The Universe began with a Big Bang. Prove me wrong.

JohnBarut

More problems with the Big Bang.

Top 30 problems with the Big Bang.
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

xlJ_dolphin_473

RickeyD said:

Where did the matter, energy, find their origin in order to initiate this "Big Bang?" 

It seems you have not read my earlier post. So I will paraphrase it here.
If the Big Bang created an equal amount of positive and negative energy, so it all adds up to zero, it would not violate the Laws of Physics for the Universe to have come from nothing.
We know that on the subatomic level, particles can simply pop into existence.
And we also know that the Universe was once very small, perhaps smaller than a subatomic particle.
So, it would not violate the Laws of Physics for the Universe to have simply popped into existence.

Here is the Big Bang story of creation (subject to change).
In the beginning, there was nothing. There is no point asking what there was before the beginning because this is the beginning.
On the subatomic level, a particle popped into existence, creating an equal amount of positive and negative energy.
By some very unlikely event, an inflaton field came into existence. This caused everything to expand at an exponential rate.
This inflaton field was unstable, so it collapsed. But the Universe continued to expand.
This concludes my argument.

xlJ_dolphin_473

JohnBarut said:

More problems with the Big Bang.

Top 30 problems with the Big Bang.
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

There are only 10 problems on that page. Half are inaccurate or have been debunked already. Scientists are still working on the other half.

JohnBarut

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

RickeyD said:

Where did the matter, energy, find their origin in order to initiate this "Big Bang?" 

It seems you have not read my earlier post. So I will paraphrase it here.
If the Big Bang created an equal amount of positive and negative energy, so it all adds up to zero, it would not violate the Laws of Physics for the Universe to have come from nothing.
We know that on the subatomic level, particles can simply pop into existence.
And we also know that the Universe was once very small, perhaps smaller than a subatomic particle.
So, it would not violate the Laws of Physics for the Universe to have simply popped into existence.

Here is the Big Bang story of creation (subject to change).
In the beginning, there was nothing. There is no point asking what there was before the beginning because this is the beginning.
On the subatomic level, a particle popped into existence, creating an equal amount of positive and negative energy.
By some very unlikely event, an inflaton field came into existence. This caused everything to expand at an exponential rate.
This inflaton field was unstable, so it collapsed. But the Universe continued to expand.
This concludes my argument.

The Big Bang theory does violate the first law of thermodynamics.

"It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing. ... The first is that the big bang doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it."-Howstuffworks

Vaulk

I don't personally subscribe to the big bang theory because it rests firmly upon the theory of Abiogenesis and Abiogenesis has never been observed, does not follow any scientific principles currently known and just simply does not compute. It's a pseudo-scientific principle.  It is unfalsifiable, unverifiable, untestable, irreproducible and requires a huge leap of faith to follow.  Something from nothing is an assumed premise and this assumed premise is what the big bang theory rests upon...it is a fundamental principle or foundational support.  Mind you it's not the only one but it's a matter of fact that, in the scientific community, without abiogenesis the big bang theory and subsequently the evolutionary theory falls flat on its face.

MayCaesar

@Vaulk

The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with abiogenesis; it is about how the Universe originated and evolved, not about how the life in it originated and evolved. It gives very precise falsifiable predictions that have been confirmed by observations to a large degree. It is absolutely falsifiable, verifiable, testable and reproducible, and it requires no faith, just basic data analysis. There is a lot of debate to be had on whether the theory is the best one among all the proposed theories, but to call it pseudo-science would be very dishonest.

It is also not something you get to subscribe or not subscribe to. Physics theories are not religion and they do not require you to accept or not accept them; science is only concerned with how well they fit the observable data, and your personal opinion has absolutely no impact on how plausible this theory is.

I am not sure why religious people go to such extents to discard old and very well studied scientific theories with sloppy argument. Why not hold your religious beliefs, while acknowledging that science simply gives a different explanation? You do not have to accept science, but you do not get to call something pseudo-science simply because it contradicts your beliefs.

Dee

@MayCaesar

***** You do not have to accept science, but you do not get to call something pseudo-science simply because it contradicts your beliefs.

