I was reading this article that said that before the Big Bang everything was sort of a taunt fabric and that the tension snapped and that was the big bang. I dunno.

Sounds like a ripple in a brane. I've posted this before but I'll post it again for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE7xRgfPjAI

and then

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crQvu4NygAc&feature=relmfu

Are you saying we shouldn't take it seriously, because the label used by very cautious and conservative-minded scientists to describe it is 'theory' ?

You do know that scientists use the word theory in a different way than non-scientists do, right?






Thats not exactly correct. All of time, space, and energy - the universe itself - started as a rapidly expanding... uh, bubble. This early expansion didn't create the universe, it was the universe.



There is an immense amount of evidence to contradict a 6 day creation process. While there may be cause to question the big bang, there is no evidence that outright contradicts it.



Truth is not a matter of 'how you feel', it is a matter of what is true and what is not.


Tangentially:


http://pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF111-Reset.jpg

A scheme

What do you base that on? Specifically?

If I came to you and said: "Your cat just ate my bicycle!" and you scoffed at my stupid accusation - would that make you closed minded? Or just sane?



That sounds like a retreat into self-assurance.




My frustration has nothing to do with people believing what I believe - only the fact that people believe completely and utter stupidity and nonsense. You may have trouble with that, since you seem inclined to false dilemmas. There are more than two options. There is (a) believing what I believe (b) believing something other than what I believe, but which is non insane, and not completely stupid, and (c) believing things that are insane or completely stupid.

For example - I disagree with Metalwing about many, many things - it doesn't bother me in the least.


Every person who believes in 6-day creationism is further evidence of our failure as a society to teach our children to value truth and to develop decent critical thinking skills.

The consequences of this in a democracy are farther reaching that any discussion about the history of the universe.



No.



So... how do you feel about evidence?

The "evidence" is unconvincing and I don't believe it.
A cat ate a bicycle? That is a very bad analogy.
To you another way of thinking might be "stupidity and nonsense" but that's where the open minded kicks in, for most people anyway.

Which evidence have you found unconvincing? The evidence against 6-day creationism? Or the evidence for some other belief?



Its not 'any other' way of thinking that is stupid and nonsensical - just some ways of thinking, and some beliefs.

Like insisting that you bike, which I saw just this morning, was eaten by my cat - who normally eats a 1/4 a cup of food each day.

There comes a point where crying 'close minded' is just inane. Being open minded is a virtue. Believing in nonsense is not a virtue.

A "day" is when the earth rotates and the sun lights up one side of it, then the other.

A "year" is when the earth goes around the sun one time.

Before the earth and sun and universe was "created" there were no days.

Therefore the idea that God made the universe is six days is ridiculous.

But of course for Bible believers, the word "say" does not mean "say" when someone quotes that God "said" something, so I'm sure that the word "day" isn't really a day.

Nothing in the Bible means what it says. A day is not a day, and say does not mean say.

"The earth was not made is six days." sayeth the Lord.

"The Bible was written by men." sayeth the Lord.

"Wize up." sayeth the Lord.

"The Lord really said that." sayeth the Lord.

There is an immense amount of evidence to contradict a 6 day creation process. While there may be cause to question the big bang, there is no evidence that outright contradicts it.

Btw a better analogy instead of a cat eating a bicycle. If I came up to you and said thousands of pieces of timber were set in motion by a tornado in a lumberyard and this ultimately resulted in the amazing design and complexity of the house you live in would you be open minded or sane?

Now for my last post on this topic I will explain why I feel the big bang is unbelievable for me.

A few important questions that the THEORY can not answer:
Where did all the matter in the universe come from?

If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together?

If this "dot" spun rapidly until it exploded, then where did the energy come from to start the spinning?

Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this "spinning dot" would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from. Which is a known law of science.

This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from. Which we know that Venus and Uranus spin backwards. And for your sake we can disregard the moons that not only spin backwards but travel around their planets backwards.

We also know (A)matter cannot be created or destroyed and (B)everything tends towards disorder.

So (A)The big bang ignored that law and (B)Instead of the big bang creating the universe it would actually be the other way around, which it is the universe is wearing down and becoming more chaotic.

If you believe in the evolution of the earth - precambrian granites are not the product of evolution of the earth (known fact) but were here at creation (which was stated in Genesis 1:1) - tried to stay away from the biblical part of this but it's a neat fact, I think.

Their is only 2 choices:
Someone created earth or it created itself (despite known laws of science contradicting everything about it).

And if anyone believes god used the big bang to create the world then message me and I will explain that is as false as the big bang but I am tired of typing at the moment.

In conclusion if you believe the big bang then I'd switch theories to plasma cosmology, which is far more believable.

Nobody really cares if you believe in the big bang theory. That is not the point at all.

Your questions about the big bang theory are good questions but the questions people could pose about your 6 day creation theory are even better.

Who is God and where did he come from and how did he create the universe in 6 days?

Answer that.

Wow, is it a coincidence that this sounds like the standard, mindless, anti-evolution crap that science illiterate christians echo back and forth to each other, as if it had any relevance? Repeating it until they start believing it? Come on, people, please start thinking for yourselves.


It would be insane to believe that a tornado turned lumber into my house.

It would be astoundingly ignorant to think that example has anything to do with the big bang, and idiotic to think that example has anything to do with evolution.

Not that you were implying either.





Maybe you mean to ask: where did the energy come from, which gave rise to the matter?

I don't know. I don't think anyone knows.

