How is the earth possible through the big bang?

Question

I've thought about it and thought about it, but it is just not possible that the earth could have been created by the big bang. Such a haphazard explosion throwing matter everywhere. I mean, we're in the perfect setting, the perfect part of the universe where major masses can't collide with us, our solar system is set up so we get the perfect temperature, the moon, which is made up of some element not even found on earth, is the exact perfect size and place away from the earth. Life on earth would be impossible without the moon because of the fact that it wouldn't be at a tip, but rather spinning around crazily. Africa would be freezing and the polar caps would melt one day, then the next day Northern Russia would be boiling while the United States would freeze up. And of course our earth's gravity is not strong enough to pull in the moon if it was flying by. Also, our solar system is setup to the point where the larger planets are further from the sun, while the smaller are closer. :(

Answer 1

The Big Bang theory developed from observations of the structure of the universe and from theoretical considerations. In 1912 Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a spiral nebula, and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth. He did not grasp the cosmological implications of this fact, and indeed at the time it was highly controversial whether or not these nebulae were "island universes" outside our Milky Way.Ten years later, Alexander Friedmann, a Russian cosmologist and mathematician, derived the Friedmann equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity, showing that the universe might be expanding in contrast to the static universe model advocated by Einstein.In 1924, Edwin Hubble's measurement of the great distance to the nearest spiral nebulae showed that these systems were indeed other galaxies. Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, predicted that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe. In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the universe began as a simple "primeval atom", echoing previous speculations about the cosmic egg origin of the universe.
Starting in 1924, Hubble painstakingly developed a series of distance indicators, the forerunner of the cosmic distance ladder, using the 100 inch Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory. This allowed him to estimate distances to galaxies whose redshifts had already been measured, mostly by Slipher. In 1929, Hubble discovered a correlation between distance and recession velocity—now known as Hubble's law. Lemaître had already shown that this was expected, given the cosmological principle.
During the 1930s other ideas were proposed as non-standard cosmologies to explain Hubble's observations, including the Milne model,the oscillatory universe (originally suggested by Friedmann, but advocated by Einstein and Richard Tolman) and Fritz Zwicky's tired light hypothesis.
After World War II, two distinct possibilities emerged. One was Fred Hoyle's steady state model, whereby new matter would be created as the universe seemed to expand. In this model, the universe is roughly the same at any point in time. The other was Lemaître's Big Bang theory, advocated and developed by George Gamow, who introduced big bang nucleosynthesis and whose associates, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, predicted the CMB. It is an irony that it was Hoyle who coined the name that would come to be applied to Lemaître's theory, referring to it sarcastically as "this big bang idea" during a radio broadcast.[citation needed] For a while, support was split between these two theories. Eventually, the observational evidence, most notably from radio source counts, began to favor the latter. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964 secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos. Much of the current work in cosmology includes understanding how galaxies form in the context of the Big Bang, understanding the physics of the universe at earlier and earlier times, and reconciling observations with the basic theory.
Huge strides in Big Bang cosmology have been made since the late 1990s as a result of major advances in telescope technology as well as the analysis of copious data from satellites such as COBE,the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP.Cosmologists now have fairly precise measurement of many of the parameters of the Big Bang model, and have made the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating (see dark energy).

Answer 2

Earth did not begin as a big bang, the universe did. So far as we know: After the universe began to expand, the first matter that appeared out of the sea of elemental particles was just hydrogen and some helium (and maybe a little lithium). Nothing else. After a long time, the enormous cloud that filled the universe was contracted, by gravity, first into nebulae and then into galaxies as stars were formed. At this stage, there were no planets. Anywhere. At all. But the largest stars that had been formed by gravity only burned a short time... they were so heavy and "burned" so fast that they soon (after a few million years) reached a critical limit and became novae and supernovae. And when a supernova happens, a lot of heavy elements are created. So then we had clouds of heavier elements. The clouds eventually contracted again, forming smaller stars, as well as planets. And THAT is how Earth was formed. Your claim that "since Earth has life, God must exist" is ignorant and childish. That's okay! But you should really grow up now. Ahh'ryal: yeah, and you too. You need to smell that coffee, boy.

Answer 3

If you want to argue intelligent design try to get your facts right!
To quote you
“Life on earth would be impossible without the moon because of the fact that it wouldn't be at a tip, but rather spinning around crazily.”
How do you come the conclusion the moon makes the earth tip?
Simple fact there are planets with a tip and no moon.
Next take spartan_1117
, take the distance between LA and Boston. If the Earth were that much closer or farther from the sun, it would burn up and freeze respectively.
He still thinks the earths orbit is a circle, or maybe close to a circle, that’s good my 7 yr old laughed when he read it.
Here are the distances for the earth to the sun.
Min 91 million mile
Max 94.5 million miles
Last time anyone checked I think La and Boston were just slightly closer to each other than that, but only by a couple of miles.
Get the facts correct and maybe someone would take you seriously.

Answer 4

I'm really hoping some of these responses are jokes. Point by point I guess.

The big bang was not an explosion like we think of a bomb. It was a rapid expansion of space-time. What caused it? We don't know. Yet.

