athiests, if god did not create the universe, what did?

Question

the big bang theory makes no sense and breaks laws of science =/
- the big bang theory says that all of the universe began in a single little dot and started spinning really really fast until it all exploded. a scientific law states that every moon planet and galaxy should be spinning the same way but they are not. we have entire galaxies spinning backwards
- also, the big bang theory states that living organisms came from non-living items. that was proven wrong 200 years ago
- and, there are many stars in the sky. if you counted up the ones we know of, every person on earth would have 2 trillion stars. out of all of those stars, not one has been witnessed in creation. stars explode all of the time - novas, supernovas - but not one has been spotted being created. there was ONE spotted getting brighter (potentialy could be a created star) but it could also very well be a star hidden behind dust and that dust is clearing =/

is the big bang theory the best mankind has?

yah, just about all of you guys suck. i asked a question and u shove crap in my face thanks a lot for that. sheesh....

it wasn't a rant. stupid ppl

Answer 1

The Big Bang makes sense if you... ya know... UNDERSTAND IT.

From Harvard: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/seuforum/bigbanglanding.htm
From NASA: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

Article about the Nobel Prize Winners in Physics for their work on the Big Bang theory: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6189865

Answer 2

Strange that you can so easily dismiss the big bang on your extensive research and knowledge. I'm sure that many PhDs who have dedicated their academic careers to the subject (and who by the way would benefit immensely by demonstrating a valid alternative) would be very interested in your findings.

Face it, in order to say that something breaks the laws of science you need a good understanding of both the thing and the principles. As far as I know, there is not a reason to state that all things should spin the same way nor is there a reason to predict this based on the big bang. I'm also not well versed enough in cosmology to comment on whether stars should still be forming or not, but I understand that I don't have the knowledge at this point and would do quite a bit of research before just accepting a reasonable sounding statement. I suggest you do the same.

Edit:
Quote: "yah, just about all of you guys suck. i asked a question and u shove crap in my face thanks a lot for that. sheesh...."
I'm unclear on why the answerers "suck" or how they shoved crap in your face. Granted a few of those above me and mine were on the sarcastic side, but this is done to get you to realize that it takes a real lack of understanding to even think that a casual observer would be able to detect juch an obvious flaw in a well supported theory.

Answer 3

sigh

the fact that you are unable to understand Big Bang Theory does not somehow make it invalid.

To be recognised as a scientific theory it must be tested in every possible way and fit all known facts. That is the definition of a scientific theory. By the very act of describing it as a theory you are stating that it is a model of how the universe was formed that fits all known facts and cannot be challenged because no known facts do not fit the model proposed by the theory. No theory would be accepted as such if it broke any scientific laws.

Big Bang Theory makes no statements about the origin of living things. The theory of Abiogenesis deals with how living things developed from non-living molecules. This is also a scientific theory that fits all known facts but is entirely separate from Big Bang Theory AND from the theory of evolution.

Exactly how do you propose to spot a star being created? Many stars have been discovered since telescopes were first invented. How can you say whether they had always been there or whether they had just formed? Your argument is ridiculous. Stars are formed in nebulae such as the Triffid Nebula some 900 million light years away by the coalescence of dust and gas until it becomes so dense that nuclear reactions take place causing the star to start shining. One moment the star is not shining and the next it is - as it cannot be detected before it gives off light how do you expect someone to tell whether the star has just been born or whether it has simply never been discovered before?

UPDATE: If anyone is shoving crap around, it's you. Before shooting your mouth off in future I respectfully suggest you first make sure your brains are loaded.

Being childish and calling people stupid just demonstrates that you've lost the argument

Answer 4

Your information on research and theory on both the big bang and abiogenesis is faulty. The big bang theory postulates that the universe started from a singularity and hyperinflated. During the first millisecond of hyperinflation mass, in the form of subatomic particles, seperated from matter. This is an extension of Einstein's theory of relativity, which stated the relationship between mass and energy. It has basically been borne out by research and mathematics. There is nothing in the big bang theory about anything spinning.

And recent research on abiogenesis, far from disproving its possibility, has shown how easily commonly found chemicals can react to form the precursors of life.

The scientific theories of origins (big bang, nuclear chemistry, abiogenesis, evolution) are far more elegant and substantive than fairy tales. they have bodies of scientific evidence to support them. They are indeed the best that mankind has yet come up with.

Answer 5

- the big bang theory says that all of the universe began in a single little dot and started spinning really really fast

No it doesn't.

- also, the big bang theory states that living organisms came from non-living items

No it doesn't.

that was proven wrong 200 years ago

No it wasn't.

Come on, put a bit of effort into it. Anyway, do you really think the majority of scientists would support an unscientific theory?

The Big Bang may not be completely true, but it's the closest model we have. 'Goddidit' is not a scientific explanation.

Answer 6

So a worldwide widespread physicists who has studied the problem alongside with human beings regarded on the evidence and located no writer became needed is incorrect because of the fact which you non secular e book that has no evidence in any respect to decrease back it up, you do no longer know who wrote this e book, a great number of it is been shown to be incorrect says so? i flow with evidence and what could be proved. The evidence shows no writer or god became mandatory and that organic explanation and technological awareness can answer the questions. So in different words what you think has no mirrored image on what's authentic or fact. i've got faith sorry for you because of the fact for faith has so twisted you which you at the instant are no even arranged to look on the evidence this individual and others recent. you will refuse to even learn it. you're so blind and so crammed with worry you prefer to no longer be having a impressive existence. i mean you sit down their shutting your ears and shutting your eyes to the info and evidence supported like an somewhat little new child because of the fact which you may no longer manage it. Its unhappy. and human beings ask your self what's the wear and tear in faith. it extremely is the wear and tear.

Answer 7

I'm not going to answer you seriously because you're not asking a question. You're simply trying to re-inforce what you believe and spread propaganda. If you actually understood and studied the big bang, none of the stupid things you stated would you be saying. Seriously, is it that hard to pick up a book that isn't recommended by your pastor but really written by a scientist while using an open mind to new possibilities?

Answer 8

" the big bang theory says that all of the universe began in a single little dot and started spinning really really fast until it all exploded"

Um...No, it doesn't.

"also, the big bang theory states that living organisms came from non-living items."

Um...No, it doesn't

"that was proven wrong 200 years ago"

No, it wasn't.

"is the big bang theory the best mankind has?"

So far, yes.

Answer 9

Why do Holies always bring up big bangs , and want it all explaned in the tiniest detail , but they believe that some big bozo did it all . They fail to explain how he did it . Where the materials came from . How they were transported . They say the life can't come from non-life , but the big bozo made a mud ball into the form of a person - - - blew his halitosis on it , and bingo there's a living person . Isn't that making life out of non-life ?

Answer 10

well im not so sure the big bang theory is all true... but they know the universe is expanding at a certain rate. so it all can be estimated i guess for when it all started.
no one knows the answer for sure... but...science....keeps changing...and asking questions...and proving out theories. thats all you can ask for. the continueing search for the answer. thats all science has ever been. the search for the truth . and the next theory they come up with... may be the truth..... the reality... the fact
all we can do... is keep asking questions...and searching for the facts

Answer 11

*Big Bang does not break scientific laws.

*The universe wasn't a dot. It was super hot condensed plasma, so condensed it contained all matter

*We have created living things with elements in labs. You don't need much- the process is explained by the elements gradually cooling and being able to form more complicated elements and so on.

* Complexity of the Universe doesn't prove a creator. God would be more complex if he existed, and therefor can be disproven by your own argument.