My answers will be within the (.....) The things I am stating are from the site you gave me :
Big Bang Cosmology Primer
The steady state theory of
cosmology claims that the Universe simply exists without changing with time.
( So whenever we see a beautiful sunset, we can look at it and say, "You know that sunset, is just there because it exists." Seems very "logical" ..)
"This theory"
( This was stated in the very next sentence after the one at the top, about cosmology and it states it as the theory of cosmology, It does not say, The steady fact of cosmology, so when you believe this your putting your faith in something that is not even proved true, obviously since the site was created about 12-13 years ago. )
Evidence suggests that the Universe is
expanding. While there are ways to explain expansion in a steady state universe, few astrophysicists believe this theory, because there is little evidence to support it.
( Now, which one is it? Is there "evidence" or "little evidence", because normally "evidence" means you have multiple evidences. )
The
big bang theory states that
at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born.
( The big bang according to the site, says at one time there was nothing. So, If there was nothing at one point how do you (evolutionists) have evidence for such claims that the vacuum fluctuation occured since "nothing" cannot produce anything? Besides how did this Singularity form? Mass and Energy? To have energy you have to have time and space? Where did the mass come from? and Who?What? had the time to do it? Since they are both created. And just to supply more of the fact, according to the laws of conservation of energy, this Singularity and big bang does not exist, according to dictionary.
vacuum fluctuation
A spontaneous, short-lived fluctuation in the energy level of a vacuum, as described by quantum field theory. Although these variations are violations of the law of conservation of energy
Science vs. Science, cool contradictions that science has. Since you guys believe that the "Singularity" was as small as a dime, Show me the evidence that actually shows how you all could find such a claim that was ( by evolutionary worldview ) billions of years old? I mean you all can go back in that far amount of time, and show how exactly this universe was formed? I mean, think about here is the Mathematical equation of the days.
365 days in a year, 4 billion years ago; 4,000,000,000 x 365 = 1460000000000 days, Yeah seems very logical that you can go back in time by that many days. )
Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy, in the form of
photons. Some of the photons became
quarks, and then the quarks formed
neutrons and
protons. Eventually huge numbers of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium
nuclei formed. The process of forming all these nuclei is called
big bang nucleosynthesis. Theoretical predictions about the amounts and types of elements formed during the big bang have been made and seem to agree with observation. Furthermore, the
cosmic microwave background (CMB), a theoretical prediction about photons left over from the big bang, was discovered in the 1960's and mapped out by a team at Berkeley in the early 1990's.
( This is very hard to acquire through genuine knowledge, How do you all know that there were large amounts of energy that was formed billions of years ago? J/w I mean you guys were not there, I mean some early people thought the earth was flat and they had their theories for this presupposition, just like you all have your "theories" for your presuppositions. I think it is weird how, everything you all say fits perfectly to the big bang as if you all created it yourself, because you all have to assume these things happened in order for their to be any kind presumption that it might be true. You all do not know "100%" that they are true. Give me evidence, that states and proves that the universe actually came from the big bang. Proves as in 100% knowledge that you all know it is not just the presumption that you assume that it is true. As you can see in the highlighted section, there seem to be a little bit of doubt, the word "seem" their is the doubting word, The "predictions" that fallible man has made, "seem" to agree, well what if they do not agree? What if people are just assuming that they agree? If this presupposition is assumed these predictions cannot be made true. )
After some period of time following the big bang, gravity condensed clumps of matter together. The clumps were gravitationally pulled towards other clumps and eventually formed
galaxies. It is extremely difficult to model how this clumping may have occurred, but most models agree that it occurred faster than it should have. A possible explanation is that right after the big bang the Universe began a period of exaggerated outward expansion, with particles flying outward faster than the current speed of light. This explanation is known as
inflation theory, and has widespread advocacy within the astrophysics community because it reconciles theory with observation. It should be noted, however, that
inflation theory is not directly verifiable.
