No Big Bang

[Being1]

There was no Big Bang. Don't you think the most logical, intelligent question to ask about the Big Bang would be, 'What was the cause of the bang? The bang was an effect. What created it?

The observed expansion of the universe is not the after effect of an almighty bang. It is the growth, the evolutionary growth.

[micatala]

ShieldAxe wrote:
We don't need to know the cause of the Big Bang for there to have been a Big Bang.

Sender:
And those key words spoken around the water cooler of their day, scientist realized how to get around the Big Bang problem...and thus the theory of evolution began.

Your implication is fallacious. Scientists are trying to 'get around' anything. They are just acknowledging what they know and what they don't. As I think I said before, you wouldn't annul all of chemistry because you don't know where the atoms and molecules came from, you wouldn't annul physics just because we don't know where the 'forces of nature' came from or why they work.

The fact that we don't know what caused the Big Bang says NOTHING about the validity or lack of validity of the Big Bang model, cosmic evolution, or certainly biological evolution. Neither does our lack of knowledge concerning the first life negate what we do know about the THeory of Biological Evolution.

[Chad]

We don't need to know the cause of the Big Bang for there to have been a Big Bang.

And those key words spoken around the water cooler of their day, scientist realized how to get around the Big Bang problem...and thus the theory of evolution began.

The big bang theory was not proposed until 1917, while the theory of evolution was basically developed in the early 19th century. The book Origin of Species by Charles Darwin established the theory of evolution by natural selection in 1859.

Unless I'm not comprehending your post correctly, it doesn't seem to make any sense.

[Sender]

We don't need to know the cause of the Big Bang for there to have been a Big Bang.

And those key words spoken around the water cooler of their day, scientist realized how to get around the Big Bang problem...and thus the theory of evolution began.

The big bang theory was not proposed until 1917, while the theory of evolution was basically developed in the early 19th century. The book Origin of Species by Charles Darwin established the theory of evolution by natural selection in 1859.

Unless I'm not comprehending your post correctly, it doesn't seem to make any sense.

If you want the name of the thread I talked about this very thing, I will look it up for you. Let me know. The reason science can't prove big bang is because it never happened. Check out that thread.

[Chad]

The reason science can't prove big bang is because it never happened.

What would it take for them to prove it to you? You can't expect them to build a time machine and travel back roughly 14 billion years ago. They're using the available evidence to come to the conclusion of the Big Bang. I have little hope that you bothered to read the Wikipedia article that I linked earlier. If you really want to understand the Big Bang theory, and just how much information is available that supports it, please read that article. I hate to just spoon-feed information to people when it's so readily available.

To say they cannot prove the Big Bang because it never happened is purely your opinion that seems to stem from a lack of understanding of the current knowledge we have about it.

[Sender]

The reason science can't prove big bang is because it never happened.

What would it take for them to prove it to you? You can't expect them to build a time machine and travel back roughly 14 billion years ago. They're using the available evidence to come to the conclusion of the Big Bang. I have little hope that you bothered to read the Wikipedia article that I linked earlier. If you really want to understand the Big Bang theory, and just how much information is available that supports it, please read that article. I hate to just spoon-feed information to people when it's so readily available.

To say it they cannot prove the Big Bang because it never happened is purely your opinion that seems to stem from a lack of understanding of the current knowledge we have about it.

Well the debates over we can all go home. Chad, start a thread on what ever you want and I will participate.

[Chad]

The reason science can't prove big bang is because it never happened.

What would it take for them to prove it to you? You can't expect them to build a time machine and travel back roughly 14 billion years ago. They're using the available evidence to come to the conclusion of the Big Bang. I have little hope that you bothered to read the Wikipedia article that I linked earlier. If you really want to understand the Big Bang theory, and just how much information is available that supports it, please read that article. I hate to just spoon-feed information to people when it's so readily available.

To say it they cannot prove the Big Bang because it never happened is purely your opinion that seems to stem from a lack of understanding of the current knowledge we have about it.

Well the debates over we can all go home. Chad, start a thread on what ever you want and I will participate.

This statement is confusing...

Feel free to tell me under what condition and supporting evidence there is to assert that a Big Bang never happened.

I feel that to say it never happened because science cannot prove it is quite unfounded.

[bernee51]

Well the debates over we can all go home. Chad, start a thread on what ever you want and I will participate.

Not so fast big fella. Don't leave just yet. There are a few unanswered questions...

Here's a scenario which has just as much evidence in support of it as your theory of a creator god.

The universe previous to this one collapsed into a singularity with energy potential enough to bring itself back into existence.

Care to comment?

I also noticed Chad asked where your god got the energy from?

Any thoughts?

[Wyvern]

Sender it appears as if the fact that science can't execute an infinite regression(i.e. inability to explain where the energy for the big bang came from)invalidates the entire theory. I'm guessing this logic of yours also works for evolution.
Try to think of the big bang theory as a newspaper with the banner saying universe born, theres no page in front of the front page because the theory only pertains to that particular instant in time. Also to be honest the big bang theory only tries to explain within a few millionths of a second after the actual bang happened since before that time itself didn't exist in its current form, ditto for all of the other physical constants that allow life to exist in this universe.

The big difference between science and religion is religion has the answer while science has lots of questions.

[McCulloch]

The big difference between science and religion is religion has the answer while science has lots of questions.

I prefer to think of it as:

• Religion has certainty without proof.
  Science has proof without certainty.

[ShieldAxe]

We don't need to know the cause of the Big Bang for there to have been a Big Bang.

And those key words spoken around the water cooler of their day, scientist realized how to get around the Big Bang problem...and thus the theory of evolution began.

Are you saying you don't agree that something can have happened without us humans knowing the cause? You can't be serious.