The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[McBell]

Why are you trying to find help?
I have told you want I believe and have proven that assumption, so again your assessment is not true.

You have told us what you believe by falsely presenting it as fact.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You have told us what you believe by falsely presenting it as fact.

No. You are again wrong. I have one assumption which I have already proved as a fact.
You are always stating your false assumptions as facts but then you do not know any real answer as to the origin of anything.

 

[SalixIncendium]

So what caused the Big Band according to official dogma?

Blues and jazz?


ETA: I see @John53 beat me to it.

 

[Polymath257]

add up all the particles listed - over 10^92 by some estimates,

Hmmm...the usual number given for the observable universe is about 10^81. Your number of 10^92 seems very large.

And, even if your number is correct, so what? How does that affect the probabilities involved?

 

[Polymath257]

God had always existed and always will exist and created all things.

Alternatively, the universe has existed for all time.

 

[Polymath257]

No. You are again wrong. I have one assumption which I have already proved as a fact.

No, you have multiple assumptions. None of them has been proved factual.

You are always stating your false assumptions as facts but then you do not know any real answer as to the origin of anything.

If there is no evidence, there is no knowledge. We know only what the evidence we have found reveals.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Alternatively, the universe has existed for all time.

Wouldn't this negate the Big Bang theory, though?

Or is the suggestion that the universe existed in a singularity?

 

[Polymath257]

So what caused the Big Band according to official dogma?

In the simplest form of the model, the BB was literally uncaused: there is no 'before'.

 

[Polymath257]

Evolutionists are always trying to run and hide from that nonsense.
Life cannot exist without the Almighty God the Crestor.

Life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. Nothing involved in life requires a supernatural.

 

[Polymath257]

After all this the all knowing ones who actually teach their theories as fact, do not have an answer to such a simple question.
What existed a trillion years before the Big Bang?

We do not know if there even was a trillion years before the BB. In most models, there was not. If you want to extend to a multiverse model, there have always been energy and matter and many universes.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

In the simplest form of the model, the BB was literally uncaused: there is no 'before'.

And that violates cause and effect, the foundation of science and sanity.
I guess the universe is like god to you, always was.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Baloney.
You are only fooling yourselves.
There is no evolution without a first living creature, which is impossible.
I have proved that several times and no one has refuted that.
The rest of evolution is garbage. You have yet to show one created kind changing into another kind or how such would even happen.

Are you claiming there was no first living thing and that there are none now?

What have you proved? I have seen nothing but claims and declarations.

Evolution is a supported theory that has not been falsified. And certainly nothing you have done here means anything regarding the science.

 

[Polymath257]

Baloney.
You are only fooling yourselves.
There is no evolution without a first living creature, which is impossible.

A first *population of living things (bacteria). And those were formed by natural processes via chemistry and physics.

I have proved that several times and no one has refuted that.

You have NOT proven it. You have *claimed* it multiple times, but it is in direct contradiction to the evidence.

The rest of evolution is garbage. You have yet to show one created kind changing into another kind or how such would even happen.

Absolutely we have seen speciation (one type changing into another). We understand the genetic mechanisms for this to happen. And we have the fossil evidence that it happened at levels above the species level.

 

[Polymath257]

And that violates cause and effect, the foundation of science and sanity.

Nope. Cause and effect only applies *within* the universe. And it isn't even absolute then: quantum mechanics is a non-causal description of the atomic and sub-atomic realm and is both scientific and sane.

I guess the universe is like god to you, always was.

Well, I don't believe in a supernatural (I think it is incoherent). I also don't believe in a cause for the universe at large (multiverse if you want to go there). I don't believe in any deities.

 

[Polymath257]

More junk I see.
Jesus Christ created all things.
Read His book.

Jesus never wrote a book. Others wrote smallish discussions and brought them together into the Bible we know today. But Jesus would not have recognized any part of the New Testament.

 

[Polymath257]

Wouldn't this negate the Big Bang theory, though?

Or is the suggestion that the universe existed in a singularity?

A singularity is a description, not a thing. It describes what happens as we approach a certain time or location (curvature goes infinite).

There are several scenarios where a universe could exist infinitely into the past.

For example, if the 'singularity' is a type of 'Big Bounce', we could have a contracting 'universe' before ours that existed infinitely into the past. Or we could have an oscillating universe that goes through a series of such 'Bounces'.

In a multiverse scenario, the multiverse is usually modeled as existing for an infinite past and expanding exponentially throughout. Our 'universe' would be a type of 'bubble' in the overall multiverse.

The terminology gets confused. Classically, the term 'universe' would include all matter and energy. In a multiverse scenario,it is the multiverse that contains all matter and energy and a 'universe' is a part that is 'mostly' causally closed (usually interaction via gravity is allowed).

 

[SalixIncendium]

A singularity is a description, not a thing. It describes what happens as we approach a certain time or location (curvature goes infinite).

You're right. I should have said "as a singularity," not "in a singularity." Poor wording on my part.

There are several scenarios where a universe could exist infinitely into the past.

For example, if the 'singularity' is a type of 'Big Bounce', we could have a contracting 'universe' before ours that existed infinitely into the past. Or we could have an oscillating universe that goes through a series of such 'Bounces'.

This would align with the Big Crunch theory? I suppose my question is as the universe contracts to a singularity, would is still be considered a "universe" as all matter coalesces?

 

[Polymath257]

This would align with the Big Crunch theory? I suppose my question is as the universe contracts to a singularity, would is still be considered a "universe" as all matter coalesces?

Usually, the Big Crunch is a collapse that will happen in our future. But yes, if such happened in the past, this would 'align'.

Like I said above, the terminology is confused. What, precisely, delimits a 'universe' from the rest of the multiverse depends a bit on what question you are asking. But perhaps the best 'boundaries' would be from an earlier 'singularity' to a later one. the first would 'begin' the universe, the later would 'end' it.

I use a lot of scare quotes because in a multiverse scenario, there would not necessarily be 'complete' singularities. Instead of various variables (like curvature) going infinite, they might just get incredibly large. In essence, the singularities can be 'smoothed out' by quantum effects.

 

[gnostic]

So what caused the Big Band according to official dogma?

you are avoiding addressing the issue.

the issue you have no evidence whatsoever that the Universe is 6000 years old.

Unless you present evidence for your ridiculous claim, your claim is just baseless assumption.

And your claim about “the Almighty”:

“God, the Almighty, created all things…”​

That just pure superstition…and the “God did it” is just another empty assertion, especially since you cannot support your superstitious claim with evidence.

Evidence required to be “observed” or “detected”, and observations required some sorts of information, like quantities, measurements, observed the properties.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

you are avoiding addressing the issue.

the issue you have no evidence whatsoever that the Universe is 6000 years old.

Unless you present evidence for your ridiculous claim, your claim is just baseless assumption.

And your claim about “the Almighty”:

“God, the Almighty, created all things…”​

That just pure superstition…and the “God did it” is just another empty assertion, especially since you cannot support your superstitious claim with evidence.

Evidence required to be “observed” or “detected”, and observations required some sorts of information, like quantities, measurements, observed the properties.

I have already proven this a number of times
Can you meet the challenge I presented?