preaching Evolutionism, The Big Bang theory dismantled False!!

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by InfiniteBeauty, Dec 8, 2008.

  1. InfiniteBeauty
    Offline

    InfiniteBeauty Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    36
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2
    Rebuttal to "Ten Problems Against the Big Bang"1
    by Rich Deem
    #
    Claim
    Truth

    1.
    Static-universe models fit the data better than expanding-universe models
    This statement is blatantly false. The static universe model is accepted by virtually no cosmologists or astronomers, since it fails to correctly predict what the universe should be like. In particular, it would predict that galaxies would be in all stages of development – forming, young, middle age, and old. However, the universe contains only middle-age galaxies. There are no old galaxies, and the only young galaxies we see are those that are 10-13 billion light years away –at a time that was only 0.5 billion years after the Big Bang event.

    2.
    The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
    Another false statement. The variation in background radiation is independent of stars or galaxy clusters within our universe. It is extremely even – something one would predict from an expansion that began 14 billion years ago. The variation in background radiation is only 0.00001°K – the exact amount predicted by the Hot Big Bang model. This variation represents the large-scale structure of the universe only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.

    3.
    Element-abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
    The overall prediction of element abundance is exactly what would be expected from the Big Bang. Immediately after the quarks and antiquarks combine to annihilate each other, atomic nuclei form (hydrogen) and for 3 minutes, the fireball remained hot enough to support nuclear fusion, which formed the 25% helium that we see in the stars today. In local areas, the abundance of elements is different from that predicted from the Big Bang. It is precisely because God has provided a way for heavier elements to form that we are alive today. The Sun and our Solar System formed late in the history of the universe, and so contain the remnants of heavy elements formed during multiple supernova events within our galaxy.

    4.
    The universe has too much large-scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
    The amount of matter – both baryonic and dark matter – is sufficient to account for the large-scale structure of the universe.

    5.
    The average luminosity of quasar must decrease in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
    Since quasars have a very short lifespan (a few billion years at most), they would all have the same apparent brightness because they would be all roughly the same age. All quasars have large redshift values, since they were all formed over 5 billion years ago.

    6.
    The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
    This appeared to be true a few years ago. However, recent measurements have indicated that the Hubble constant is smaller than originally thought (making the universe older) and the ages of globular clusters younger than previously thought. The results of these studies are shown in the table below from a study published in Science.

    7.
    The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
    The motions of the galaxies are exactly what are predicted from the Big Bang. The farther galaxies are receding at a higher rate than those that are nearer. The relationship is extremely linear (very little deviation).

    8.
    Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
    At least four different scientific techniques have confirmed the presence of large amounts of cold dark matter in the universe. For a detailed description of these studies, see Dr. Ross’ book, The Creator and the Cosmos.

    9.
    The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
    Recent pictures from the Hubble Deep Field have revealed galaxies when they were forming – over 14 billion years ago. The light that is reaching us now is 14 billion years old, and, as such, shows no evidence of evolution, since we are looking back in time, and can see even before true galaxies were formed. Quasars are formed when two galaxies collide and their combined gases ignite at the center of one of the galaxies. Since galaxy collisions were much more common at the beginning of the universe, most quasars were formed then. Since they burn so intensely, they do not burn for long. When we look at the universe we see quasars only at distances equivalent to less than 50% of the age of the universe, back to about 10% of the age of the universe. We don’t see quasars older than 50% of the age of the universe, because after that time, they ceased to exist (we only see them now because of the time it took the light to reach us). Likewise, we don’t see quasars earlier than 10% of the current age of the universe, because galaxies had not completely formed before that time. Therefore, we would expect to see protogalaxies and newly formed galaxies with redshifts greater than those of quasars. The result is not inconsistent with Big Bang cosmology, but is, in fact, predicted by it.

    10.
    If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just one part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.
    This is true, and a subject of concern for atheists. The extreme fine-tuning of the laws of physics and the exact size of the universe is such that it is virtually impossible for the universe to have formed by chance. Rather than disprove the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of the universe strongly suggests a level of design not possible by chance. Many atheists reject the Big Bang because the level of design suggests the intervention of a Divine Creator.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    have you considered philately?
     
  3. rayboyusmc
    Offline

    rayboyusmc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    4,015
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +338
    God thought up evolution. Figured it would become a good point of contention between certain human groups. Funny sense of humor.

    Scientists only discovered it and religoulous folks just deny it.:clap2:
     
  4. KittenKoder
    Offline

    KittenKoder Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    23,281
    Thanks Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,714
    The best answer I have heard in response. The fact is, none of this goes against any religious ideals, it just adds some detail and flavor. So why fight against something that isn't even against your beliefs is beyond me.

