Timmah, you're awesome, and what church do you go to.

The problem is, the Big Bang theory is not testable or observable. It is simply conjecture attempting to explain what we see now. There's no way to get an infinite amount of matter into an infinitely compact space, then blow it up. Then the other problem arises, why did it suddenly explode? We all know Newton's first law of motion 'an object at rest tends to stay at rest'. If time is infinite and this ball of matter existed at a point in time, it can be assumed that the ball of matter was 'at rest' for an infinite period of time before it exploded. If this is true, then by the laws of physics it would not be able to explode without an outside force acting on it. What is this outside force?

The big bang theory requires some level of faith, just like being a Christian or being an athiest.

The big bang is both testable and observable. The various by-products of the big bang began expanding outward from the emanating point at a massive but stable rate. Since their speed and direction is measurable using the Doppler effect, we originally hypothesized that the universe must be expanding. The Tolman test later confirmed their hytpothesys. This became a test and proof of the expansion theory. By identifying certain elements in other galaxies, we've noticed that the further away from the center these galaxy's get, the younger they appear.

As for the "energy cannot be created or destroyed paradox" or Newton laws of thermodynamics it is suggested in the theory that the big bang created the laws of physics. In other words, the four forces of nature (Gravity, Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, and electromagnetic) were created by the big bang and didn't exist until. We are talking about energies to the power of infinity, so it doesn't seem like a stretch to say that that amount of energy could reorganize the parts of an atom.

Either way, This proof doesn't work... "If time is infinite and this ball of matter existed at a point in time, it can be assumed that the ball of matter was 'at rest' for an infinite period of time before it exploded." It really only says assume the object was "at rest" for an infinite amount of time.

What was the outside force? Perhaps it was a previous universe contracting to the critical point where its own laws of nature became null causing the big bang.


As for Faith... You cannot have faith in something that can be or has been proven. You can say you have faith in it, but it is not faith by definition.

How do you observe something that happened eons ago? You can't. You can't test it either. All we can do is observe the present, and make assumptions and conjectures about the past based upon it.

This is neither observation, or testing. The big bang cannot be tested against the scientific method.

"some people believe that aliens helped the egyptians build the pyramids"

Don't you get it? This is the exact same thing as your belief in god.

qed"

"Insulting people's intelligence or beliefs in this way is a very lazy form of disagreement & debate.

It's on the same level as- Oh yeah? Well you're STOOOOPID! *sticks tounge out*

Let's keep it mature."

I insulted no beliefs or intelligence, I am pointing out that these are exactly the same type of beliefs. Though I would argue, that disagreement and debate is in fact insulting the beliefs of others. Furthermore, the source of my quote, "Because people don't understand this, some people believe that aliens helped the egyptians build the pyramids, because they can not believe that so much was accomplished by a primitive civilization." is certainly insulting if mine is, the argument that one reasonless belief is more true than another is VERY insulting.

No it isn't...

I'd like to point out.. there was nothing immature in what I said.

The big bang has not been proven and cannot be proven, it IS NOT testable, and IS NOT observable. To say the assumed effects of an event are observable is not to say the actual event is. If you see a huge tidal wave coming toward shore and assume it was caused by an asteroid, you are assuming cause to explain effect. The existance of an expanding universe does not and cannot disprove the existence of God. Who's to say that the 'effects' you're citing to prove the big bang aren't effects of something completely different (such as the moment of creation)?

You said that you can't have faith in something that can be or has been proven... the big bang cannot be and has not been proven. That's why it's still called a theory. This is why people say 'I believe in the big bang', it is still something that has to be believed in. I personally think there could have been a 'big bang' so to speak, I just think an outside force (God) was the cause of it.

And calling it my belief 'reasonless' is not insulting?? When I've cited many reasons for what I believe?

You're saying it's reasonless, I'm saying you just don't agree with the reasons.

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Scientist do not argue that the things on the right happened by chance! You are mixing up evolution and chance. evolution is the complete opposite of chance. 

I believe that design would be the complete opposite of chance. Evolution is the development of these things through natural selection, rather, whatever traits helped birds to survive over millions of years are more prominant today and the traits unfit for survival died off.

One major argument against Intelligent Design is that ID supporters focus too much in trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution and in turn they are not coming up with a tested "scientific" theory of their own. Moreover, the argument is that God lives in the "gaps" of human knowledge. Whatever we don't know, we attribute to God. Once we figure it out, then BAM oh right, its not God, its gravity, or "its not God, its evolution" or whatever.

another 2 cents:

I've never understood how some can believe "literally" in something that was written by a man, for other men. Adam and Eve means that we are all inbred, oh and that we should all be the same color and look similar, how do explain the vast differences in skin pigmentation, skeletal structure, physical differences like avg height, sounds like "evolution" no?. BTW, we would all most likely be African, that continent is largely regarded as the start of life becoming as we know it, this detail was surely left out of the King James bible, written for an Aristocrat no less. Or the impossibility of anyone fitting two of EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL SPECIES on one boat.... What the hell did the eat, or were they all just chillin, sipping mai tai's, playing Texas No Limit Hold 'Em on casino deck. I'm going to see Evan All Mighty tonight, maybe that will shed some light on all of this.

-=-=-

 http://anthro.palomar.edu/animal/animal_1.htm

How many species are there?

This is not an easy question to answer.  About 1 3/4 million have been given scientific names.  Nearly 2/3 of these are insects.  Estimates of the total number of living species generally range from 10 to 100 million.  It is likely the actual number is on the order of 13 to 14 million, with most being insects and microscopic life forms in tropical regions.  However, we may never know how many there are because many of them will become extinct before being counted and described.

The tremendous diversity in life today is not new to our planet.  The noted paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould estimated that 99% of all plant and animal species that have existed have already become extinct with most leaving no fossils.  It is also humbling to realize that humans and other large animals are freakishly rare life forms, since 99% of all known animal species are smaller than bumble bees." - end

-=-=- 

Did Noah also collect at least one of every microbic organism on the planet, or did all of these somehow manage to survive in low level salt water? Some can't survive with ANY amount of salt in the water, others only survive in water with substantial amounts of SULFURIC ACID in it.

-=-=-

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/microbiology/5135 discussing extremeophiles

A recent article by ABCNEWS science reporter Lee Dye mentions microbial life can be found in very inhospitable places. In 1986 a cave explorer, Jim Pisarowicz, found some very unusual life forms in a cave in Mexico called the Cueva de Villa Luz ("The Cave of the Lighted House").

In one portion of the cave he could smell rotten eggs — a sign of a lot of hydrogen sulfide gas in the air. He also noticed what he called snot-tites hanging from the ceiling. These gooey "snot-tites" were really made up of many different species of bacteria. These "snot-tites" also dripped a lot of fluid down from the ceiling. This fluid got on his shirt and by the time he had left the cave his shirt was starting to dissolve off his back. He found out that that fluid was sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid is used in car batteries and it very toxic. 

-=-=-

I did not say that God didn't whip these things up, I was just curious about where they were during the flood??? 

I'm not insulting you if you believe in God, if you think I am you are way too soft to be discussing this topic, I am simply trying to show these events in a logical perspective. There may very well be a God, or 11 for that matter, but my main objection is actually religion and the books they are built on, with too many taking them as the word of "God"... instead of what they are, the word of "men."

As a side note, if there is a God, I seriously doubt it cares about us as much as some believe, we ARE NOT that important, it is simple arrogance to think so, just like when were the center of the universe, and we saw how long it took the church to reconsider that.

Prediction: 12, 12, 2012  Organized religion WILL BE the downfall of man.