If the Big Bang was proved false what alternatives would evolutionist have?

[lewisnotmiller]

I LOVE this thread title. Not so hot on the thread itself, but in honour of the thread title, I have decided to come up with some similarish thread titles for future use.

If Dogs were cats and cats were dogs, how do mice know who to hide from?
If Monday and Friday switch place, does a Sunday roast become Wednesday take-out?
If there was no ground, would we be walking on air?
If you look in the mirror and see someone else's face looking back, are you in a bad Nicholas Cage movie?

And my personal fave...

If you post enough random 'scientific facts', do you eventually stumble across the secret to unlocking the theory of the universe, and everything in it.

 

[JustWondering2]

Everyone out there, please avoid the brown acid (LSD)!

 

[Agnostic75]

Understanding this Laws of Nature what viable options do evolutionists honestly have without the big bang being viable?

You must mean what advantages naturalists would have since millions of theistic evolutionists accept evolution.

You really do not have any idea what you are talking about since regardless of how the universe began to exist, a lot of scientific evidence shows that all life on earth is related. Michael Behe, Ph.D., biochemistry, said:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

Ken Miller, Ph.D., biology, is also a Christian. Would you like to critique his article on the flagellum, intelligent design, and irreducible complexity at The Flagellum Unspun?

God is free to create life any way that he wants to, including slowly, over millions of years.

What is your academic background in physics, and biology?

 

[Agnostic75]

A Great Read: EU View | holoscience.com | The Electric Universe

What would an electric universe have to do with who God is, and what his agenda are? How would an electric universe prevent evolution from occurring?

 

[Agnostic75]

A Great Read: EU View | holoscience.com | The Electric Universe

Regarding that link, the home page mentions the late Norwegian scientist Kristian Birkeland. Wikipedia says:

Kristian Olaf Birkeland (13 December 1867 – 15 June 1917) was a Norwegian scientist. He is best remembered as the person who first elucidated the nature of the Aurora borealis. In order to fund his research on the aurorae, he invented the electromagnetic cannon and the Birkeland-Eyde process of fixing nitrogen from the air. Birkeland was nominated for the Nobel Prize seven times.

Birkeland's theory of the aurora was eventually confirmed, a classic example of a fringe theory, ridiculed by scientists supporting the then mainstream, that has come to be accepted as a mainstream theory.

What in the world does Birkeland's research have to do with evolution?

 

[gnostic]

The number of evidences support evolution as scientific fact, regardless of whether the Big Bang should be proven true or false, because the Big Bang (BB) theory has absolutely nothing to do with biology.

And to date, the only early universe cosmology that's supported by evidences, is the Big Bang.

The Steady State model was a contemporary and competing theory to the BB between the 20s and 40s, which even Einstein had advocated, but had since been debunked, because there were no evidences to support it.

The other hypothesis - the Big Bounce (which is a theory of Big Bang > Big Crunch > Big Bang again) has no evidences to support an earlier universe prior to the current universe.

 

[crocusj]

If you post enough random 'scientific facts', do you eventually stumble across the secret to unlocking the theory of the universe, and everything in it.

Yes. Yes you do.

 

[idav]

It's very clear to me that the big bang does not have anything to do with evolution, what's not clear to me is any sort of alternative explanation short of creation.

So why exactly is an alternative needed when the big bang doesn't hurt evolution?

Chemical evolution gets into the development of the elements prior to life forms coming about on earth. The very first few seconds of the big bang theory tell about how the first elements came about.
Elements of the past: Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and observation — Einstein Online

 

[Sculelos]

So why exactly is an alternative needed when the big bang doesn't hurt evolution?

Chemical evolution gets into the development of the elements prior to life forms coming about on earth. The very first few seconds of the big bang theory tell about how the first elements came about.
Elements of the past: Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and observation — Einstein Online

Elements can only decay. You will never form a heavier element from lesser elements unless you can pressurize the elements.

Therefore the Heaviest Elements are Ununseptium and Ununoctium both with an Atomic weight of 294...

