Scientists Theorize the Big Bang may not Have happened

[DragonStryk72]

So I saw an article today that I found very interesting. Basically, one of the core issues of the Big Bang Theory is the fact that physics tends to break down around it. I mean, where did the dark matter come from, what sets off the reaction, how is it still expanding, the questions go on and on.

The new theory is that the Universe has always exusted, with no beginning as we.would be able to.comprehend it.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/...-no-beginning/

[Motown]

There are a lot of interesting ideas out there about this. I read one the other day talking about how our universe could have resulted from a puncture in another one and now our universe is just flowing from one end to the other. I'm not a physicist so I've got no idea if these scientists are loons or not but it is fun stuff to follow.

[Gunny]

So I saw an article today that I found very interesting. Basically, one of the core issues of the Big Bang Theory is the fact that physics tends to break down around it. I mean, where did the dark matter come from, what sets off the reaction, how is it still expanding, the questions go on and on.

The new theory is that the Universe has always exusted, with no beginning as we.would be able to.comprehend it.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/...-no-beginning/

You mean the whole actual scientific theory that you can't create something from nothing refutes their theory of the Big Bang?

[revelarts]

from the article, At least they are getting to this admission.

...To conclude, it’s clear that we do not yet have a solid explanation regarding what happened during the Big Bang, or if it even happened at all. This new theory is combining general relativity with quantum mechanics, and at the end of the day these are all just theories.Not to mention the fact that theories regarding multiple dimensions, multiple universes and more have to be considered. When looking for the starting point of creation, our own universe might not even be the place to start. It might be hard given the fact that we cannot yet perceive other factors that have played a part in the make up of what we call reality. What is even harder is the fact that quantum physics is showing that the true nature and make up of the universe is not a physical material thing! We just don’t know yet, and there are still new findings in modern day physics that delve into non-materialistic science that many mainstream materialistic scientists have yet to grasp and acknowledge...

See, I can respect that. however i think they should take ONE more step. Especially if they are willing to accept UNSEEN and UNSEEABLE multiverses, and NON MATERIAL forces influencing the martial world.

They should allow God as a real option as well. this won't "stop science" it' just makes looking at purpose possible within the context of finding out HOW stuff works. Knowing that a new device was made for a purpose doesn't STOP the a curious researchers quest in finding out how it works and how it was made or trying to make something similar.

[Abbey Marie]

An interesting thought to consider is, how many teachers taught Big Bang as though it were fact?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So I saw an article today that I found very interesting. Basically, one of the core issues of the Big Bang Theory is the fact that physics tends to break down around it. I mean, where did the dark matter come from, what sets off the reaction, how is it still expanding, the questions go on and on.

The new theory is that the Universe has always exusted, with no beginning as we.would be able to.comprehend it.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/...-no-beginning/

In ninth grade, at age 15, I wrote a term paper that refuted the big bang theory. It was so good that it alone got a 100 from that science teacher. And the science teacher actually told me it caused him to start to doubt the big bang theory of which he had been a staunch believer before!
I believe I posted a thread here before myself about big bang theory being refuted or else about it being wrong.
Too lazy to look for it.. --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You mean the whole actual scientific theory that you can't create something from nothing refutes their theory of the Big Bang?

They had only two choices--either everything came from nothing or else everything always existed.
As I pointed out if everything always existed then how or why does decay ever exist?
Why or how could everything have been in a compact define space to ever go--big bang--and if that mass
of matter 100 to the trillion power of gravity at its center--no explosion of fissional material could blow it apart!
Not even light can escape from a black hole!
I wrote about all this at age 15-ninth grade science term paper, back in 1969.

My conclusion was it all came from a "nothing"(relative terminology) but that nothing was pure energy= God. -Tyr

[Gunny]

They had only two choices--either everything came from nothing or else everything always existed.
As I pointed out if everything always existed then how or why does decay ever exist?
Why or how could everything have been in a compact define space to ever go--big bang--and if that mass
of matter 100 to the trillion power of gravity at its center--no explosion of fissional material could blow it apart!
Not even light can escape from a black hole!
I wrote about all this at age 15-ninth grade science term paper, back in 1969.

My conclusion was it all came from a "nothing"(relative terminology) but that nothing was pure energy= God. -Tyr

I kind of got tired of having this argument a LONG time ago. Science reality and scientific theory are 2 different things. Science reality states you cannot create something from nothing. Yet, scientific "big bang" says you can. They can't even follow their own damned rules attempting to refute God.

