for scherzo... a little insight...

the big bang theory is not fact scherzo.... hence the word "theory"....

here's a few questions for you....

1, how could the universe - which has way too much large scale structure - form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years?

2, do you agree with a large number of scientists who state that predictions using the big bang theory require too many adjustable parameters to make them work?

3, (i'm looking forward to your answer on this one...) if the big bang is true, how do you explain the ages of globular clusters that appear older than the universe?

4, do you agree with the belief that if the big bang were true, our universe would not be created with dark matter dominanting over 90% of the entire universe?

5, do you also agree with the latest evidence that the most distant galaxies in the hubble deep field show insufficient evidence of evolution...? (in other words, we now have evidence that numerous galaxies already existed in a time that is considered to be the big bang “dark age” of evolution of the universe)

i have lots more but i let you ponder on them... look forward to your answers...

just so you know, if it were true like you say, if would be a scientific law... not a theory

Originally posted by eatmybishop
just so you know, if it were true like you say, if would be a scientific law... not a theory

Hilarious. This canard trotted out yet again.

Scientific theories are established because the have evidence to back them up.

They aren't scientific theories because they aren't true, that's for sure.

Originally posted by eatmybishop
the big bang theory is not fact scherzo.... hence the word "theory"....

here's a few questions for you....

1, how could the universe - which has way too much large scale structure - form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years?

2, do you agree with a large number of scientists who state that predictions using the big bang theory require too m ...[text shortened]... niverse)

i have lots more but i let you ponder on them... look forward to your answers...

A whole thread?!? For me?!???!! 😲

Answering questions one by one.

1. Through the Big Bang. The original explosion spread huge amounts of matter in an extremely short time. Then it started slowing down as energy became transferred into light, heat, etc. Just like any explosion.

2. No, I disagree. These scientists overlook the fact that we're dealing with a very new vacuum, where the laws are much more constant. They are most likely just scared to prove the theory.

3. Actually not aware of these. Maybe I'm too ill-informed to answer it, but if you're trying to prove Creationism to be correct (else this would be in the science forum), you only hurt your case.

4. Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn't. And he's the leading American astrophysicist. Why should I agree?

5. Again, see answer to #1.

Originally posted by eatmybishop
the big bang theory is not fact scherzo.... hence the word "theory"....
....
...

Although I don’t believe much is certain about the big bang other than it happened (in particular, I am highly suspicious of inflation theory), something can be both a “theory” and a “fact”. Many “theories” have been scientifically proven. Therefore, merely pointing out that a theory, such as the big bang theory, is called a “theory” is not an argument that it is not a fact. You have to look at the evidence (or the lack of it) to rationally determine whether or not a particular theory is also a fact.

Originally posted by scherzo
A whole thread?!? For me?!???!! 😲

Answering questions one by one.

1. Through the Big Bang. The original explosion spread huge amounts of matter in an extremely short time. Then it started slowing down as energy became transferred into light, heat, etc. Just like any explosion.

2. No, I disagree. These scientists overlook the fact that we're e's the leading American astrophysicist. Why should I agree?

5. Again, see answer to #1.

🙂 well glad you answered...

just to answer your question, no, i dont believe in adam and eve and this whole god created the heavens concept either....

it seems from scientific and religious points of view about the origins of our universe, both theories require a lot of adjusting and reshaping to make them work... that's why i like the idea that the universe has always been here.... it is in an everchanging timeless state.... but hey... where's my proof that theory is the right one?

point 3 was interesting, as I'd never heard of it either. But I googled "globular clusters older than universe" and there does appear to be a lot of contention on this issue. To measure something's age as older than the universe it occupies IS a bit embarrassing...

Originally posted by eatmybishop
🙂 well glad you answered...

just to answer your question, no, i dont believe in adam and eve and this whole god created the heavens concept either....

it seems from scientific and religious points of view about the origins of our universe, both theories require a lot of adjusting and reshaping to make them work... that's why i like the idea that t ...[text shortened]... n an everchanging timeless state.... but hey... where's my proof that theory is the right one?

Ah, my friend, you overlook the fact that the universe is expanding.