... However this is quite funny because in nature to get to 294 you must have 9.1875 compression to start with. In physics this is equal to turning 1,000,000lbs of matter down to 13lbs of matter...

... In physics you can theoretically get to a maximum atomic weight of 512 but yet we never see anything above 294 so the potential we can achieve is only 14.35%...

... This is funny because 14.35% takes you to 7 which in and of itself proves not only the Density of our Universe and compression ratio, but it also proves that the Universe is made of seven layers and each layer is about 91 Million miles thick. This goes both ways so the total width of our Universe is 1274 Million Miles where the Total height of the Universe is only 637 Million Miles...

... Like I said 'Modern Science' is full of lies and errors...

Ununseptium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Ununoctium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[idav]

Elements can only decay. You will never form a heavier element from lesser elements unless you can pressurize the elements.

Therefore the Heaviest Elements are Ununseptium and Ununoctium both with an Atomic weight of 294...

... However this is quite funny because in nature to get to 294 you must have 9.1875 compression to start with. In physics this is equal to turning 1,000,000lbs of matter down to 13lbs of matter...

... In physics you can theoretically get to a maximum atomic weight of 512 but yet we never see anything above 294 so the potential we can achieve is only 14.35%...

... This is funny because 14.35% takes you to 7 which in and of itself proves not only the Density of our Universe and compression ratio, but it also proves that the Universe is made of seven layers and each layer is about 91 Million miles thick. This goes both ways so the total width of our Universe is 1274 Million Miles where the Total height of the Universe is only 637 Million Miles...

... Like I said 'Modern Science' is full of lies and errors...

Ununseptium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Ununoctium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well at least your steering away from biological evolution but I fail to see what your chemical evolution objections are about. You trying to say chemicals didn't evolve either as the Big Bang theory suggests?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Elements can only decay. You will never form a heavier element from lesser elements unless you can pressurize the elements.

Therefore the Heaviest Elements are Ununseptium and Ununoctium both with an Atomic weight of 294...

... However this is quite funny because in nature to get to 294 you must have 9.1875 compression to start with. In physics this is equal to turning 1,000,000lbs of matter down to 13lbs of matter...

... In physics you can theoretically get to a maximum atomic weight of 512 but yet we never see anything above 294 so the potential we can achieve is only 14.35%...

... This is funny because 14.35% takes you to 7 which in and of itself proves not only the Density of our Universe and compression ratio, but it also proves that the Universe is made of seven layers and each layer is about 91 Million miles thick. This goes both ways so the total width of our Universe is 1274 Million Miles where the Total height of the Universe is only 637 Million Miles...

... Like I said 'Modern Science' is full of lies and errors...

Ununseptium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Ununoctium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, but you're forgetting about the universal standard recalibration (USR) number which is equivalent to pi (3.14) squared (9.86). When you apply the USR to the proton compression factor, taking into account the energy density of the strong-electromagnetic force, the actual number of potential layers of the universe becomes 7 to the power of 7. Many people forget this step when formulating their scientific models of the universe. When we include this crucial step, we find that the ACTUAL height of the universe is 2.8 cm, while it's length is 32 inches, and it's width is 790 trillion trillion kilometers cubed. Obviously, this seems counterintuitive until you realize that the standard 6 dimensions of our universe actually unfold into 42 dimensions when a fixed chronological time rate is included in the equation.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Elements can only decay. You will never form a heavier element from lesser elements unless you can pressurize the elements.

Therefore the Heaviest Elements are Ununseptium and Ununoctium both with an Atomic weight of 294...

... However this is quite funny because in nature to get to 294 you must have 9.1875 compression to start with. In physics this is equal to turning 1,000,000lbs of matter down to 13lbs of matter...

... In physics you can theoretically get to a maximum atomic weight of 512 but yet we never see anything above 294 so the potential we can achieve is only 14.35%...

... This is funny because 14.35% takes you to 7 which in and of itself proves not only the Density of our Universe and compression ratio, but it also proves that the Universe is made of seven layers and each layer is about 91 Million miles thick. This goes both ways so the total width of our Universe is 1274 Million Miles where the Total height of the Universe is only 637 Million Miles...

