Evolutionists....Big Bang Theoy....BIG PROBLEM?

Question

(1) The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion—a “holocaust,” to use Jastrow’s term. Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting bang. The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state” (1983, 40).

(2) If the universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter-energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center—consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris 1984, 150).

(3) For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original big bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is “clumpy,” i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the big bang theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case.

Over the past few years, the news media have made much of the report that new measurements of background radiation reveal some variation. The press has hailed this as proof of the big bang. The facts are:

(1) The temperature differential supposedly detected was only about thirty millionths of one degree, and there are other possible explanations for this circumstance apart from the hypothetical bang.

(2) Some of the scientists involved in the project question whether the instruments employed for measuring the radiation are sensitive enough to warrant the conclusions that are being drawn.

(3) Others, who claim that additional testing has confirmed their assertion of temperature “ripples,” confess now that it is “harder than ever” to explain “how these ripples grew into the starry structures that fill the universe”

? · Accepted Answer

First of all, how is the "big bang" a problem for those who believe in evolution?  You are talking about the birth of the universe, not the development of species.

Your point 1 I agree with.

Your point 2 is another in which you are talking about two different things.  The movement of objects from the center by the inertia of an explosion is different from the gravitational forces which cause planets to orbit.

Number 3 I do not know enough about to comment.

Peloristic Philosopher (A) · Answer

(1) There is no specified order that came from the Big Bang EXPANSION. Matter was a jumbled mess, according to the BBT. Than other scientific processes started forming everything.

(2) Yes, it's obvious that Earth resolves around the sun. But it's still gradually moving away from the epicenter of the Big Bang. Thank you gravity.

(3) "there should be a correlation". You clearly lack an understanding in radiation and it's relation with the Big Bang. Please learn what science is and try again.

Not only do you obviously not know much about the Big Bang at all, but you randomly put evolutionist into your question title. Evolutionist =/= big bang.

Try again later when you know what you're talking about.

Anonymous · Answer

Well evolutionist don't necessarily believe in the Big Bang Theory. I'm sure why you even bring up evolutionist. For years scientist have observed and proposed hypothesis, formulate and test a variety of theories.  Some of the theories collapse under objective review, and further gathering of data.  Some don't.  

1. Humans haven't observed a big bang on the scale of the enter universe.  They have observes supernova and their remnants
2. The directions of galaxies do not orbit each other like our earth around our sun. The galaxies are moving in on consistent direction.
3. There is an on-going examination of measuring microwaves.  The data gathering will continue.

Anonymous · Answer

It is fascinating that you can get your facts and information about the big bang and explosions so absurdly wrong and then state "what scientists think". 

If you had even the slightest idea about what you speak then you would understand the process of most cyclotrons is to use a type of explosion to create different materials. Chemists and scientists have been doing that for a hundred years or more and then expanded their work when cyclotrons were developed.

Arizona Knight Wolf · Answer

The Big Bang was an event which led to the formation of the Universe.   According to the Big Bang, the universe, originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly, has since cooled by expanding to the present diluted state, and continues to expand today. Based on the best available measurements, the original state of the universe existed around 13.7 billion years ago, which is the time when the Big Bang is said to have occurred. The theory is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation supported by scientific evidence and observations.

Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, although he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions (such as homogeneity and isotropy of space). After Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts, as suggested by Lemaître in 1927, this observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity. If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in significant confirmation of the theory, but these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant. The observed abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term Big Bang during a 1949 radio broadcast. It is popularly reported that Hoyle, who favored an alternative "steady state" cosmological model, intended this to be pejorative, but Hoyle explicitly denied this and said it was just a striking image meant to highlight the difference between the two models. Hoyle later helped considerably in the effort to understand stellar nucleosynthesis, the nuclear pathway for building certain heavier elements from lighter ones. After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) sketched out a blackbody curve, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some Big Bang scenario must have occurred.

Dass · Answer

'The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion—a “holocaust,”'

Stopped right there. A) not a literal explosion, B) that's not even close to what holocaust means.

Anonymous · Answer

Your "theory" has one minor problem: its based on a lie.
If you knew anything about the big bang, you knew it wasn't an explosion. It was a rapid expansion of matter. Read up on a little quantum physics and stop reading up on bull*** propaganda pulled out of the a** of a bible thumper pseudo-scientist nut job.

¤Blackhoof Buccaneers Revenge¤ · Answer

LOL @ comparing an event in an early universe that we term as an explosion to an explosion of things on Earth that are not the same thing.

The LSA Queen · Answer

Evolutionists- Biology.
Big Bang Theory- Astronomy/Physics
different topics. 
WALL OF TEXT! Shorten your question or many shall refuse to read it! Like me (teeeheeheehe)

Anonymous · Answer

Since when do evolutionists address the big bang theory?

that's new to me O_o

Trending News

Evolutionists....Big Bang Theoy....BIG PROBLEM?

17 Answers