Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang

OK, AV1611, why don't you, in your own words, explain what this seemingly plagiarized account from science really means? You said science ain't your bag. OK, then how do you expect me or anyone else to believe you are the author of your comment on density or really understand what it means.

OK, AV1611, now I see where you are getting your material. My problem is that you appear to just grabbing up anything that looks like a criticism and flashing it here, with absolutely no understanding of what it actually is saying. Also, your sources do not look particularly legit. Furthermore, I seem to recall that the Big Bang people are also major scientists and have already addressed these criticisms. Offhand, I can't se why these would be valid criticisms, as that would suppose big-bang scientists are so ignorant that they neglected to address these issues. Also, most people here are laity and probably do not understand a thing about what such criticisms are actually about.

Alas, (serious), this list of criticism's you present is totally bogus. If there was a big bang,it would have killed all humans? Oh, c'mon. Think, man, think. The bb occurred before there were any people around. If the moon came from the earth, why aren't there dinosaurs on the moon? Oh. c'mon. Think, man, think. the moon does not have an environment in which the dinosaurs could in any way adapt to. See, that's evolution at work. Organisms have to adapt to their environment in order to survive.

lesliedellow said:

Um no, not even sceptical scholars think that. Try forty years if you want to be amongst the sceptics. Even that might have to be rethought if rumours of a fragment of Mark's Gospel circa AD80 turn out to be true.

Click to expand...

I don't care either way but we do know that everything Jesus is said to have done was done by other Gods who came before him so he was just another God and was by no means unique in fact he was at best an amalgam of lots of Gods..

Exists or not none of that makes the slightest difference to a believer because they believe not because it's true but because they want to believe it's true, the truth has never mattered or been a problem for a believer, if the Pope came out tomorrow and said it was all a concocted lie it would not make any difference whatsoever because people would still carry on believing it was all true.

BrriKerr said:

I don't care either way but we do know that everything Jesus is said to have done was done by other Gods who came before him so he was just another God and was by no means unique in fact he was at best an amalgam of lots of Gods.

Click to expand...

You mean like Mithras was born of a virgin (no he wasn't). Mithras had twelve disciples (no he didn't). Horus was born on 25 December (no he wasn't).....

It is anti-theists who can be relied upon to swallow any old garbage, so long as it appears to have propaganda value.

(serious) and Av1611, I have some real issues here which I wish to bring to your attention. One is your citing of "Meta Research Bulletin." It definitely does not lend any credibility to your positions. It is true bulletin was founded by a genuine Ph.D., Dr. Van Flandern, who was an astronomer of some note. However, as time passed, he began to deviate more and more from mainstream science. He started introducing views way off from mainstream science and then claimed all the guys in the mainstream really know he is right, but are afraid to speak up, for fear of being fired, etc. He argued that planets can up and suddenly explode. He claimed that Mars definitely showed features that prove there was an extraterrestrial civilization on Mars. Echoes of Percival Lowell, who, in the late 1800's, argued Mars definitely had canals, a view eventually dismissed by science. He argue that Mars was once a moon of a Planet X that exploded. He argued that human life began n Mars and then came to earth, via the Martians. Hence, he is an icon of alternative science. Interesting, I'll admit. But can he really be trusted? If you are going to cite him as a solid resource, you should carefully consider whether or not he was a crackpot.

Next, all sorts of criticisms are being presented here, with the presenter failing to demonstrate he really knows what he is talking about. Case in point: The second law of thermodynamics was offered as a solid criticism of evolution by (serious) , who next said he really didn't understand this criticism. That's dangerous to do. You are flying blind, have no idea what you are talking about or what rebuttal can come flying to you. So let me explain briefly what the second law says. stated simply, it is a claim that any isolated system will fall apart sooner or later, plunging into chaos. Example: If you put a red seven made out of sugar into water, it will quickly vanish into chaos. What does this have to do with evolution? Creation-science people try and claim this completely disproves evolution. Why? Evolution says that everything mores from the simple to the more complex. But that is impossible, as all complex systems naturally will fall into chaos.
This, however, can be shown to be a bogus criticism from a number of standpoints. I'll just highlight some of these. Entropy, the fact all things perish, is essential for the creative advance of the universe, as the old must perish to make way for the new. Also, the problem remains of how the creationists can justify God creating anything. If you knock out evolution on the grounds that all things fall apart, why not knock our God for the same reason, for the fact that all things do fall apart eventually? Also, the creationists generally fail to mention the first law of thermodynamics, in their emphasis upon God creating out of nothing. The law states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. In short creation ex nihilo is an absolute impossibility, even for God. Nice, how selective they are in their choice of what law to follow, eh?