This is what smart people do.

They accept when they don't know something, and keep looking.

To prefer one theory over another just because provides some kind of answer - rather than a correct answer - is the path to false beliefs.



The big bang theory doesn't require that anything underwent any compression. Time itself, as we know it in this universe, is believed to have started then. Whatever form of causality could have lead to the state that gave rise to the universe is possibly far weirder than questions about 'compressing matter' or 'the cause of gravity, pre bang'.

So this question is loaded with assumptions that may not apply - but if it were reframed, my answer would be: I don't know.




Again, you sound like a canned Christian apologist.

Angular momentum requires angular velocity and an amount of mass a distance away from the point of rotation.

Rotating points do not have angular momentum.

So what were the earliest moments like? Was anything rotating? Did that thing have any spacial dimension at all? If temperatures are too high for matter to even exist, does it have momentum?

I don't know. But I do know that many Christians like to cling to senseless counter arguments to subtle theories they don't understand.




And even if we did have a rotating universe, conservation of momentum would not require that all local rotations be uniform. The fact that anyone, anywhere, thinks that what you just said in any way calls into question the validity of the big bang theory - once again - is testament to the failure of our educational system.




Wrong.



Wrong again.

If you want to use scientific laws, use them properly.



Despite your previous errors, you may have a point.

I'm absolutely comfortable with the notion that the laws of the universe are absolute and immutable... throughout our physical universe, and that some of them may break down as we approach singularities.


We didn't have our scientific laws handed to us by a deity, we discovered them through investigation. We should expect them to apply where we discover them to apply. If we find actual, true exceptions to these laws, we adapt the laws to accommodate that new evidence. We don't cling to them and insist that "it cannot be!".

Therefore it doesn't bother me in the least to think that the laws which we have cause to believe to be true at all other moments of normal space/time might not be true in the first moment of the big bang. There is no logical inconsistency there.

This is like teaching a kid to play checkers, pieces on black squares only, then after the game is over placing the pieces on the red squares, and the kid freaks out because 'thats impossible'.





It sounds like you are saying: PC granites were.. instantly formed? Or formed at some specific known time ago? Whats your point exactly?



You and your two choices!

Sometimes, there actually are only two choices. More often, a Creationist uses false dilemma to give the appearance of a logical argument for their belief, while actually failing at logic.




If anyone actually thinks he is qualified to speak on this topic based on what he's said so far - please go find yourself some freshman science textbooks and start reading.



....to someone who thinks that any variation of the big bang theory must require that the universe has net angular momentum.

Before the big bang there was "The Cause"

More recently in the posts of this thread there was the "Lost Cause"

no physicist BELIEVES in the big bang or any other theory. yes, we see the big bang theory as the most plausible explanation of the beginings of the visible universe. in fact, to my knowledge it's the only scientific theory. certainly genesis does not come close to what science would call a viable theory:

'a good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. if the predictions agrees with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct.'

stephen hawking, the universe in a nutshell. no, i don't have a damn internet link. had to type directly from the friggin' book. at least the big bang theory has evidence which can be subjected to the science method. genesis has nothing but testimony so to BELIEVE it requires faith that the testimony is factual.

this just illustrates further that you've no clue what the theory is all about. the universe is still being created to this day 13.75 billion years after we think the big bang occured. we've seen evidence that dates back to a few miliseconds after the big bang that supports the theory. it's true that we don't know what actually occured precisely at the time of the bang or what was present before, if anything. but science can only study what evidence our tools, hubble, cassini, etc., can uncover and those tools have produced not a shred of evidence to support a universe created in six days.

to speak of what is insane is interesting in this context. the psychological diagnosis of delusional is to belief in a concept in spite of evidence of an alternative concept. to believe in genesis fits the diagnosis it seems to me.

you don't think scientology has anything to do with science do you?

actually there's no evidence to contradict genesis, just no evidence to support it. and yes, the scientific method is all about questioning the validity of a theory including searching for evidence that will contradict it. scientists live to one up each other. somebody presents evidence to support a theory and other's put the evidence to the scrutiny of the scientific method to test the validity of the new evidence in supporting the theory. if the test does support the theory then the theory stands. if not, the theory is adjusted or disgarded.



that's about on par with my cat ate my bicycle. your point?



some very good questions that we don't have the answers to YET but alot of rambling that shows again that you've not a clue what the theory is all about. so let's try this; what's your THEORY of how the universe began and if the evidence of the big bang is not reasonable to you to see the theory as at least plausible, what evidence have you seen to support whatever theory you have?

The genesis fable given in the bible supposedly occurred less than 10,000 years ago. Every piece of evidence that points to anything occurring or existing prior to that time frame is evidence against young earth creationism.





Yes.

Out of curiosity I read some (quite a bit actually) of the "Electric Universe" or plasma cosmology (as it is referred to above). The predominate theme seemed to be the electric potential aspects of various cosmic objects including gas, plasma, comets, etc.

The heart of the theory appears to "recognize" electric or magnetic traits for the very first time attached to these objects. The traits then were applied to some "holistic" meaning to the universe. However, there was not a single electric property that was in any way new or not "looked at" properly in modern physics. Conversely, there were many electromagnetic properties that were described using complete BS. The "theory" (and I use the term loosely), is just buzzwords and hokum... fodder for the masses as it were.

How are our children getting through school without an education?

That is by design I suspect.

Teachers are underpaid and/or lazy. They are under valued and good ones are unappreciated too.