( LOL & LOL )( After some period of time, How much time? Evolution should be able to specify at least the periods of times, otherwise it is just an assumption that takes faith to become believed in. Since it extremely difficult, the explanation as stated, Is just an assumption, because it says "a possible" explanation, meaning they do not know, This is just an assumption and only takes faith to believe in, but either way Science goes against science, since this inflation theory goes against the theory of observation. Even the assumption that was made, is not verifiable as stated at the end. LOL )
Whether you believe inflation theory or not, galaxies did form. And since they formed from
matter that was moving rapidly, they also move rapidly.
( Matter was rapidly moving, then they also move rapidly, LOL, What is this? An Error? Hmmmm. !LIGHTBULB! )
When we observe the redshift of galaxies outside our local group, every galaxy appears to be moving away from us. We are therefore lead to the conclusion that our Universe is expanding.
( Has it ever appeared to you guys that If by this assumption that Galaxies may be moving away, but what if were moving away from other galaxies, since we have our own galaxy called, "The Milky Way" ..?? Not very reasonable. )
Here's a subtle point that you may have wondered about: If we look out into the Universe and every galaxy we see is moving away from us, doesn't that mean that we are at the center of the Universe? The obvious answer seems to be 'yes', but actually the answer is 'no'. Hopefully the following analogy will explain why. Image a loaf of raisin bread baking in the oven. As the bread bakes it gets bigger, and every raisin moves away from every other raisin. Now imagine that you are sitting on one of the raisins (ignore the heat of the oven). All the other raisins are moving away from you, so you might conclude that you are at the center of the loaf of bread. But if you were on a different raisin you would also see every raisin moving away from you and would also conclude that you are at the center of the loaf. The same thing is happening in the Universe. No matter where you are in the Universe, every galaxy you see is moving away from you. That's why astrophysicists say that you shouldn't talk about the center of the Universe; there really is no center of the Universe.
( There is only one problem that I see here, What if it is not the other galaxies moving away from us, but us away from them? We cannot know since were here on earth. Just because we are moving also does not mean that the universe is expanding either. Like the loaf of bread example, If the expanding theory were true, then why does the loaf of bread stop expanding? How do we know that the universe is not like the loaf of bread? )
The oscillatory Universe model claims that the Universe started with a big bang, and that it is currently expanding. Eventually, however, the expansion will slow, stop, and then the Universe will begin to contract. The contraction will continue until all of the mass of the Universe is contained in a singularity, a process known as the big crunch. The singularity then undergoes a big bang, and the process begins afresh. Although we shall discuss reasons why this is probably not the case, it does explain what happened before the big bang.
( Where is the evidence for the "big crunch" ?? )
The question of whether the Universe will collapse in a big crunch or continue expanding forever hinges on knowing the density of the Universe. Density is defined as mass divided by volume. One can measure the density of the universe by observing the local group of galaxies and assuming that the Universe is all the same. One can also calculate the density required such that the Universe will eventually stop expanding. That density is called the critical density, and the ratio of the observed density to the critical density is given by the Greek letter
omega. If omega is less than one the Universe will continue expanding until it is so large that it dies a cold death. If omega equals one the Universe will eventually stop expanding but will not collapse. In this case the Universe will also die a cold static death. But, if omega is greater than one, then the Universe is doomed to collapse under it's own gravitational mass, and will die a hot, fiery death in a big crunch. But don't worry, the ultimate fate of the Universe is atleast ten billion years away.
( What about distant groups of galaxies? "assuming" what a word, If someone assumes something it takes "faith" to believe in. Give me evidence of how the universe is able to die. Notice all the "if's" in the the following paragraph, Since the paragraph says you can find the density of the universe, which is called critical density by the letter Omega, We should know already the fate of the Universe, Well, What is the Fate?? All the If's show that they do not know, So then how could calculate that density? The hot fiery part, that is in the bible and you know what? It is also going to end by fire also, so From the paragrapgh we could "assume" it is greater than 1 because the bible says that it will end in fire, and evolution does to so two and two don't go together? Ten billion years, LOL, YEAH RIGHT! )
