Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory?

Question

Here is a textbook definition of the Big Bang Theory:

"Somewhere around 15 billion years ago, the universe was compressed into a single small point (as was space itself). This point then expanded rapidly in all directsions, an event which is called the 'Big Bang.' The universe thus came into being, and is still expanding today."

What is your first reaction to this definition? Do you believe it?

Answer 1

I believe in the beginning, God spoke - and the visible Universe came into existence from a spiritual source, outside of the Universe.

See how the Big Bang theory can be reconciled with the Creation account of Genesis:



http://www.reasons.org/

Answer 2

uh, my first reaction? the inflationary big bang is the only model that explains everything we see in the cosmos. it is what it is.



no cosmologist asserts the universe is 15 billion years old. current knowledge marks the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years.



edit: i'm aware of craig, he's wrong. he's a philosopher, historian, and apologist. he's not a physicist nor is he a cosmologist. as he is an apologists he has interpreted the data so as to support his presupposition; god exists. this is always going to lead to bad conclusions.

professors hawking and penrose, using a theorem derived earlier by penrose, "proved" that a singularity exists at the beginning of the big bang. extrapolating general relativity back to zero time, the universe gets smaller and smaller while the density of the universe and the gravitational field increases. as the size of the universe goes to zero, the density and gravitational field, at least according to the mathematics of general relativity, become infinite. at that point, craig claims, time must stop and, therefore, no prior time can exist. he uses this to say that therefore space/time must've been kickstarted, if you'll allow, into existence from previous nonexistence.

BUT, professors hawking has repudiated his own earlier proof and in his book, "a brief history of time" says there was no singularity at the beginning of universe. the revised

conclusion, which professor penrose agrees with, follows from quantum mechanics. quantum mechanics, tells us that general relativity must break down at times less than the planck time and at distances smaller than the planck length. it follows, therefore, that general relativity cannot be used to imply that a singularity occurred prior to the planck time and therefore craig's use of the singularity theorem for a beginning of time is invalid. of course this means this is just more evidence cosmology has given us that gods do not existence. at least the judeo christian islamic god. i suppose it still leaves open the question of a deistic god, the god of spinoza. but what's the point of believing in a god you can never have a relationship with?

there are other 'proofs' that craig has come up with and i have to hand it to him, they're pretty sophisticated. they're just wrong though.

check out these papers:

Anthony Aguire, "The Cold Big-Bang Cosmology as a Counterexample to Several Anthropic Arguments," Physical Review D64 (2001)

Craig J. Hogan, "Why the Universe Is Just So," Reviews of

Modern Physics 72 (2000)

Takashi Nakamura, H. Uehara, and T. Chiba, "The Minimum

Mass of the First Stars and the Anthropic Principle," Progress of Theoretical

Physics 97 (1997)

Gordon L. Kane, Michael J. Perry, and Anna N. Zytkow, "The

Beginning of the End of the Anthropic Principle," New Astronomy 7

(2002)



and read professor stenger's book, 'god: the failed hypothesis: how science shows that god does not exist.'

Answer 3

Science is about understanding and accepting, not belief. Do you "believe in" gravity?



The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:



* Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.



* The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.



* 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.



* The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.





Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them.

Answer 4

Based on that definition I would have to ask for more details. But most are content to either agree with it on or disagree with it based on a 'gut feeling'. The above is a very simplified explanation of the concept without going into WHY we think that this is likely. So it's a sneaky way to strawman the concept of the Big Bang theory (inflation theory technically). A typical tactic of the young earth creationists is the strawman. It is a very intellectually dishonest practice in debate. Faith should be enough for them, but it never is.

Answer 5

Well once you know the evidence that led to it and a little of the associated math it makes a lot of sense. And then you take a look for an alternate explanation that has any evidence at all and finding that there isn't an alternate explanation that has even a single piece of evidence then it easily becomes the most plausible explanation.



But I'm 100% open to any alternate explanation that has supporting evidence. And if someone finds that evidence I'll give it the consideration it deserves.

Answer 6

There is a lot more detail to it than that. Stuff I'd have to spend years as a physics student in order to understand. But yes. I believe that the Big Bang Theory is the most accurate theory of the origin of the Universe.

Answer 7

A poor definition with poor spelling.







There is a significant amount of evidence for the Big Bang. I accept that this is the best explanation that we have.

Answer 8

I see it as the best explanation for the formation of the universe at this time. It may one day be proven wrong, but since it currently has the most supporting evidence, it is what we go by.

Answer 9

The definition you give is overly simplistic.



But I accept the Big Bang Theory because the evidence supports it.

Answer 10

The Big Bang theory is not something that you "believe" in. It is something that you conclude to be true because all evidence that exists supports it. It is as much fact as any other scientific theory with mountains of proof behind it.

Answer 11

I'm not really into the big bang. It doesn't follow with all the other discoveries made.



A singularity, yes. Big bang, I'm not so sure.