Hoghead1 said:

Also, the problem remains of how the creationists can justify God creating anything. If you knock out evolution on the grounds that all things fall apart, why not knock our God for the same reason, for the fact that all things do fall apart eventually? Also, the creationists generally fail to mention the first law of thermodynamics, in their emphasis upon God creating out of nothing. The law states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. In short creation ex nihilo is an absolute impossibility, even for God. Nice, how selective they are in their choice of what law to follow, eh?

Click to expand...

I have no wish to come to the defence of creationists, but there is the rather obvious difference that miraculous activity on the part of God is not constrained by the laws of nature. In fact, he is the originator of those laws.

Good point, Lesliedellow. Glad you brought that up. I have much I would like to say, but will keep it brief. I have trouble with the concept of the "laws of nature."There is too much spontaneity and chaos for laws to be a full description of reality. In addition, I view mind and matter as one. As I have said elsewhere I am a panpsychist . Hence, everything in the universe, right down to the smallest has some degree of freedom, of choice-making.

Next, I think of God as supra-natural, not supernatural. What's the big deal here? "Supernatural" pits God against the universe. The universe works one, God another. Hence, God is the complete and total negation of all metaphysical principles. "Supra-natural" means that God is the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles. In short, what creatures have, God has to the hilt. Case in point: the principle of relativity states that every entity is an item in the real internal constitution of every other. We are omnipresent in one another, but only to a very limited degree. In sharp contrast, God, as chief exemplification of h principle, is omnipresent in the fullest sense of the term. God enjoys a direct, immediate emphatic response to any and all creaturely feeling throughout the universe. This is a sensitivity way beyond what any of us can imagine. Therefore, God's presence among us is not some sort of alien intrusion, but is normal, natural. There is a direct, immediate flow of feeling between God and creatures, though generally on a subconscious level. Case in point: God speaking directly to Moses. How? How through a burning bush? Because God is, as I said, omnipresent, analogous to me being present though out my entire body. So it is a wondrous experience, yet a natural one as well, a raising into consciousness of a deeper level of nature.

Look, buster, I came onto this site, cocked and loaded and ready for bear. Nothing really frightens me or upsets me. .

Hoghead1 said:

Look, AV1611, if science ain't you bag, why are you here? If you just want to screw around with stuff, please go elsewhere. I and many others here feel these issues are no joking matter. Also, if science ain't your bag and you have admitted you are unwilling to read Darwin or anything else on evolution, how do you expect to contribute anything worthwhile here when you honestly have no real idea what you are talking about?

Click to expand...

From what I gather, he is here to inoculate me and my children against religions, particularly his. We do find his posts entertaining, though.

Hoghead1 said:

I don't understand, PsychoSarah, why you seem to want to disconnect biological evolution from the Big Bang?

Click to expand...

Because as far as scientific theories go, whether or not one is disproven has no impact on the validity of the other. The physics of the big bang aren't even demonstrably the same as the ones that life as we know it exists in, because the big bang is the source of those physical properties in and of itself.

Hoghead1 said:

Either there is one set of rules governing all things, or we are dealing with two conflicting worlds. Hence, if the rules or laws of biological evolution do not somehow fit the rest of the universe, then we are all at war with the rest.

Click to expand...

I never suggested otherwise, the Big bang is a special case in that its cause predates the known physics of our universe, if there was a cause at all.

Hoghead1 said:

Generally, in science for a "law" to really be any good or useful, it must be assumed to apply to the whole world and the universe as well.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree; the big bang was just a bit of an anomaly, so I don't view it as inherently going by the same rules as the universe that resulted from it.

Hoghead1 said:

I don't think of the universe as one thing and biology as something else. I picture the whole universe as a living organism, not a machine. I should point I have a very different concept of matter or the building blocks of reality than probably you do. I view the basic building blocks of reality as actual entities, which are actual occasions of momentary experience. See, I am viewing mind and matter as one reality, not two separate worlds. I believe that all things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of minds. Geeze, I didnt' mention this to you before, did I? If so, sorry. I correspond with many people and can't always remember to whom I said what to.

Click to expand...

I acknowledge that physics is related to biology, but the point remains that the big bang theory could be disproven, without it having a domino effect of disproving evolution as well.

Hoghead1 said:

Also, most people here are laity...

Click to expand...

Speak for yourself!

SkyWriting said:

Or any past events.

Click to expand...

We can test past events. Based on a hypothesis of a past event we can check for the present state it would produce. Say there is a guy who has been shot, and you think it was the butler. You can make prediction about what you will find (a matching gun registered to the butler, gun powder residue on the butlers hands, etc.) and use that to test your theories about the butler doing it. A blanket statement that you can test past events would invalidate basically all of forensics.