    As for the original post, whoever came up with that garbage is a complete moron. We already know that the star positions are NOT static, we know they are spreading a little bit, and this is where the whole theory of the "big bang" came from. But even then scientists still say it's a "theory". As for evolution, that's fact, just because you don't want to admit we have the same biological links as other animals doesn't make it false. Virus' evolve the fastest and we see it most commonly in the Flu, so we KNOW evolution is fact and can only be taught as such. As for which animal we evolved from or if there was some strange mutation that created us, who knows for certain, most scientists don't know for certain yet and they still don't claim it as fact yet. But regardless, why not obey your religious laws and stop pretending to know how your god did it, just leave science alone. If you are right it will make a great basis to judge believers and non-believers in your gods eyes anyway, otherwise you will most likely have a lot of us non-believers in your heaven anyway.
     
  5. Abelian Sea
    Offline

    Abelian Sea o_O

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Messages:
    659
    Thanks Received:
    177
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +177
    That's a confusing thread title and dense post. Let me see if I've got the gist of it:

    The Big Bang theory is true (and this suggests a Designer).

    Right?


    Oh, and you must link to your source when you post an article like this.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. ABikerSailor
    Offline

    ABikerSailor Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    31,481
    Thanks Received:
    4,824
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Amarillo TX
    Ratings:
    +8,511
    You know, if you get a chance, you ought to watch The Universe on Tuesdays on the History Channel, as there are lots of things being discovered daily in the fields of astronomy.

    Personally, I think God uses evolution as a way to further creation, as well as to weed out the undesirable things (extinction anyone?). However, it is also my belief that whoever tells you that God works in mysterious ways, well.....that's only because they don't understand the science involved (yet). Need a good example? If you were to take a laser pointer (you know, the one for 5 bucks), back in time to say....1970, not only would all sorts of people want to know how you got something like that, but you'd also have the military and government breathing down your neck. Want to go back even farther? Try taking a Bic lighter back to the time of the Salem witch trials.

    If you would have used either of those items, you would be considered to be in possession of devilish magic, but today, we take it as a matter of course that those things are in our lives.

    Besides, God has a sense of humor too, and likes to mess with our minds.

    Ever hear of the platypus?
     
  7. BlackAsCoal
    Offline

    BlackAsCoal Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,203
    Thanks Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Ratings:
    +1,884
    There are no facts, science, logic, or even common sense that supports "GOD."

    God is faith .. a belief in something you do not know to be true.

    The "designers" are simply trying to find any science that supports their belief in the ridiculous.
     
  8. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    What is so ridiculous in believing someone or something had a hand in our creation? Is it ridiculous to believe that we might have a greater purpose than just our existence here on Earth?

    There is a possibility that our being here is just a coincidence and everything happened by chance. However, I have seen and experienced things in my life that suggest otherwise. Therefore, I will stick with my beliefs.
     
  9. BlackAsCoal
    Offline

    BlackAsCoal Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,203
    Thanks Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Ratings:
    +1,884
    By all means stick to your beliefs. There is nothing in what I said that requests or suggests that you do otherwise .. but truth and science are not changed or determined by belief.

    I'm betting you don't believe in Santa Claus, but that's more believeable than a belief than some human-like figure who gets angry and jealous, created humans who have only existed for a minute in time.

    Most people I encounter who express an undying love of God and the bible don't even know it's history. Often, don't even know what's in it. I beat up christians with the bible all the time .. because they don't know what's in it, don't have a clue of it's history.

    My favorite targets are religious homophobes who declare God doesn't like homosexuals. I've even got to bash one who was holding a King James bible while he was trying to lecture some high school students about the evil of being gay. .. Sweet.

    My point is, believe whatever you want to believe .. but religion is philosophy, not science .. and ne'er the two shall meet.
     
  10. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    You are trying to win a point by using the Bible against me. Unfortunately, I don't take the Bible word for word. For those who choose to do so, they have that right, but in the end, I think they are missing the point. I am also not a religious homophobe. The main tenets of all religions are love and respect of others. That overrules any contradictions that may have come about over years of interpretation by men who had their own agenda in the writing and interpretations of the texts and stories that were later written. As for homosexual relationships, they are wrong if they are unnatural. That only makes sense. However, if someone is born gay, then being homosexual is not unnatural, so how can their act be considered a sin? At the same time, for someone who is born as a heterosexual, a homosexual act would be unnatural and may well be a sin. I guess I don't fit the stereotype for the religious zealot.

    You state that science and religion cannot be reconciled. Why is that? Is it not possible that while God created the universe, it was done through natural evolution? Are we so naive to believe that a greater being may not exist that could be responsible for all that we know?

    I do not deny evolution or science. But I do believe it is all a part of some form of design. I also have had enough experiences to realize that science cannot explain everything.

    Have you ever had an out of body experience? If you ever do, it is one of the things that will make you question everything you may believe. Have you ever had contact from the deceased? If you ever do, again, it will make you question everything you have ever believed.

    I may be wrong; I admit that. Maybe when we die, that is it. If it is, we will never know the difference. However, I have more evidence that science cannot explain everything than I do that it can. That in itself is proof to me that there is more to our existence than just a chance happening. And for our existence to be more than just a chance happening, someone or something had to play a role in our being.
     

Share This Page