The Big Bang "Theory" Contradicts Science

» Home » History

There's no reason for how the matter got there or how it expanded or how an explosion could possibly bring about order. Therefore, it is unscientific.

Stranger

15 Feb 2008 21:58

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

The idea to settle for theories that are not bound to become law defies science

characters

17 Mar 2008 16:10

1 Comment

I’m actually surprised at how you seem to believe you “know” that the Big Bang Theory will never become a scientific law in the future.

Hizashi

17 Mar 2008 20:31

Comment

No evidence that theory is real and earth created by chance yeh right it was created by God

vgking13

06 Mar 2008 21:54

1 Comment

I've created a list of evidence in my post supporting this topic, please view it and see what you think.

Hizashi

17 Mar 2008 20:24

Comment

True. There are many contradictions throughout, and I would like to see some strong evidence that says it happened. That is right. There is none.

-125_

19 Feb 2008 21:56

6 Comments

I'd like to see these contradictions you speak of, please.

Hizashi

17 Mar 2008 20:29

Comment

IF YOU ARE AGAINST, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE. It is against what is accepted, I know, but the truth is not always accepted (and if you think "Oh, come on! This guy is not accepting the truth of the big bang!" then I challenge you to provide proof). Notice how none of the votes for the big bang bring any evidence. One of them says there is an explanation, but does not elaborate because it is probably flawed as well and does not answer the question of origin at all.

Stranger

18 Feb 2008 16:50

1 Comment

I've provided evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory on this topic, please view it and see what you think. I've also corrected many of your misconceptions about the theory I've seen you make as well.

Hizashi

17 Mar 2008 20:32

Comment

For the most part, astrophysics has worked like this:
1. Someone ponders an issue and comes up with an idea.
2. Someone tries to prove or disprove the idea with mathematics.
3. Conclusions drawn from mathematics are attempted to be proven or dis proven with instrumentation.

This process has provided some of the most awesome findings known to humans. Great stuff.

The Big Bang theory is a culmination of massive doses of this process. Certainly not proven. Certainly subject to modification. But certainly not simply an idea.

As for a reason...one possibility is a creator wanted to create the universe and POOF! A Big Bang. A creator who could go POOF! And create a universe could easily fulfill your trifecta of qualifying arguments.

Its justsumguys theory...I know I can't handle the math end of it....and I certainly can't afford the instrumentation so I'm not planning on getting it published in Scientific Weekly any time soon.

justsumguy

23 Jul 2008 01:28

1 Comment

This is just a heads up, but I’ve already tried informing Stranger that the principles of the Big Bang can fit perfectly with his religious views so long as he lets them. Unfortunately, he tends to side more with things he’s viewed on creationist websites, those of which not only know very little about the Big Bang but do not support anything concerning it for various reasons. Some of the subjects on the websites discuss such things as how CMB radiation cannot be an evidence for the Big Bang, young-Earth creationism, the “something cannot come from nothing” idea, and the ever popular “The Big Bang violates the laws of entropy”. If you scroll down to our debate you'll find most of these topics being discussed. This is why our debate was put on hold. I gave him many links to research off of.

Hizashi

30 Jul 2008 04:57

Comment

No as any good theory it limits itself to interpreting the existing data as best it might. As for the order out of chaos notion rest assured the order you mention is more on the order of localized anomalies in the general condition. The best and simplest description of the universe is a thin hydrogen gas with some impurities.

finsch

03 Jul 2008 17:26

Add a Comment

The big bang theory is science.

wallaceg12

19 May 2008 18:05

2 Comments

So they say.

Stranger

19 May 2008 19:10

Comment

Go and study up first you ignorant hick. It is laughable that religious people mock contemporary scientific beliefs and theories, yet the minute one slightly sways in the favour of religion, they suddenly cling to it and use it to challenge scientists.

ibanex_87

03 May 2008 22:52

3 Comments

I'm religious and I think science is one of they best things around. I took my confirmation name from the Catholic patron saint of SCIENCE.

Mark

03 May 2008 22:56

Comment

Let me guess...you're one of those scientifically ignorant types who "thinks" that the Second Law of Thermodynamics "proves" evolution is false.

You're obviously too uneducated to have heard of words such as _gravity_ or _radioactive decay_.

19 Apr 2008 10:23

1 Comment

Nothing you said is an attempt to show my alleged error.

Stranger

24 Apr 2008 16:51

Comment

I think that an extensive amount of research should be done by those who agree with this topic’s title, since many of them seem to have very little, if any, knowledge of the actual contents of the Big Bang theory itself.

Amatsu

18 Mar 2008 21:55

2 Comments

Amen to that.

