Christians, any evidence against the Big Bang?

Question

I see some of you like to ridicule the Big Bang theory (not all of you).

Soooo...do you have any evidence against it?

Excuse me, did somebody say there is no evidence for the Big Bang. Are you joking?

Catherine H, I hope you are still in grade school. Either way, it would appear that you are in over your head on this one.

Martin S, since you are a C&P jockey, I'm not going to waste time on your entire piece of 'work' but I wil say this. There is clear observational evidence for the Big Bang. Hubble's red shift fits it perfectly. Also, the existence of black oles has been demonstrated so the notion that a singularity is impossible seems kinda ignorant at this point.

Pay attention idiots. The question isn't if you bleieve it or not. The question is if you have any evidence against it.

Answer 1

Sure, first off, it has been PROVEN that an inanimate object can not create a living thing so how would two things being smashed together create life when it's been proven false?

Answer 2

First of all, I can say is that I'm on your side. Having said that, I think it's important to remember that any ideas about the origins of the universe and mankind will likely remain conjecture. We simply don't have that much information—but we also don't need it to establish our beliefs. Most of the beliefs discussed on this forum are not about the origins of life or whether God (any god) exists. They are, rather, about asserting dominance over others—which undermines any true effort to explore the truth. (Any such effort acknowledges that certain questions may never be answered with certainty.) Simultaneously, I have to say that while there is no evidence against the big bang, the evidence for it is still conjecture—and that's just a part of science. The fact that doubts remain doesn't mean it's not true, just that doubts remain. Moreover, the issue that most complicates is that many people (not just fundies, mind you) equate the big bang with evolution. These theories (and evolution is less deniable than the big bang) are not related—they were proposed at different times by different people. That doesn't mean they wouldn't relate, if both true. But there are evolutionary aspects that are undeniable (dogs, for example), and there are aspects of the big bang theory that may make sense but are unprovable at this time. But declaring that we must prove the two simultaneously discards good science because a.) not all truths are provable within the limits of human thinking, and b.) even if one theory is unproved doesn't mean the other is false. That's just poor logic. How does that relate to your question? Well, absolute proof that the big bang didn't happen doesn't exist. Nor does absolute proof that it DID happen. But according to good science, lack of proof does not prove the opposite. And that's where the people you're addressing fail. Fun question. Thanks for asking.

Answer 3

You're asking for it by asking this question. You know they'll probably say that God created the universe and it's stated in the Bible and all that kind of stuff. Don't bother asking this question, you'll get the same kind of answer, no matter what you do. And to other people, I don't really believe the Big Bang and evolution theories, but with those two combined, you could think about this carefully. The Big Bang occurred first, then evolution caused humans to appear. I don't really believe that happened, but IF the Big Bang occurred, then this is the best explanation I have.

Answer 4

THE BIG BANG EXPLOSION

1 - The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can’t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as a black hole is. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. But let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.

2 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.

3 - A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.

4 - There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!

5 - There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn’t there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it together would keep it from expanding.

6 - Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source. .

7 – The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting. Knowledgeable scientists call them "too perfect." Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow.

Most aspects of the theory are impossible, and some require parameters that would require miracles to fulfill. One example of this is the expansion of the original fireball from the Big Bang, which they place precisely within the narrowest of limits. An evolutionist astronomer, *R.H. Dicke, says it well:

"If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been 0.1 percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars."—*R.H. Dickey, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62.

8 - Such an equation would have produced not a universe but a hole. *Roger L. St. Peter in 1974 developed a complicated mathematical equation that showed that the theorized Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. In reality, St. Peter says the theoretical explosion (if one could possibly take place) would fall back on itself and make a theoretical black hole! This means that one imaginary object would swallow another one!

9 - There is not enough antimatter in the universe. This is a big problem for the theorists. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive matter (matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter exist. There should be as much antimatter as matter—if the Big Bang was true.

"Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force [the Big Bang] that would create one should have to create the other, and the universe should be made of equal quantities of each. This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there should be antimatter out there, and observation refuses to back it up."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, p. 343.

"We are pretty sure from our observations that the universe today contains matter, but very little if any antimatter."—*Victor Weisskopf, "The Origin of the Universe," American Scientist, 71, p. 479.

10 - The antimatter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter. This fact is well-known to physicists. As soon as the two are produced in the laboratory, they instantly come together and annihilate one another.

Answer 5

Ill believe the big bang theory as soon as you can tell me where the re-actants that caused the big bang came from .Just like evolution and the bible there are to many holes to just say one is r
ight the rest are wrong


the fact that you cant find where it started proves its only a theory thus providing evidence that scietist are wrong just like long ago they were wrong when they said the earth was flat,and so on. it is only a theory nothing more you believe what you believe thats it.

Answer 6

Throughout history the scientist have had their theories based on what could be seen and filling in the rest with best guesses. if you disagreed with what the great minds of the time agreed upon you were an outcast. as more became visible a lot of outdated theories where cast down and replaced with the new theories based on what could be seen. The guessing goes on with nobody willing to admit that they just don't know for sure.

Answer 7

Do you have any evidence that soundly promotes and supports it?Do you have any evidence of creation by a higher power or creationalism?The Bible said God made the world and all things in it,if he big banged it in I see or have found no solid evidence other than some science projects by high school kids.Soooooo

Answer 8

The sheer ridiculousness of trying use it as an explanation, because of its lack of explanatory power. It is a hoax for gullible minds that need something, opium for the atheist orphans. It is a such a general statement that it is absurd and tautological, only brainless blind followers of evolution can think it is significant. It doesn't explain anything to say a huge gust of energy was necessary for creation.

Answer 9

Nope, no evidence needed. However God chose to bring the universe into existence, that's fine with Me. If He used the Big Bang, great. One thing I do know - "there was nothing, and it went bang" doesn't make any sense whatsoever, scientifically or logically. Whatever went "bang" first had to exist. Which brings us right back to square one. Where did it come from?
.

Answer 10

Yes, the bible clearly does not recognize the Big Bang Theory, therefore it is a trick that God put on us. Also, listen, it's not about evidence, duh, it's about faith, all of that scientific mumbo jumbo, is just to test your faith. The first time I heard that 'science' said the earth is older than 6 thousand years old, I knew science was wrong. You have to stop thinking so much and start believing in things that are NOT true. That is the only way to get into heaven. DUH!!!

Answer 11

It is a theory, the creation story might only be a theory, only God knows what happened for he was there when it happened. Let us just trust in God. Just what like a famous scientist said, "If you believe in God but there was none, you did not lose anything. But if you do not believe in God but there is a God, you have lost everything."