Hoghead1 said:

Alas, (serious), this list of criticism's you present is totally bogus. If there was a big bang,it would have killed all humans? Oh, c'mon. Think, man, think. The bb occurred before there were any people around. If the moon came from the earth, why aren't there dinosaurs on the moon? Oh. c'mon. Think, man, think. the moon does not have an environment in which the dinosaurs could in any way adapt to. See, that's evolution at work. Organisms have to adapt to their environment in order to survive.

Click to expand...

Your insinuation that my list might be a joke is scandalous! I object most strenuously good sir!

Hoghead1 said:

Look, buster, I came onto this site, cocked and loaded and ready for bear. Nothing really frightens me or upsets me. .

Click to expand...

Coming to the site loaded can up the entertainment value, but hurts your debate performance.

lesliedellow said:

You mean like Mithras was born of a virgin (no he wasn't). Mithras had twelve disciples (no he didn't). Horus was born on 25 December (no he wasn't).....

It is anti-theists who can be relied upon to swallow any old garbage, so long as it appears to have propaganda value.

Click to expand...

There is more than one version of the Mithras story and some of them do seem to have some of these attributes, but I do not see all of them in one. Of course the experts on Christianity say that there is no reason to put Jesus' birthday on the 25, it was more likely that it was in the spring based upon the description of the shepherds if I remember correctly. And of course even the Bible is very unclear on when he was born. Matthew has him born in the year 4 BC or Earlier and Luke has him born in roughly 6 AD. So you should not complain too much about other myths having multiple stories.

Subduction Zone said:

There is more than one version of the Mithras story and some of them do seem to have some of these attributes, but I do not see all of them in one. Of course the experts on Christianity say that there is no reason to put Jesus' birthday on the 25, it was more likely that it was in the spring based upon the description of the shepherds if I remember correctly. And of course even the Bible is very unclear on when he was born. Matthew has him born in the year 4 BC or Earlier and Luke has him born in roughly 6 AD. So you should not complain too much about other myths having multiple stories.

Click to expand...

Nobody thinks that 25 December is anything more than a conventional date for the date of Jesus' birth.

There are numerous versions of the Horus version, but if you rely upon Mithraic scholars, rather than Jesus mythicists, for your information, as far as I know the only version of Mithra's birth has him being born out of a rock before the creation of the world. Additionally, although it is true that Franz Cumont interpreted the relief showing Mithra surrounded by twelve figures, as meaning he had twelve disciples, Mithraic scholars nowadays interpret them as representing the signs of the Zodiac.

Also, there are no surviving scriptures for Mithraism, and that might be because they never existed in the first place. Therefore any reconstruction of the Mithraic cult has to be done on the basis of limited archeological evidence.

lesliedellow said:

Nobody thinks that 25 December is anything more than a conventional date for the date of Jesus' birth.

There are numerous versions of the Horus version, but if you rely upon Mithraic scholars, rather than Jesus mythicists, for your information, as far as I know the only version of Mithra's birth has him being born out of a rock before the creation of the world. Additionally, although it is true that Franz Cumont interpreted the relief showing Mithra surrounded by twelve figures, as meaning he had twelve disciples, Mithraic scholars nowadays interpret them as representing the signs of the Zodiac.

Also, there are no surviving scriptures for Mithraism, and that might be because they never existed in the first place. Therefore any reconstruction of the Mithraic cult has to be done on the basis of limited archeological evidence.

Click to expand...

On the December 25th birthday that does have some support. The Roman beliefs got fairly tangled up since they had so many Gods to worship. The concept of "Sol Invictus" could have represented several of them including Mithras:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus

That article also explains how it was thought that the Dec. 25 birthday of Jesus was set to replace that holiday though now it is thought that it may have existed before that:

"
The idea that Christians chose to celebrate the birth of Jesus on 25 December because this was the date of an already existing festival of the Sol Invictus was expressed in an annotation to a manuscript of a work by 12th-century Syrian bishop Jacob Bar-Salibi. The scribe who added it wrote: "It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day." [46]

This idea became popular especially in the 18th and 19th centuries.[47][48][49]

In the judgement of the Church of England Liturgical Commission, this view has been seriously challenged[7] by a view based on an old tradition, according to which the date of Christmas was fixed at nine months after 25 March, the date of the vernal equinox, on which the Annunciation was celebrated.[50] The Jewish calendar date of 14 Nisan was believed to be that of creation,[51] as well as of the Exodus and so of Passover, and Christians held that the new creation, both the death of Jesus and the beginning of his human life, occurred on the same date, which some put at 25 March in the Julian calendar."

So now if you hear someone claim that Jesus's birthday was set to replace that of Roman Gods you can point out that that may not be the case.

AV1611VET said:

A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:

1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.

Click to expand...

That must be according to a definition of a static universe unheard of so far. The rest of the list seams to be the same kind of nonsense.