Hizashi

19 Mar 2008 01:40

Comment

Once again, as I have done in two other separate topics so far, I’ll create a list of some evidence that supports the Big Bang Theory. But first, I’d like to say that the Big Bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion. Besides the fact that it got bigger over time, the Big Bang has almost nothing in common with an explosion. Furthermore, it was also not “big” at all, since the Universe was believed to be smaller than the atomic nucleus of an atom prior to the expansion itself. Also, speaking to Stranger, you’re completely incorrect about how order cannot arise from explosions. For example, Supernovae produce heavy elements, and the shock waves from them compress interstellar gases, which begins the formation of new stars. Another example would be how explosions of atomized gasoline produce compressed gas, which is harnessed in internal combustion engines to power automobiles and other equipment. Also, addressing your comment to Openurmind when you stated that “…it contradicts the law of entropy that says things can't become more "advanced" over time in isolation.”, I assume you‘re referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If you are, then I must inform you that the Second Law of Thermodynamics says no such thing. It states that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This in no way prevents increasing or advancing order simply due to the fact that entropy is not the same as disorder. In fact, sometimes the two correspond. Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size. With these notations aside, I’ll now present the much requested evidence for the Big Bang Theory that some people don't believe exists.

The following information is fact:

-The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.
-The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.
-The Big Bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.

Please note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them. I would like to also state that inconsistencies are not irresolvable. Yes, there are still unresolved observations concerning the theory, however, simply because you don’t know the answer to a certain question in no way implies that the question has no answer.

And for future reference, for any of those who's comments are originating from a Creationist point of view, Saying “God did it” is not an explanation, because it is not tied to any objective evidence. It does not rule out any possibility or even any impossibility, therefore it is not falsifiable. It does not address questions of “how” and “why”, and it raises even more questions such as “which God?” and “how did God originate?” Claiming “God did it” is equivalent to saying “It’s magic”. In the explaining game, cosmologists are far out in front.

Hizashi

17 Mar 2008 10:30

32 Comments

I like this guy. Thank you for this Hiz. Strangers, I will leave you in his capable hands, learn from him, he knows his stuff.

StBalders

17 Mar 2008 16:19

Comment

I think of the Big Bang as an explosion because it fits the general definition. According to probably any dictionary; if it violently expands and releases much energy, it is an explosion. 
I call it the Big Bang because that is what the "theory" is called.
You said that order can come from an explosion. Supernovas are said to produce heavy elements. Do they make the elements alone or do supernova explosions push out the elements already in existence which are remnants of the "dead" star while affecting them with the heat they release? (I may be wrong about that 'cause I did not research this particular thing well) The combustion-engine example is just of people (intelligence) using the energy released by the explosion to get their machines moving. The released energy is not increased order. The only order came from outside intelligence harnessing the released energy. That order is not from an explosion but from energy used from an explosion by intelligent design.
You said that the shock waves from a supernova "...compress interstellar gases, which begins the formation of new stars." 
The problem is that a supernova only blows things outward from the point of the explosion and does not compress from more than one side to make gases into stars.
Regarding entropy- isn't entropy the science about decay of all natural things? The concept is that physical things go from the most organized state to the least organized state. That makes impossible the idea that the unorganized state of an explosion (big bang) could have caused the organized states of planetary bodies and marvels in nature. In heat, energy is more compact but energy inevitably spreads out into a less organized state, released into colder places where energy is in a less organized state.
You said that entropy could be used to produce order with molecules- I don't understand. Elaborate, please.
Do you believe the "big bang" happened at one point in space? If so, the radiation is not evidence because scientists have not been able to detect where it comes from. If it is evidence, then the radiation would be proven to have come from one point in space. It is not the case. You said the Big Bang predicted the abundance of those elements you listed and said: "No other models have been able to do so." That is not evidence the Big Bang happened. That shows the "big bang-" believing scientists got something right about what is in space. If they proved that those elements were released from the big bang, then that would be evidence. It is assumption to say those elements are primordial, though. But, again: is that evidence the big bang happened? No.
If you have not read my reasoning for why deity is the ultimate cause, then ask if you want to attack it here.

Comment

Stranger, you seem like a very intelligent person. Although, I’m quite concerned about the way you handle your information. I’ll address each one of your points individually, attempting to avoid the comments you‘ve made that don’t effect the outcome of my debating side at all.

1. Definition of an Explosion;

What you consider the Big Bang to be has nothing to do with what it actually is. It was an expansion, not an explosion. You will find that information almost anywhere on the Internet.

2. What the Big Bang Theory is called;

I’m aware that the name of the theory is “The Big Bang”. I was pointing out that the name is contradictory to what the theory actually describes.

3. Stars creating elements;

Stars create heavy elements, notably those heavier than Oxygen, through Nuclear Fusion. A supernova would release these elements upon it’s death (although I’m sure both possibilities you mentioned are reasonably legit).

4. Combustion Engine;

You’re exactly right on the section concerning the combustion engine, however, whether or not people are controlling the outcome in no way counters the fact that an explosion is indeed occurring and being kept in order. Also, I mentioned nothing about increasing order in my statement of the combustion engine, I simply said that explosions can produce order.