It’s most amusing to hear religious people call actual science “pseudo science “ yet call biblical nonsense fact 

Vaulk

MayCaesar said:

@Vaulk

The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with abiogenesis; it is about how the Universe originated and evolved, not about how the life in it originated and evolved. It gives very precise falsifiable predictions that have been confirmed by observations to a large degree. It is absolutely falsifiable, verifiable, testable and reproducible, and it requires no faith, just basic data analysis. There is a lot of debate to be had on whether the theory is the best one among all the proposed theories, but to call it pseudo-science would be very dishonest.

It is also not something you get to subscribe or not subscribe to. Physics theories are not religion and they do not require you to accept or not accept them; science is only concerned with how well they fit the observable data, and your personal opinion has absolutely no impact on how plausible this theory is.

I am not sure why religious people go to such extents to discard old and very well studied scientific theories with sloppy argument. Why not hold your religious beliefs, while acknowledging that science simply gives a different explanation? You do not have to accept science, but you do not get to call something pseudo-science simply because it contradicts your beliefs.

I'm not sure why religious people do it either as I'm not religious, I don't have religious beliefs.  Additionally I don't call it pseudo-science because I believe differently, I call it such because it isn't reproducible and reproducibility is the golden standard for verifying the validity of scientific research and more importantly the results of said scientific research.

As far as Abiogenesis and Evolution as theories being separate and "Having nothing to do with each other", I present the following data.

Question: 
If you don't rely on a specific idea of abiogenesis, how do you arrive at the conclusion that life only arose once, or in one pool of organisms?

If you refuse to accept a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you conclude that a multicellular organisms must've had a single-celled organism as an ancestor?

If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you determine with any certainty that a fossil sequence of high disparity is not simply the result of multiple abiogenesis events separated in time, rather than representing an ancestral lineage?

Even in the assumption of a fully naturalistic abiogenesis, the questions above cannot be adequately answered unless a specific conception of abiogenesis is accepted as the basis.

Additionally, if you take away the requirement of naturalism in abiogenesis, then there is no reason at all to suppose either common ancestry or descent from unicellular organisms. This doesn’t mean that it is false (in fact, many in the ID movement agree with common ancestry). My point is that common descent is based on assumptions about abiogenesis, not from evidence alone.

But even more importantly, it no longer limits you to RM+NS as a change mechanism. If your view of abiogenesis involves intelligent agency in any way then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to hold on to RM+NS as the primary change vehicle in organisms. The experimental evidence is pointing to structure and order in the way that genomes change. If you don’t hold that life is an accident, then why would you hold that the mechanisms of change are accidental as well, especially in the face of all of the mounting evidence to the contrary?

So, without a specific concept of abiogenesis, there is no reason to assume that life arose once, or that organisms needed to use RM+NS to produce the higher taxonomic categories. Without a specific concept of abiogenesis, there is no reason to assume that life arose simply and then became more complex later. Abiogenesis is undeniably linked and with the large-scale views of evolutionary theory.

So why would supporters of evolutionary theory deny abiogenesis as being an integral part of it?  The answer is simple:

Abiogenesis studies are embarrassing at best in the scientific community.  Despite the fact that Darwinism is rooted on assumptions that include abiogenesis, the failure of abiogenesis studies would reflect poorly on evolutionary theory and therefor it's convenent to distance the two.  Disconnecting abiogenesis from darwinism is a means of preservation, to cut off the more abysmal findings about the theory.  The interesting issue though is that the problems with abiogenesis are basically the same as with RM+NS evolution...how does data arise on it's own?  Of course with abiogenesis the problem is more pronounced and not as easy to dismiss.

MayCaesar

@Vaulk

I think we have had this discussion already. Reproducibility in science does not mean practical reproducibility of every theorised phenomenon; it merely means the ability to reproduce the experimental data which we would expect is the theory was correct. We do not need to recreate abiogenesis or the Big Bang in a lab in order to conclude that they likely have taken place, just like we do not need to resurrect Cleopatra in order to conclude that Cleopatra existed. All that we need is to analyse the data and conclude that it is consistent with these things having taken place.