Answer 12

sounds good. it says what it is, short, to the point, and easy to understand. now the evidence behind it can be a little more complicated though.

Answer 13

No. Since when has order or something been created from chaos. Never.



Example: In 2001, the world trade centers exploded and collapsed. After all the smoke and fumes were gone, was there some sort of new building or other creation because of it? No. Instead there was a big mess that needed to be cleaned up.

Answer 14

Although it seems counter-intuitive at first, when one considers all the evidence, it makes sense.

Answer 15

The problems I have with the so-called Big-Bang theory are:



1. The "first" cause of everything. Even the double-talk of those whom concocted the so-called perpetual regression type theories omit or ignor the fact that there had to be a first cause no matter how many universes or even dimensions one proposes exists or existed prior to our universe.



2. Setting aside no. 1 for now, even if we say somehow a singularity "blob" was present prior to the commencement of the universe we would run into problems. Singularity can only have one property (whatever "it" is) or it isn't in the state of singularity. This supposed singularity blob could only be created through complete annihilation of all atomic structures of any matter that comes anywhere near it. Since this blob only has one property it can't react to itself or any other particles in the vicinity (no matter how unstable any of its atomic properties might be).



3. Singularity could never reach a "critical mass" theshhold because of the state of its existence. Because the force of gravity would be many, many magnitudes greater than at the center of a Super Nova, that would prevent it from acting or reacting in the same manner/conditions as would be present within a Super Nova.



4. For the singularity blob to expand or even explode there must be some kind of detonator present to cause the reaction needed to cause an expansion or explosion. Unfortunately, the sheer immensity of the gravitational force necessary to cause singularity to form & retain that state (to gather & contain enough singularity "stuff" to make our universe), would cause another problem. That is, It would also prevent anything that had the capability to serve as a detonator from lasting long enough to get anywhere near enough to the blob to cause any reaction (let alone the tremendous forces necessary for the kind of collosal reaction necessary to commence our universe).



5. Even if some type of detonator could get near enough to the blob without being torn apart & annihilated first, to split & scatter the singularity blob would require it to penetrate to the center of the blob before causing a reaction even within the detonator/explosive (which is most likely impossible because of the emmence force of gravity present there). Even if such an emmence explosion could take place in the vicinity of the blob it would do little more than slightly move or vibrate the blob, which would more than likely remain fully intact (at most it might rip off a very minute surface area which would immediately be pulled back to the blob along with all the explosion particles). Even if something could last long enough to cause an explosion anywhere near the blob, the reaction would be akin to lighting a regular match & submersing it in a glass of water.



6. The next problem we would face is that the necessary sheer force of the center of gravity has to be so great that light cannot escape from its grasp. This means that even if the blob somehow expanded I doubt very much it could get beyond the threshhold where it could reach the necessary escape velocity & distance needed to outlast the force of gravity & remain at that expansion level long enough to allow the formation of atoms. Because the highest level of the force of gravity would still be located at its center not at the outside surface the vector angle of force would be greater towards the original center. This vector force would cause any attempt to form atoms to be interrupted because it would exert such a tremendous force in one direction that it would pull the atom apart, back towards the center of gravity.



7. Setting aside the above problems - even if the proposed cooling process reached a point where quarks & anti-quarks could supposedly form there would have to be zillions forming in some uniform distribution pattern at near the same instant over a huge area. At the sub-atomic level the same conditions would have to exist through out the entire area at nearly the same instant or the atomic formation process would most likely fail. If only a few to few thousand atoms formed they would most likely disintegrate in a very short period of time.



8. Contrary to popular belief atoms have to be "forged" together which can only take place by the right forces acting from outside its atomic structure while controlling & overcoming the forces that must be present & properly coordinated to keep the atom structure intact (strong force vs weak force, etc.) while in the presence of the tremendous vector force toward the center of gravity acting against this formation process taking place. For enough atoms to have a chance of surviving, it would require formation of zillions of atoms to go through the same process at nearly the same instant (for one thing - to have a chance of producing anywhere near enough of an opposing force of gravity to cancel out at least most of the vector force coming from the original center of gravity).



The chances are so great against even one atom forming without an incredibly Intelligent Being, possessing a much greater area than the universe & having possession & control over many more times the energy needed to create a universe, creating it - you would have a better chance of having a million monkeys creating the US Constitution by randomly pressing keys on a million typewriters, which we know would be impossible.



The God of Israel happens to be the only one whom correctly describes the characteristics of one whom occupies infinity, which happens to be the only place one could correctly claim they have always existed, not needing a cause & lives outside of time & His creation (one big catch is that Jesus Christ is the one whom is the varification of these facts).



voyc4rmwldrns

Answer 16

No, I don't. No one was there to prove it actually happened, but it definitely seems a lot more plausible than some sort of God or Goddess creating the universe.

Answer 17

No.



French toast power!

Answer 18

NOt one bit, unless that is how God decided to create the universe. I do not have the amount of faith required to believe that something that minutely possible actually happened. The odds would be something like 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000 -whatever number that is.

