoring, large amounts of change would need a longer time to accomplish, however, as it stands to reason. It happens gradually from generation to generation, and such small changes would accumulate into large changes, especially if the environment promoted one change over another.

We've seen all sorts of new species arise in our lifetimes, be they microbial, plant or animals. They're just modifications of the prior organism.

The big bang is a theory and factual, there's nothing in the universe that disagrees with the expansion.

This thread goes to show that creationists have to rally against multiple scientific fields to peddle their presposterous superstition. There isn't a field of science I can think of they they don't disagree with in some part.

EDIT: I also fail to see how the BB, even if disproved, would be evidence for creation, the creationists themselves heralded the BB as proof for creation when it challenged the static-state universe model, this is pure "having your cake and eating it" behaviour from the creationists. Any challenge to science is proof for creation, and let's use science to prove it! It'd be funny if people weren't duped into it.

(Edited by Yod Heh Vav Heh 1/12/2005 at 10:11 AM).


-------
Vengeance is mine.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 10:08 AM on January 12, 2005 | IP
Lone_Prodigy

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For right now I will adress your first few moronic points.

1 - The Big Bang theory is
 based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but
 it can’t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together
 that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. The Big Bang
 is a theoretical extreme, just as a black hole is.


It isn't "nothing" that was packed together, it was matter. What do you thing composes black holes? Matter. It didn't produce all of the mass in the universe, it was the mass!!! What makes it so impossible? We have proof of black holes existing currently, what makes a larger variant impossible?


Nothingness cannot pack together
 It would have no way to push itself into a pile.


It isn't "nothingness", it's matter. And guess what? Gravity pulls matter together! Wow, maybe now you can pass 1st grade science!

3 - A vacuum has no density


Who said it does?

It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded.


Post a reference to someone that said that other than a creationist? It is said that matter got dense and then exploded apart.

But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density. It is said that the nothingness
 got very dense, and that is why it exploded.


Do you have any quote from a real scientist that is saying that vacuum got very dense? That's right, you can't. Because noone said that!

4 - There would be no ignition to explode
 nothingness. No fire and no match. It could
 not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!


It was not nothingness, it was matter. And guess what? Certaint ypes of matter react with each other. In addition, nuclear reactions would've been quite possible, what with more atoms in one place in higher density with higher energy than anything ever before.

5 - There is no way to expand it.


Matter? Oh, yes there is.

How can you expand what isn’t there? Even if that magical
 vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the
 pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it
 together would keep it from expanding.


Chemical or nuclear reactions would push the matter apart. Too hard for your bible-muddled brain to grasp?


-------
Death is irrelevant.<br>-Bean
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 7:03 PM on January 12, 2005 | IP
Yod Heh Vav Heh

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


It isn't "nothing" that was packed together, it was matter.


No, it wasn't. Matter came later. It was dimensionality packed up tight, not matter.  

What do you thing composes black holes? Matter.


So if all mass was in one point, why wasn't it a black hole?

It didn't produce all of the mass in the universe, it was the mass!!!


Name the theory that states matter was around originally. It had a very high vacuum energy density thanks to the compressed dimensions, as is my understanding, which later decayed into the matter and antimatter we all know and love.


It isn't "nothingness", it's matter. And guess what? Gravity pulls matter together! Wow, maybe now you can pass 1st grade science!


And what would make it all expand as it does?

3 - A vacuum has no density


Who said it does?


I do. Vacuum density refers to energy, the stuff that turns into virtual particles all the time.


It is said that matter got dense and then exploded apart.


Post a reference to someone saying that.


Do you have any quote from a real scientist that is saying that vacuum got very dense? That's right, you can't. Because noone said that!


I agree that no scientist said "nothingness got very compressed and so exploded" as that assumes some sort of expanded set of dimensions prior to the big bang that shrunk before expanding again.


It was not nothingness, it was matter. And guess what? Certaint ypes of matter react with each other. In addition, nuclear reactions would've been quite possible, what with more atoms in one place in higher density with higher energy than anything ever before.


Hahaha, oh be quiet, this has nothing to do with the BB.


Matter? Oh, yes there is.


So tell me, how would you get a universe worth of matter expanding from inside a black hole?

How can you expand what isn’t there? Even if that magical
 vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the
 pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it
 together would keep it from expanding.


Chemical or nuclear reactions would push the matter apart. Too hard for your bible-muddled brain to grasp?


Hahahaha, yeah, like the atomic reactions and chemical reactions that push black holes apart? This is nonsense.

The actual problem with the reasoning is that it's a straw man of the BB, and doesn't factor in the expansive force, considered to be the effect of gravity over long distances.