... Like I said 'Modern Science' is full of lies and errors...

Ununseptium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Ununoctium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nuclear fusion (stars and supernovae)

 

[Sculelos]

Nuclear fusion (stars and supernovae)

Physically speaking if we tried to shrink the Universe into the smallest space possible using modern numbers we end up with a minimum of 1/65536 for the smallest possible charge.

This means right now our Universe is about 156 Billion light years wide according to mainstream 'Science'.

156,000,000,000 / 65,536 = 2,380,371 Light years.

This means that our Universe had to start at 2,380,371 Light Years wide to begin any lower number then that and you end up with a universe that would explode itself again.

So lets see. 2,380,371 lightyears times 5,878,625,000,000 miles equals 13,993,308,469,875,000,000 Miles of space that would be required for the Big Bang to even begin so it's silly to say that a big bang could explain origins since there would need to be at least 115,444,794,876,468,750,000,000 pounds of charge before a big bang would be possible.

100% impossible for any 'big bang' to be the means for creation as you would already need elements present before any 'big bang' were to occur.

Scientifically the big bang is disproved. So my original question remains: What alternatives do secular scientist have to the big-bang?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So my original question remains: What alternatives do secular scientist have to the big-bang?

I suppose we could always resort to gibberish and outlandish insanity.

 

[idav]

so it's silly to say that a big bang could explain origins since there would need to be at least 115,444,794,876,468,750,000,000 pounds of charge before a big bang would be possible.

And somehow it is less silly to say "God did it"?

100% impossible for any 'big bang' to be the means for creation as you would already need elements present before any 'big bang' were to occur.

Wrong, there were no elements at the point that space began expanding. There weren't heavier elements until the plasma radiation energy from the big bang began to cool some hundreds of thousands of years after the big bang.

What the big bang needed was sufficient energy, I will give you that but note that energy can neither be created or destroyed so it is silly to say something created all that power and energy.

 

[Sculelos]

And somehow it is less silly to say "God did it"?

Wrong, there were no elements at the point that space began expanding. There weren't heavier elements until the plasma radiation energy from the big bang began to cool some hundreds of thousands of years after the big bang.

What the big bang needed was sufficient energy, I will give you that but note that energy can neither be created or destroyed so it is silly to say something created all that power and energy.

Everything is constantly decaying. So energy is actually escaping our Universe. This is true so energy can be destroyed however we have never seen it being created, but yes, it's constantly being destroyed which is what is causing light to shift from green and blue to red wave spectrum's.

...Spreading Inward Neutrons...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Understanding this Laws of Nature what viable options do Evolutionist honestly have without the big bang being viable?

As others have already pointed out to you, the Big Bang theory has NOTHING TO DO WITH the theory of evolution whatsoever. The BBT is a theory in physics, regarding the history of the universe, whereas the theory of evolution is a theory in biology, regarding the differences between biological organisms. One could be refuted without affecting the other.

Oh, and everything else in your post is absolute nonsense, as others have also pointed out to you.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Scientifically the big bang is disproved. So my original question remains: What alternatives do secular scientist have to the big-bang?

Since its based on a false premise, your question is ill-posed. The Big Bang theory has NOT been "disproved". And certainly not on the basis of the inanity you've posted on this thread.

 

[idav]

Everything is constantly decaying. So energy is actually escaping our Universe. This is true so energy can be destroyed however we have never seen it being created, but yes, it's constantly being destroyed which is what is causing light to shift from green and blue to red wave spectrum's.

...Spreading Inward Neutrons...

Decay only happens when the atoms are unstable. Unstable atoms work toward becoming stable so they have an energy balance of protons and electrons. Energy doesn't just disappear it becomes something else.

 

[Yerda]

Scientifically the big bang is disproved. So my original question remains: What alternatives do secular scientist have to the big-bang?

Has it escaped your attention, perhaps, that evolution as a theory of biodiversity predates even the first observations of an expanding universe by about 150 years?

Also, I believe the models of inflationary cosmology solve the problem of the universes size. However, like you, I am not a cosmologist.