Answer 19

Until we have hard evidence, I neither believe nor disbelieve.



Peace,

Drew

Answer 20

No; there is really not enough evidence to support this sort of 'everything came from nothing" theory....





Scripture says God SPOKE all things into existence with His Word:

" By the Word of the Lord were the heavens created, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.... For HE SPAKE AND IT WAS DONE; HE COMMANDED AND IT STOOD FAST". (psalm 33:6-9)

Answer 21

yes i believe it and i have even looked it up to make sure my reaction to this was pretty good

Answer 22

It just raises more questions in my mind.

Answer 23

It sounds plausible, from either a scientific or faith standpoint.

Answer 24

It works for me.

Answer 25

No. Many evolutionists no longer believe it either. It is just another false assumption of fallible humanity. That's why the evolutionists have to constantly revise that assumption.

Answer 26

Way to many problems with it..........



The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed,a was based on three observations: the redshift of light from distant stars, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and the amount of helium in the universe. All three have been poorly understood.



Redshift. The redshift of starlight is usually interpreted as a Doppler effect;b that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space itself supposedly expands—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere.c Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all scientific laws.



Conservation of energy is violated in another important way. If a big bang happened, distant galaxies should not just be receding from us, they should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are accelerating from us. [See sidebar titled “Dark Thoughts.”]



Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with other objects of low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and remain connected for long. [See “Connected Galaxies” and “Galaxy Clusters” on page 38.] For example, many quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts.d Sometimes, quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas.e Many quasar redshifts are so great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after the big bang—a contradiction of the theory.f



Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features inconsistent with the Doppler effect. If redshifts are from objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values.g Much remains to be learned about redshifts.



CMB. All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.h



Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters—as far as the most powerful telescopes can see.i Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not generate the CMB.j [See pages 331–333.]



Helium. Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was adjusted to fit the amount of helium.k Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars)l and the presence of boron and beryllium in “older” starsm contradicts the big bang theory.



A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium, and lithium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang should consist of only those elements. Some of these stars should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none has been found.n







Dark Thoughts

For decades, big bang theorists said that the amount of mass in a rapidly expanding universe must be enough to prevent all matter from flying apart; otherwise, matter could not come together to form stars and galaxies. Estimates of the universe’s actual mass always fell far short of that minimum amount. This “missing mass” is often called dark matter, because no one could see it or even detect it. Actually, “missing mass” had to be “created” to preserve the big bang theory. [See “Missing Mass” on page 30.] The media’s frequent reference to “dark matter” enshrined it in the public’s consciousness, much like the supposed “missing link” between apes and man.



The big bang has struck again. The big bang theory also predicts that the universe’s expansion must be slowing, just as a ball thrown up must slow as it moves away from the Earth. For decades, cosmologists tried to measure this deceleration. The shocking result is now in—and the answer has been rechecked in many ways. The universe’s expansion is not decelerating; it is accelerating!v To preserve the theory, something must again be invented. Some energy source that overcomes gravity must continuously accelerate stars and galaxies away from each other. This energy, naturally enough, is called dark energy.



Neither “dark matter” (created to hold the universe together) nor “dark energy” (created to push the universe apart) has been seen or measured.w We are told that “most of the universe is composed of invisible dark matter and dark energy.”x Few realize that both mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory.



Rather than cluttering textbooks and the public’s imagination with statements about things for which no objective evidence exists, wouldn’t it be better to admit that the big bang is faulty? Of course. But big bang theorists want to preserve their reputations, careers, and worldview. If the big bang is discarded, only one credible explanation remains for the origin of the universe and everything in it. That thought sends shudders down the spines of many evolutionists. (Pages 331–333 give an explanation for the expansion, or “stretching out,” of the universe.)





Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies at such great distances, but such galaxies are seen. [See “Distant Galaxies” on page 326.] A big bang should not produce highly concentratedo or rotating bodies.p Galaxies are examples of both. Nor should a big bang produce galaxies with the spacings among them that are actually observed.q Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion.r



If a big bang occurred, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been made. For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge.s (For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts of antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies.t



If a big bang occurred, what caused the bang? Stars with enough mass become black holes, so not even light can escape their enormous gravity. How then could anything escape trillions upon trillions of times greater gravity caused by concentrating all the universe’s mass in a “cosmic egg” that existed before a big bang?u



If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe. This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose ages were based on other evolutionary theories. Because this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect.y All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred.



http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html#wp1011757

Answer 27

I guess it that or believing in talking snakes.

Answer 28

No and if there was a big bang it was when God claped his hands

Answer 29

what is your reaction to the fact that god cant be explained by science...?

Answer 30

heck no! god created to earth. all o' ya'll need to get saved. I pray for atheists to get saved every day.

Answer 31

highly skeptical about it actually

Answer 32

Yes, it's much better than the "God" theory.

Answer 33

no, i believe in this big bang theory:

God said it and then bang!