Same the the "expanding universe" BS. How can something that is infinite expand? If you can't pinpoint the center and the end, how can you say it's expanding? These scientific "theorists" have done nothing but create their religion in an attempt to refute another.

[Gunny]

In ninth grade, at age 15, I wrote a term paper that refuted the big bang theory. It was so good that it alone got a 100 from that science teacher. And the science teacher actually told me it caused him to start to doubt the big bang theory of which he had been a staunch believer before!
I believe I posted a thread here before myself about big bang theory being refuted or else about it being wrong.
Too lazy to look for it.. --Tyr

You may have done okay in HS, but I've had this same argument over a dozen times on boards and the main problem is we have a generation of people like our Constitution-hating President that hate God. They believe BS they think refutes him while they really have nothing more of an argument than their own religion.

[DragonStryk72]

You may have done okay in HS, but I've had this same argument over a dozen times on boards and the main problem is we have a generation of people like our Constitution-hating President that hate God. They believe BS they think refutes him while they really have nothing more of an argument than their own religion.

I think it's more that since more than a generation has grown up with it, letting the theory go becomes harder. It becomes an ingrained belief, every bit as much as growing up going to Catholic school.

I always sort of had issues with it, cause the scientific explanation essentially required the absence of all we know of physics. That always felt like a red flag.

Previously on this board, I've pointed out the holes in Big Bang: so before there was time, space, or matter, at this one point of time, in an infinitely small space, was an infinitely small piece of matter that's never existed before or since.

I've never viewed the science vs. Faith thing as an either or kind of thing. Science, to me, is how we come to understand God's creation. New information, or science that contravenes the Bible just means that some long ago humans, however divinely inspired, were wrong on some facts. It's doesn't disprove God, or any such silliness, it's just new information on how His creation works.

[Gunny]

I think it's more that since more than a generation has grown up with it, letting the theory go becomes harder. It becomes an ingrained belief, every bit as much as growing up going to Catholic school.

I always sort of had issues with it, cause the scientific explanation essentially required the absence of all we know of physics. That always felt like a red flag.

Previously on this board, I've pointed out the holes in Big Bang: so before there was time, space, or matter, at this one point of time, in an infinitely small space, was an infinitely small piece of matter that's never existed before or since.

I've never viewed the science vs. Faith thing as an either or kind of thing. Science, to me, is how we come to understand God's creation. New information, or science that contravenes the Bible just means that some long ago humans, however divinely inspired, were wrong on some facts. It's doesn't disprove God, or any such silliness, it's just new information on how His creation works.

No argument here. I ain't into the theory of happenstance.

[DragonStryk72]

No argument here. I ain't into the theory of happenstance.

Now see, I could accept a theory of happenstance, if it didn't require the absolute breakdown of all natural laws. You wanna tell me you found a scientific explanation for the universe, GREAT! I'd love to hear it, but if the very next thing you tells me requires getting around all scientific laws, then we have a problem.

[Gunny]

Now see, I could accept a theory of happenstance, if it didn't require the absolute breakdown of all natural laws. You wanna tell me you found a scientific explanation for the universe, GREAT! I'd love to hear it, but if the very next thing you tells me requires getting around all scientific laws, then we have a problem.

I think we're on the same page here. I just take it a step further.

Scientific theory cannot refute Judeo Christian theory. Actual science - man defining what man understands is one thing. I understand actual science. It's when they start dreaming up crap.

[pete311]

Typical, people making their own astrophysical and cosmological conclusions with little to no astrophysical or cosmological education. The big bang is still the overwhelmingly accepted model. We have strong evidence and math that describes the universe to the first second. Before that, sure, it's mostly educated conjecture. By all means, put your God there. For now...

[Gunny]

Typical, people making their own astrophysical and cosmological conclusions with little to no astrophysical or cosmological education. The big bang is still the overwhelmingly accepted model. We have strong evidence and math that describes the universe to the first second. Before that, sure, it's mostly educated conjecture. By all means, put your God there. For now...

It's bullshit. Want to be all scientific? Tell me that law again about creating something from nothing? Get back to me when you figure it out. And not with some theory. The Holy Bible has as much basis in fact as scientific theory. Bring some FACTS.