It's bad enough trying to educate creationists without having to deal with nonsense peddled by misinformation merchants. Like you.


-------
Vengeance is mine.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 9:44 PM on January 12, 2005 | IP
VINCE

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

your right evolution does take millions, in fact billons of yrs to happen, but the unversive is so big that if you look hard enough you will come across a part or stage of development of a object in space that will explain what is happening. For an example  our sun is a yellow sun that is 4.5 billon yrs old and is middle aged. If you look at Betelgeuse which is a star in Orion that is a red giant which is 3/4 through its life time. This is what is going to happen to our sun in 4.5 billon yrs.  And this holds true with almost everything that is out there.  Sooner or later you will see or observe a stage of development or declay of something at some stage some where.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 08:07 AM on January 13, 2005 | IP
Lone_Prodigy

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, Yod Heh Vav Heh, I was under the impression that it was a gargantuan singularity that somehow exploded. Thanks for enlightening me.


-------
Death is irrelevant.<br>-Bean
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 10:57 AM on January 13, 2005 | IP
Yod Heh Vav Heh

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A singularity is so called because its dimensions have been compressed to a point. A point is a singularity, it's the spacetime all the mass behind an event horizon resides in since all the space and time behind that are so warped every single part of that volume curves to the same point.

your right evolution does take millions, in fact billons of yrs to happen


"Your" is possessive, but evolution happens when organisms breed, lots of breeding happens over long scales of time,so more evolution happens.


-------
Vengeance is mine.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 2:00 PM on January 13, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The biggest "flaw" with the big bang theory is its name!
Your problem is that you see the name Big Bang and presume that it was an explosion, this however is not the case. The Big bang is a name given to the theory by a creationist who missunderstood the theory while trying to disprove it. I'm recalling this from memory so I'm a bit hazy on the exact facts, I might look it up again. But basicaly it wasn't an explosion and it wasn't realy that big at first iether.
It is similair to people presumeing that Frankinstein is the monster, but it isn't its the name of the scientist who made him in the book.

Also to go back a few posts, evolution is a proven fact, that has no relation to the big bang theory. Scientists have witnessed evolution in laboratorys in bacterior, yes for mamals evolution takes thousands of years, but this is simpily because of the life span of mamals. So therefore with a creature with a very short life span, i.e. bacteria we can witness evolution.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 08:45 AM on January 14, 2005 | IP
Yod Heh Vav Heh

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fred Hoyle dubbed it the Big Bang, he wasn't a creationist. Weird, and certainly not a biologist or chemist, but not a creationist. He was argunig for a solid state model.




-------
Vengeance is mine.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 3:20 PM on January 14, 2005 | IP
VINCE

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

in the begninng there was nothing at all not even a vacuum, two dimemsions folded onto itself and formed a anti-vacuum. This is a something and as the fold collapsed onto itself the something formed energy. When that guy wrote E=MC2 which of course explains how we can have H bombs and shinning suns, most people don't know that the opposite can happen. A pure energy turns into a mass in stead of a mass turning into energy M=EC2 do you get it. oh by the way the dimemsions 1 and 2 have always be there with or without something!  I read this in a book at the library.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 05:50 AM on January 21, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No body knows what happened at the very begining of the universe, it is all speculation and mathamatical and physics predictions, hense so many differnt explanations. But one phase comes to mind here

The finite cannot comprehend the infinite


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 3:13 PM on January 21, 2005 | IP
SJChaput

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Great quote Peter I have always thought something the same myself...

But when it comes to scientific speculation and religious speculation

I choose science
 


Posts: 32 | Posted: 5:48 PM on January 21, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I definatly choose science over religion, everytime, not once have I seen somthing and thought religion gives a better explanation and science of that.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 7:44 PM on January 21, 2005 | IP
VINCE

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

er but we do know what happen at the beginning, there is back ground radiation discovered in the 60s, which is the remains of the explosion of the big bang. Oh there is also the edge of our universe which is the expanding edge of the flatted bubble that we are in. So our universe is finite, what is pass that bubble wall is where our maths fails us.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 01:45 AM on January 22, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. The big bang wasn't an explosion, it was expansion and spread.
2. And when I say at the very beggining I mean at the very start of the big bang, I can't remember the exact figure but sciencentist have only calculated up to about half a second after the big bang occured, and also before the big bang, I did also include in that quote what the out side of our universe is.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 07:19 AM on January 22, 2005 | IP
VINCE

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

inplosion followed bya explosion followed by a expansion.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 05:40 AM on January 24, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I need to read up on it again, but I thought that, it was just rapid expansions, but no "cosmic fireball" like some web sites say.

(Edited by Peter87 1/25/2005 at 12:47 PM).


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 12:40 PM on January 25, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.