"I mean, we're in the perfect setting, the perfect part of the universe where major masses can't collide with us"

The universe is a BIG place. No matter how unlikely your definition of a safe place is, it is going to happen somewhere. And, Major masses can't collide? Read up on it more, our entire galaxy is on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy. The Tidal forces are going to distort our galaxy beyond recognition as we are absorbed.


"our solar system is set up so we get the perfect temperature, the moon, which is made up of some element not even found on earth, is the exact perfect size and place away from the earth."

We don't get the perfect temperature. It's all relative to the organisms that evolved to suit that temperature. If we had evolved on a planet much hotter, then that would be the perfect temperature.

The moon is not made up of elements not found on Earth. It's made of Oxygen, Silicon, Iron, Magnesium, and Aluminum.

How can you know that it;s the perfect size and distance away? I'd like to see your sources for the moon being essential for life on earth.

I'm also not sure what your getting at with the crazy spinning. Lets see some sources!

The farther out planets are larger because they are gas giants. They are not dense, and if they were close to the sun they would be boiled away.

We don't see direct effects anymore, but there is cosmic microwave background radiation still echoing. Also, the universe is constantly expanding from a central point. To say that the big bang, or something similer never happened is willful ignorance, or stupidity.

mizz.nessa-It's fairly obvious that you know nothing about the event in question, please learn before you post. And also, please forgive me for not accepting your mind as a source.

spartan-1117-The earths Obit is not perfect, as it was mentioned before, the orbit is slightly elliptical, depending on what stage the Earth is at, (perhelion&aphelion), the distance to the sun varies by 5.1 Million km.

The sun-Earth distance is 93 million miles away. The moon-Earth distance is 385,000 km, it orbit is also elliptical.

Answer 5

You need to read up on it a bit more. Take an astronomy class or something. The big bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago. The Earth is only 4.5 billion years old. It took almost 10 billion years of cosmic evolution to get to that point - but when you look into it, it all makes sense logically and following basic physical laws.

The big bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion. It didn't throw matter everywhere, matter came much later - in the beginning, it was too hot for matter to form.

Yes, there are a lot of things that could make life on Earth impossible. And if they had happened, you wouldn't be here now to sepeculate on the matter.

As to spartan's answer - the distance between Boston and LA is about 3000 miles. Every year, the distance between the Earth and the Sun varies by more than 3 million miles because the orbit isn't circular. So I don't know where you heard that, but you're proved wrong every summer as we drift further and further away from the Sun.

Answer 6

Big Bang is the result of a singularity forming in earlier universe, not in out universe. Due to different c value between two universe, a small matter of about one solar mass consisted of dark matter and normal matter could become a whole universe worth of mass.
There is no way to predict what lies beyond a singularity, but we can be confident that a Being with skill beyond intellegence have planned all the variable, so His creation could life on.
But could a Being with some part of existence outside this universe called exist? This is a matter of faith, and I personally say "yes, there is a God, and He is beyond what any sapient level religious leader or scientist could teach us about."

About earth, the big bang happened 10 billion years or more before earth even exist. I think that time is enough for clumps of matter to unite together. Many of them failed, but the universe is so vast and have a lot of laboratory to do trial and error. So it is not so surprising that one of some self-organization experiment could succeed. The other that failed will have no life which could ask any question, but one day, there will also be, as our childrens will one day go there.

Answer 7

The earth arrived on the scene about 6 billion years after the big bang.
Massive stars coalesced from the pristine hydrogen field,caused by the quantum effect.
They lit up after about 100 million years.
They lived for about 10 million years and exploded as super novas.
The rocky debris that was forged in these star blasted out in all directions.
Eventually it crashed into the hydrogen field that spawned the big star.
This wedge shaped mass produced a giant smoke ring that eventually evolved into our solar system, the earth and us.

Answer 8

To answer you're question would require me to write a book on the subject, so, a summary answer; everything is relative. What you have stated to be perfect is only perfect because we adapted to it.
Experiment; drop marbles on a hard surface, use an empty coffee can to represent the perfect environment for life, as on Earth. If even one marble finds it's way into the coffee can, then why couldn't earth land in the "perfect" place in order to support life?

Answer 9

very well spoken ares. but dykstra, my suggestion to you is not to be questioning the 'perfect' existence of the earth in the universe, but rather to look into the principles behind evolution. youre question sounds more biologically oriented than cosmologically. its true that the majority of your paragraph there is flawed in its facts (im not sure where you heard most of this, but it sounds like you fabricated most of it in your own mind based on bits and pieces youve seen on television or in the news), but the religious community doesnt care, as long as you believe them. so if youre seeking a logical truth, you can indulge yourself to your wits end in sea of theism which tells you that you are correct, or you can search for yourself through the testable theories of the universe. if, after learning a bit about the world, you arrive to the conclusion that a higher power ignited the divine spark in the universe, you are not alone, but do so with a learned mind. dont make the mistake of denying one side of the story without fully exploring both.

Answer 10

Precisely- There are only two explaniations. One is divine creation. The accuracy is too precise- For example, take the distance between LA and Boston. If the Earth were that much closer or farther from the sun, it would burn up and freeze respectively. It's what makes sense, if not scientifically.
The second possibility is that we are simply a product of chance, that there could have been a million Big Bangs before ours finally worked correctly. However, that would require a lot of unrecorded, unaccounted for matter with no apparent source. The first ption simply is more logical, in a way.