Big Bang or Big bust?

Since matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed, I think the universe has always existed, but manififests itself in different forms over time. The Big Bang was just the latest manifestation.

First, the Big Bang. If you have a telescope strong enough to catch the light of distant galaxies and analyse its light spectrum, you will see that there is a shift toward the red (slower frequency) and the shift increases the farther the galaxy is. Then look at the white spots on your TV when it is not tuned to any special station. Those are microwaves coming from all directions in the sky.

How do you explain it? Doesn't it make sense to you that it can only mean that sometime in the past, everything was together? I wish it wasn't. I like much better the Steady State theory but ... I can't ignore those simple observations nor do I have an alternative explanation.

Second: The Bible. Did you know that it was a Belgian priest called Lemaitre, who had first the idea of a 'primordial atom,' the forerunner of the Big Bang? And when Hubble discovered the red-shift in 1929, the Pope was said to be pleased. After all, a creation needed a creator. Okay, it wasn't exactly like the Bible but still ... the need of a creator. Do you think Catholics are not good Christians, then?

Nothing in the Big Bang contradicts the Bible. I would say: rather the opposite. The Big Bang and the Big Freeze (eternal expansion of the universe) is indeed what is closest to the religious idea of a creation and eternal life. While I don't understand how something eternal can have a beginning, I must accept the evidence of science.

The observation of the thermal background radiation matched up perfectly with the theoretical levels (that rarely ever happens). The expansion of the universe cannot be more thoroughly described than through the Big Bang theory. Besides for some different ideas on the size and shape of our universe the Big Bang is the compass by which astrophysics guides itself. Any other scientific theories are welcome to question it but none have come close to holding up against the same scientific rigor as the Big Bang.

A lot of people say it makes no sense because something cannot come out of nothing, however no where in the Big Bang theory does it state where the contents of the universe came from. All we know is that all the matter and energy in the universe was once in a super dense and very uniform cloud 13.7 billion years ago. I can give 1,000,000,001 reasons why creationism is folly, but I'm not about to make up components of creationism to disprove it.

Well I do *partly* believe the big bang theory, however I am a Christian Catholic, so I also believe that God created the universe. If you say he didn't, Fine, that's your belief, I'm going by what the Bible said and what I was taught in church. Because there is always the question "What happened *before* the big bang?"

There probably aren't any honest scientists who would tell you that they are completely satisfied with the Big Bang theory. It is the only one which supports the observed evidence but there is that fundamental problem of what caused it all. We don't know that. Some will say this apparent violation of the fundamental laws of physics refutes the Big Bang, but that same objection would be applied to ANY origin, including God. I believe that conditions were such that our understanding of cause and effect were not applicable at time zero. I also believe we will never be able to explain it. M-theory is a cop-out. It doesn't explain what caused branes and there is no evidence to support it.

So we have to go on, dodging the ultimate question because we just can't answer it. All we know is that the universe does exist and any time we try to perceive it at its limits, we are thwarted by our own finiteness and inescapable confinement within that which we are vainly trying to perceive from the outside.

The Big Bang theory is by far the most comprehensive and widely accepted theory which accounts for a wide range of observational data. What's not to believe?

to say that the big bang theory has no evidence is the height of dishonesty and laziness in this day and age, the evidence is clear. and so far as its scope, it must be noted that it doesn't talk about the creation of the universe, just the early expansion of it. to say it isn't correct because something can't come from nothing is like saying you can't explain how to bake a cake without talking about where the ingredients came from.

or mathematical example:

2+X=4

X can be anything so long as it equals out to be 2, it could be (3-1+1-1+1-1+1-1) or (5268-5266) just because we don't know how X arrived at two doesn't mean it isn't ultimately 2!

what about it? it is an accurate description of our universe. it is supported by observational data, and has made predictions that have been confirmed.

to question it shows a serious lack of scintific knowledge.

the big bang does not address where the initial singularity came from, nor does it address what came before, if there was a before. but it does a very good job for everything that happened afterwards.

Not a big burst but a bang because time also started at that point. A burst cannot create time.

Noone knows how it happened.

Hi,

This is the theory which tells us about the starting of universe