there has to be a cause for the existence of the world..i mean it cant not be there one moment and be there the next...
so far this is the most convincing ARGUMENT, but not the only one...but yet the best!
2006-08-24 01:54:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by Myth 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I do, but this guy has some really good evidence that the whole theory might be wrong. The biggest problem with his idea is that it assumes the red shift in light from distant galaxies is not due to motion of those galaxies; that it is not a Doppler shift but some other kind of effect, where the light just gets redder when it has to travel really long distances. It doesn't really say that on his web page, but I asked him about it and that is what he is thinking. He says the data disprove the big bang and therefore there must be some as yet unknown effect causing the red shift.
2006-08-24 09:02:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by campbelp2002 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I have a theory that conforms to both Genesis and the Big Bang theory.
In the beginning the universe was a singularity. Then God said, "Let there be a Big Bang," and there was a Big Bang.
2006-08-24 08:53:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by SPLATT 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
The big bang theory is just that, a theory. It is an hypothosis that fits the theory of relativity and time and space and so the almost theological questions that come from that such as how did the universe come to be.
In a sense this theory is an almost round peg trying to fit into a round hole.That is to say that we are using the almost round peg because
A. we cant find the round peg yet.
B. we dont have the tools to make into a round peg and
C. because we are eager to finish the puzzle
2006-08-24 08:52:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by litulbear 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes. However, the theory needs work.
Physics starts to fall apart around the actual event of the "bang".
2006-08-24 08:55:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by ecmfw 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
It's the most feasible explaination to date.
To actually say I "believe" in it, would be an incorrect statement. I consider the possibility of such an event occurring incredibly high, from the observable evidence given to us by such things as the Hubble telescope and further advances in scientific thinking.
For example, we see new galaxies forming out in space that are a result of supernova's. To any potential life forms existant within those galaxies, they came from a "Big Bang".
As to what was before our universe, who can say? A bigger one? Was the Big Bang a result of another, bigger universe collapsing in on itself? And so on.
Microcosm et Macrocosm.
2006-08-24 08:50:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by googlywotsit 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes. The theory that the entire universe began as a singularity so small that it would be invisible to the naked eye, and at that point in time there was no time, and the laws of nature did not exist, there was no such thing as energy forces or physical matter -- why the whole thing makes perfect sense.
2006-08-24 09:00:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by Dr. D 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
It makes a lot of sense. Big bang happened. Now we have stars continually being formed. When they die out, super nova is the end result. The process of stars forming restarts. It's a perpetual event, sort of like a pendulum with a motor and unlimited fuel.
2006-08-24 08:51:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by Yahoo answer dude 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes, from a point called the singularity, God spoke into existence the universe from a spiritual universe into the physical universe. We are still looking back in time as the universe is moving away from the center, as the universe is expanding and if so it must of started somewhere from an infinitesimally small center of the universe expanding and it is moving faster and faster spiraling off into space.
2006-08-24 08:54:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by radtadstar 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes
2006-08-24 09:05:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by BookLovr5 5
·
0⤊
1⤋