The Big Bang Theory states that there was a tiny particle (smaller than an atom some say) that became so dense that it exploded. The problem with that is that when it exploded everything, all the energy and particles, would have spread out evenly. If everything had spread out evenly then there would be no such thing as gravity. Thus, no humans, galaxies, etc.
34 comments
Welllll. He does kinda, sorta touch a point that has left alot of physicists confounded last I heard. Back when there weren't any large clumps of mass with significant amounts of gravity to attract more mass, what encouraged mass to clump together in the first place after the big bang? Some people theorize that cosmic stings are the culprit, but I haven't heard a confirmation of that.
He's starting with the false assumption that the big bang had to be perfectly even all around. We also run the danger of over comparing the big bang to a regular explosion. The big bang was not just a rapid expansion of matter, it was also a rapid expansion of space and time as well, so our regular, common sense, laymen thinking can't accurately apply.
"The Big Bang Theory states that there was a tiny particle (smaller than an atom some say) that became so dense that it exploded."
Wrong, The "big bang" theory states that there was a SINGULARITY, not a particle...
"Some people theorize that cosmic stings are the culprit .... "if the universe is a closed system and there's nothing outside of it to input energy, where does the energy for growth and sophistication come from? , which doesn't take into account the fact that some bits of the universe (e.g., stars) are quite a bit hotter than the rest of the universe, and that's where the energy comes from.
Even a read on the current (4/14/07) Big Bang Theory page on Conservapedia would result in a better understanding of the Big Bang Theory than this asshole's understanding.
Well, at least it was an attempt at logic. Based on false premises, of course, and missing quite a bit of information, but at least he tried that whole "thinking" thing.
Well... not too long ago, theories did predict the universe would spread out evenly, but it's pretty much self-evident that it didn't (although it's pretty damn close). As a result, most of the cosmology research over the last twenty-five to thirty years has been devoted to figuring that question out. The fact that it's gotten to the point that predictions can be made regarding characteristics of dark matter, and the possibility that dark matter has even been seen, is way over the heads of the usual lot of creationists.
A year with Professor Julius Sumner wouldn't straighten these guys out.
The BigBang might have blown out fairly evenly for awhile but as it expanded matter would collide and collect. Since you fundies like to compare it to a bomb, why can't you accept that analogy also doesn't spread out evenly.
Absolutly even dispersion is more unlikely than clustering, even in a vacuum. The forces of the big bang would have started creating clusters due to collision and electrostatic charges. Remember, when it blewout energy was rampant, it's settled down the last few billion years, also in clusters only. The universe is a varied and wonderous collection of norms and oddities
Hey I agree with you fundies, there's no way the BigBang could have spit out planets. Good thing the only people that claim that are you idiots.
You can't dismiss the proven attractive forces of particles and the culmitive result of gravity. Not if you want to be honest about it
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
