QUOTE (kendemyer @ Apr 3 2006, 08:57 PM)
The big bang theory is a dud.
I recommend reading these articles:
The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique [Part I]
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D., Brad Harrub, Ph.D., and Branyon May
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.ph...1&itemid=22The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique [Part II] [Section 1]
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D., Brad Harrub, Ph.D., and Branyon May
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.ph...1&itemid=26
Here is some of my notes, mostly in the original text I got it from, in order so that anybody can quickly go to the source from whence it came:Physical Cosmology
The universe has been measured as being 13.7 billion years old. In the beginning, the Big Bang occurred with a simultaneous appearance of space and time everywhere in the universe (Foundations of the Big Bang Cosmology). This contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics, which says that the universe and everything in it has existed in one form or another. Because the universe is 13.7 billion years old, it is clearly possible to say that there must have been a first uncaused cause for the big bang to occur (I Need to Know 109-114).
NASA’s website has stated:
“It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet” (Foundations of the Big Bang Cosmology).
Because the Big Bang Model is the scientific community’s best model for the beginning of the universe, including the origin of all mass, space, and time, there must have been something beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model.
Not only is the Big Bang the scientific community’s best model for the beginning of the universe, but the statistical probability of the Big Bang’s formation is astronomically improbable.
In the formation of the universe, the balance of matter to antimatter had to be accurate to one part in ten billion (1:10,000,000,000) for the universe to even arise. Had it been larger or greater by one part in ten billion (1:10,000,000,000), no universe would have arisen.
Also if the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million (1:100,000,000,000,000,000) the universe would have re-collapsed before it even reached its present size (I Need to Know 9-10).
There are just four basic forces presently known to mankind:
• Gravity
• Electromagnetism
• Strong nuclear force
• Weak nuclear force
The balances between these forces are precise, making possible life as we know it. Consider the delicate balance between gravity and the expansion speed of our universe. Whether our universe will expand forever or eventually collapse is still debated among cosmologists. In either case, the actual density of matter in our universe is within a factor of ten of the so-called critical density, the point of exact balance between permanent expansion and eventual contraction. But to be so close to this critical density after some 20 billion years of expansion, there must have been precise tuning in the earliest moments of the Big Bang. At 1:1x10^-43 seconds (that’s much less than 1 second) after the Big Bang, for instance, the so-called Planck time, the density must have been equal to the critical density to 1:1.0x10^60. If it had been ever so slightly higher, the universe would have collapsed quickly and there would have been no opportunity for life to form. On the other hand, had the density been ever so slightly smaller, the universe would have expanded rapidly and no galaxies, stars or planets would have formed. Again, no life would be possible. Thus, life seems to be the result of fine tuning the density of matter-energy at the Planck time to 1:1.0x10^60 (that’s 1:10 with 60 0’s after it).
Life depends on a number of the heavier chemical elements, especially carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, but only hydrogen, helium and a few of the very lightest elements are formed in the Big Bang itself. The rest are formed inside stars. The strong and weak nuclear forces control how stars operate. If the strong force were weaker than it is, there would be no life. Even if the strong force were only 5% weaker, the element deuterium would not exist, and stars could not burn as they do. On the other hand, if the strong force were only 5% stronger, the diproton would be stable and stars would burn catastrophically. The strong interaction is just the right amount to have stable stars and stable elements for life chemistry.
The weak nuclear force is important too. All but the lightest elements are formed inside stars as they grow old. Were it not for the weak force, these elements would remain trapped inside the stars and be of no use for life. But when a star has used up its fuel, it begins to collapse, becoming very hot inside and producing large numbers of neutrinos. The neutrinos cause the star to explode and scatter its heavy elements through space. These elements later become part of the next generation of stars, forming planets which accompany such stars. As a result, the earth has the heavy elements so necessary for life. If the weak force were much smaller than it is, the neutrinos would escape quietly, the star would not explode, and the heavy elements would stay inside. If the weak force were much stronger, the neutrinos themselves would not be able to escape from the star, we would again have no explosion and no heavy elements would escape. So if the weak force were much different than it is, there would be no heavy elements outside the stars.
Consider one more crucial balance. Gravity is much weaker than electromagnetism by 1.0x10^37 (that’s 1:1 with 38 0’s following it), yet gravity dominates in the realm of astronomical distances. Why is this, since both are long-distance forces? The reason is that the positive and negative electromagnetic charges occur in equal numbers, so that at large distances they cancel each other out. But why should they occur in equal numbers? Scientists don't know. The main negative charge is the electron, a very small particle compared to the proton, the main positive charge. In modern cosmological theory, as the universe cooled down from the Big Bang, protons would have "frozen out" much earlier than electrons, and there is no obvious reason why the two should be equal in number. The numbers of electrons and protons left over must have been the same to within 1:1.0x10^37 (that’s 1:1 with 38 0’s following it). If this had not happened, our universe would be dominated by electromagnetism instead of gravity, and there would be no life as we know it.
It appears that very slight changes in the strength or balance of these forces gives a universe which will not support any life we can imagine.
Stephen Hawking once said,
“The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it.” (A Designed Universe)
Clearly life in our universe would not have been possible if the early condition of the universe had varied even slightly. The universe appears to be designed for life.
[/center]
.... the only thing faster than light is the word of God 