The Big Bang is impossible according to science!
45 comments
Well, considering it's the scientists that are saying it more than likely happened, and who likely have a far better idea than you of what is and is not science, I think I'm going to have to take their word over yours.
They (usually) have doctorate degrees and years of personal experience in their fields of studies. They are among humanity's elite. You're a tard ranting on the internet. I don't think it takes a whole lot to see who's likely to have more accurate information.
Many famous scientists would beg you to reconsider..but then again, you dont really care about science if you say such things with such reckless abandon..please give a better working model than the expanding universe model and be sure that your facts can extend significantly into other fields of the sciences to the point that even they cant break your theory..then and only then will you sound like anything other than an ignorant ranter.
This is true. The Big Bang was supposed to be an explosion. Setting aside the obvious difficulties with overcoming the immense gravitational forces involved, it is physically impossible for objects at the edge of an explosion to move faster than those at the epicenter. Yet that is precisely what Hubble has observed.
And the typical bullshit excuse that "the laws of science were different back then" is about as logical as "lions must have been vegetarians in the Garden of Eden, because this book says that there was no death or suffering before Adam ate an apple."
@ The L. - [citation needed]
You're clearly talking the same sort of bollocks as the OP.
Feel free to attempt to explain exactly why things at the outside edge of an explosion cannot move faster than the centre?
Once you've done that, please explain how the photons that allow us to see any given explosion are travelling faster than the centre of the explosion if that is physically impossible. If you can't do that, please shut up.
OP and The L are clearly hoping that those of us with limited background in cosmology or science in general will just accept their assertations because it's said in a Big Sciency Voice. Sadly, no.
[Citation, m*@%, do you have it?]
Nope, Science postulated the Big Bang from all the observations that were collected.
That label is Fred Hoyle's revenge. Too misleading for the stoopids among us to understand the logic behind it.
If space is expanding at a uniform rate, then the outer regions are indeed moving faster than the inner.
@The L
1. We don't have to set aside the gravitational forces ... there weren't any ... because there wasn't any mass.
2. In any explosion the objects[sic] at the edge of an explosion are the objects that are moving faster than those at the epicenter. That's just common sense.
Nobody told him it was a Christian scientist (not a Christian Scientist, mind you) who discovered the whole thing in the first place, I guess....
Oh, and now that I think about it, I'm guessing he has the somewhat popular misconception of the Big Bang being a "explosion creating everything from nothing" or something like that. (and therefore he thinks it violates the laws of thermodynamics) Never mind that that's just about exactly what the Bible says God did, and also never mind that that's totally the wrong idea about the Big Bang anwyay.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