5. Interstellar gases;

You assume that the interstellar gases must be compressed at the same site as the supernova occurred. This is not always the case.

6. Entropy;

No, that is not the concept. Wherever you got this information from is incorrect. Your misinterpreted concept of entropy is what has been misleading you in your entire debate so far (as well as many other comments you've made in other debates). The standard misconception of the Big Bang is that of an explosion of matter into already existing space. This is not the case. Rather, BBT holds that space-time itself expanded. Further, our everyday conceptions of "order" and "disorder" do not really apply to the physical quantity called "entropy". Indeed, as shown by Kolb and Turner, the entropy of the early universe was extremely low, possibly even zero since these same measurements are notable still today. One could characterize the entire distribution of matter and energy in the universe with a single number (the temperature) to a very good approximation. Compare that to the universe we see now, filled with complicated, disorderly distributions of galaxies, stars and gas. The amount of entropy in these objects is enormous. Hence, the idea that the entropy of the Universe has somehow decreased in violation of the second law of thermodynamics is largely nonsensical. The complexity we observe around us today can be produced from the ultimate order of the hot but cooling gas of the big bang.

7. Direction of where the radiation comes from;

Yes, scientists have found the direction of which the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation is coming from. It is coming from all directions, everywhere in the Universe.

8. Evidence;

I suggest you do extensive research into the Big Bang. I can only conclude from your responses, and the fact that a lot of your information used (entropy) is misinterpreted, that you have very little knowledge of what you’re discrediting.

9. Deity as the ultimate cause;

I have no interest in your religious beliefs, nor do I see what they have to do with the Big Bang. Unless you would like me to read over and comment on what you’ve posted, I don’t intend on doing so. Also, from your comment you left me concerning this subject, I now believe I see where your hostility towards the Big Bang is coming from (religious ties). Need I remind you that, contrary to what most refuters of the Big Bang believe, the theory itself is not meant to describe the origin of the Universe. It is meant to describe the current state of our Universe today.

Comment

Thank you for the compliment. You seem intelligent, too.

You said you attempted to avoid the comments I made that don't affect the outcome of your "debating side." If you mean my first comments, I said those things not to affect your debate side's main purpose, which I think is what you meant by "outcome," but to make clear why I call it the big bang and why the big bang is an explosion. You did not say how it was not an explosion. you claimed it was just an expansion. Where is the support? Please don't point to somewhere in the Internet like some other macroevolutionists and big bang believers when you can tell me yourself. The "theory" is about an explosion to me. I know it is said to be an expansion but how is it not an explosion?
I know that you were aware of what the name of the theory is called and that you were pointing out that the name is contradictory to what it describes but I said that because it was possible that you said that to make me look like someone who doesn't even understand the "theory." I don't know every aspect of the idea but I know its basic proposition.

On your third number, you seem to agree with me that stars make the elements that the explosion of the supernova releases. That means those explosions don't cause order.

On the internal-combustion engine, you said: "...an explosion is indeed occurring and being kept in order." Not really. The energy from the explosion is not in order. It is only kept contained. By order, you may have meant "contained and harnessed" but the order is not greater organization in that case. Is the energy in the engine in a more intricate arrangement? No. The explosions in the engine don't cause the order. Again: they release energy that is used to power machines. That is not an explosion causing order. That is an explosion's released energy being used by outside intelligence to power machines.

On your fifth number- I did not "...assume that the interstellar gases must be compressed at the same site as the supernova occurred." Why did you assume that I assumed that?
I said: "The problem is that a supernova only blows things outward from the point of the explosion and does not compress from more than one side to make gases into stars." You probably thought that by "side," I meant "side of where the supernova itself happened." I meant any side in space that the shock waves could reach, which is a huge reach, I assume.

How is my concept of entropy wrong? Where is the support for your claim?

You said that BBT (I think "Big Bang "Theory" is what that is short for) "...holds that space-time itself expanded." What did it expand into?

If you are suggesting near the end of your #6 that I said anything against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, when did I ever?
 You don't see it, do you? You don't see that within that # six, that you said totally opposing things: "...the idea that entropy of the Universe has somehow decreased in violation of the second law of thermodynamics is largely nonsensical. The complexity we observe around us today can be produced from the ultimate order of the hot but cooling gas of the big bang."
You said it is nonsensical to believe that entropy can be violated yet you believe that an ultimately causeless expansion of some gases can- contrary to entropy- over time, become the complexity we see around us. There is no way they can build up by physical means. What physical means do you believe could have been the reason for such a thing? Gases can never become organized into greater states when they are moving away from a point because entropy doesn't allow it. I should point out that you do not have a reason for what caused the big bang. What do you think?

Do you believe there was more than one expansion? If it was from one