There is no evidence that any intelligent agency has ever caused life on Earth to appear, and while it is not impossible that this is actually the case, even if it was the case, it would not in any way answer the fundamental question: how does life originate? If, for example, 4 billion years ago a group of alien researchers landed on Earth and released some spores that then grew into life, then we still have to understand how those aliens, in turn, originated - and if we trace this process all the way back in time, we are left with only two possibilities: either the Universe has existed forever and the cycle of life creation has been recurrent, or the Universe has existed for a finite amount of time and hence at some point life had to emerge spontaneously. And we have pretty good theories on how exactly it may have happened, albeit, of course, we need far more data to, say, be able to model abiogenesis theoretically.

Regardless, the question of the Universe origin has nothing to do with the question of the life origin. The Big Bang theory comes fundamentally from the observation that the expansion of the galaxy is occurring at a positive rate, which, if we trace it back in time, leads us to the Big Bang "moment". Now, of course a mere fact of the Universe expanding at the moment does not mean that it has always been expanding - but we can ask, "Okay, assuming it indeed has always expanding, what would we expect the conditions of that expansions in the past to be, and what experimental evidence of that would we have now?" We asked such questions and found, indeed, the evidence we would expect to find, such as the microwave background, remote quasars, apparent dependence of metallicity of the galaxy on its redshift, etc.

Science fundamentally is not concerned with finding everything there is to find about every possible phenomenon (we would love for it to not be the case, but we live in the real world, with limited data). It is concerned with developing theories consistent with observations and, at the same time, relying on as few assumptions as possible (Occam's razor principle). Your criticism refers to existence of some open questions - but open questions are supposed to exist in science. Obviously the Big Bang theory is far from being complete, and perhaps it will even be rejected eventually, when we find some discrepancy between the experiment and data and find a theory fitting the data. That is what science is: it does not look for final answers, but it tries to approach the final answers as much as it can.

JohnBarut

xlJ_dolphin_473, could you show me what are the problems with the creationism theory?
Since you said that the evolution theory has less problems with the creationism theory.

xlJ_dolphin_473

RickeyD said:

Where did the matter, energy, find their origin in order to initiate this "Big Bang?"

It may not make sense to the unscientific mind. It came from nothing. The Big Bang created an equal amount of positive and negative energy, which adds up to zero.
It works like this:

xlJ_dolphin_473

JesusisGod777888 said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473

I already posted on your retarted statement earlier.

1. Hubble experiment asserted to have observed galaxies moving at increasing distances from the earth not that space was expanding therefore it is fallacious to assert space is expanding as space lacks physical dimension.

2. You can not fit mass into zero volume.

3. Gravitational compression at an infinite scale prevents nuclear fission therefore prevents explosions

4.newtons law of cooling contradicts a hot sense state as possible or plausible

5. The Stephan boltzman constant proves the big bang false.

6. Prior to subatomic activity an explosion is impossible

7 the seneatorial docket is the Public Record of Jesus Christ Ressurection and has a library of Congress co tell number proving the Ressurection and proving Jesus Christ is God.

So who cares what you think because you weren't smart enough to disagree with a retarted professor of not-science?

Again, let's rebut.
I've already done the first two, so let's move on.
3. The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was a rapid expansion. Therefore your point is irrelevant.
4. The Big Bang was not an explosion. Hmm, I'm feeling some déjà vu here.
5. How exactly? I'm not sure how to rebut this, but seeing as it's to do with blackbody radiation, I'll take a guess. The Big Bang was not an explosion.
6. The Big Bang was not, as I have said before, an explosion. It was a period of rapid inflation. Also, there was no bang because no atoms.
7. Let's see it then.

No insults please. This is a debate site. I choose to agree with 'a retarted professor of not-science' (sic) because that professor offers the best possible explanation.

xlJ_dolphin_473

JohnBarut said:

xlJ_dolphin_473, could you show me what are the problems with the creationism theory?
Since you said that the evolution theory has less problems with the creationism theory.

I would recommend you read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins for the long list.