Where did the Big Bang Come from?

[CommonNinja]

Shadow1980 said:

CommonNinja said:

Not exactly the case, Uranium is one of the highest elements found on the Periodic table, and yet it is just as commonly found around the planit as Tin or Zinc.  

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/

Which begs the question "how did so much Uranium get here through fusion?"  It is simply hard to believe that fusion could have created each and every element on the periodic table, and then some how a star exploded all of thoese elements onto earth.

Also, if the earth really is billions of years old, wouldn't most of the uranium that came from the supernovas alreay have decayed into Thorium?

Uranium has a half life of about 4 Billion years, which means around the time when the first lifeform was first forming, there would have had to have been at least twice the amount of Uranium on earth as there is today.  Thats a lot of Uranium, especially if you believe it all came from fusion!

Uranium is formed in supernovae, not by standard stellar fusion. Stars can only fuse up to iron, so it takes a bit more than that to fuse iron into other elements. See here for more information.

Since the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and since the half-life of uranium-238 (the most common isotope of uranium and one of the primordial nuclides) is 4.47 billion years, then about half of the Earth's original allotment of U-238 has decayed into lead. Of the amount that remains, about half will decay in another 4.47 billion years. Uranium-lead dating is one of the oldest and most refined method of radiometric dating, and sample after sample after sample has repeatedly confirmed that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old.

Whether or not you find it hard to believe is irrelevant. Just because something is hard to believe or sounds counterintuitive doesn't mean its not true. We know enough about physics to understand things like half-lives and to know that radiometric dating is quire reliable.

But you do have to admit that there are holes in the theory.

Each year the earth is getting farther and farther away from the sun.  3.6B years ago when the first lifeform suposidly formed, earth would have been much closer to the sun, and too hot to sustain any life. 

Likewise, earth's rotational spin is slowing down, which means that it must have been faster years ago.  If you do the math back to 3.6B years ago, earth would have been spinning so rapidly that we would have day and night change within seven hours, and it would have increased the magnetic field of earth by astronomical perportions (which in turn would make earths climate much hotter, and unsustainable to life).

Also, the moon is getting further away form the earth which means that 3.6 B years ago, it would have hovered mere miles above our atmosphere, and caused massive tidle waves.  Of coarse scientist don't believe we have had our moon forever, but that is another discussion.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17228-why-is-the-earth-moving-away-from-the-sun.html#.VATJjfldWzM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_rotation

These are just a few example of problems with the theory, there are more that I just don't have time to add right now.