Reviews for The Origins of the Universe: Big Bang Overthrowed
Guest chapter 1 . 10/4/2013
You poor fool. Newton's laws are only attributable to the motion of a mass within spacetime not spacetime itself. The accelerated expansion of the universe is, in fact caused by an equal balance of dark energy and gravity. Furthermore, an explosion is a chemical reaction; where new substances are formed. It is therefore reasonable to speculate that eons of continually changing reaction would have formed matter capable of reproduction.
galileogalilei chapter 1 . 3/17/2013
Before I go any further, I will apologize if this seems a bit aggressive. I haven't slept in a while, so I may be harsher than I intend in my wording.

First off, the saying that the simplest solution is probably the right solution is just plain WRONG. End of story, WRONG.

Model of the atom? Been getting more and more complicated as we get closer to how it really is.

Tectonic Shift? Certainly more complicated than a static earth, but it's RIGHT.

How does the sun burn? Fusing of 2x hydrogen into deuterium which fuses with another hydrogen to form yadayadayada. More complicated than a lump of burning coal, yep. Also right. So when your professor said that, he was just plain wrong. Whether deceived himself or lying, I don't know. I don't know said professor.

'leaving it up to random chance' ... who said anything about random chance? Look at the anthropic principle, it explains that nicely.

'the universe is a closed system... cannot possibly be accelerating'. Um... you do understand you're talking about the EXPANSION of the universe, driven by Dark Energy (Which astrophysicists ARE working on figuring out as I type. And, like everything else before, will figure out given time). It's not even the expansion of the universe, but rather of the space-time fabric. The universe as a whole does not appear to be 'accelerating' anywhere.

Newton's laws of motion hold no bearing here. It's not talking about physical objects. It's talking about the fabric of the universe itself, which the laws of motion hold no influence on. So, yeah. This 'startling new development' isn't a development at all. It's a dead-end hypothesis. Sorry.

'How many planets can boast this phenomenon?' Jupiter, Saturn, to name just two. Easily more exoplanets with moons we simply don't have the tech to detect. And it's not exactly a 'miracle' of precision either. The moon's orbit DOES vary in size, so sometimes its too far for a total eclipse, and sometimes its extra close. Yeah, simple. Like I said earlier, that statement by your professor is just. Plain. Wrong.

'and it all started from one singularly gigantic explosion' Let me stop you right there. The Big Bang is not claimed to be an explosion. 'Big Bang' simply sounds nicer than 'Big Moment of Everything Starting We Don't Yet Fully Understand, Give It Time'. It was the simple moment of when the universe started. Scientists explore the Big Bang, not from bottom up, but from top down.

That is to say, they don't look at it like Big Bang, goes to this, goes to this. They go; We're here, little backwards is this, little backwards is this, so on. They actually haven't -gotten- to the Big Bang itself, since the Plank Time moment is causing a hold-up until the supposed 'Theory of Everything' can be made. Until then, science is making no claims as to the exact nature of the Big Bang, so neither should you claim it's an explosion.

Your 'explosions cause creation' thing. Explosions THEMSELVES are destructive. Aftermath? Not so much. Supernova explosions light up galaxies, rip stars apart, and release a tsunami of radiation. Purely destructive. In the aftermath, though, once the fury is over, gravity can reassemble the wreckage into multiple new stars. Creative.

'The moon is in perfect position to misdirect asteroids and deflect them from our planet'. Because it's been doing SUCH a good job, huh? The meteor over Russia, the KT ones, the ones nearly hitting us, the ones on a near-miss bringing them within the moon's orbit? Yeah, it's doing SO well protecting us. The reason the moon is so heavily cratered and we aren't is because the moon doesn't have anything to patch up the craters of billions of years. It's not an unparralleled safety net. It's not even a safety net! The moon simply doesn't have the reach to even hypothetically do what you propose; like playing a goalie in soccer but not allowed to move a muscle, however much, MUCH harder.

Earth IS slowly losing its orbit into the sun, but not as you say. We're actually falling INTO the sun, not moving away(Check your facts!),and in trillions of years -provided we aren't swallowed in 5 billion- we'll crash into the sun's white dwarf. But that's not slowing our rotation. We lose it because of something called Gravity Waves, much like how a bobbing cork in a pond bobs slower by giving off the energy in the form of waves. Even if it were happening, the process is much too slow to keep our core molten from this transfer of energy. Why is our core still molten? Several theories about it, but I won't go into them. The sun is none of them.

That's not what happened to the moon. The moon, according to the 'looking good' Orpheus theory, has always been tidally locked to Earth, and has been steadily getting further and further. The increase in distance HAS been documented. THAT is slowing our rotation(Also documented), but not by much. It'll take another 200 million years for us to gain one more hour. And the process isn't linear, either.

As a result, your 'winds of over 2000 mph, hurricanes of 300 mph' (Where did you even GET those numbers?) simply did not happen. Not even NEPTUNE has those kind of wind speeds. We weren't as close to the sun as Mercury is now. I know this, because if we were, we'd have crashed INTO Mercury. Or rather, Mercury into us. And where did Mercury come from, then? Did the sun just 'spit' it out? Did it come from outside in? If so, why it, and not Earth? Neither of those make sense.

With so many holes, can one really take the Big Bang seriously? Considering all your 'holes' were not actually holes, yes, one can. Very easily.

'That all the matter in the universe came from nothing' What respectable scientist says THAT? I'll give you a hint, none. Remember what I said earlier? Top down to reach the Big Bang? Yeah.

'they will grope for nonexistent straws to disprove or discredit it'. I've pointed to fully material straws, no, ROPES to disprove/discredit your ideas. If you feel that the points I've made are 'nonexistent straws', PM me and we can discuss more there.
Guest chapter 1 . 3/17/2013
Good questions, with even better physical laws to explain them. Science does not know all of the answers yet.

Tell me, man of good belief, where the all controlling, all powerful lord originates. The christain theology is wrought with holes too.
Anonymous chapter 1 . 12/31/2012
Tell me, what is so complex about the formation of star systems such as the solar system or andromeda galaxy? These "flawed theories" that you object are governed by fixed laws untouchable by divine hands. The posting of this is made possible by these laws. Scientists have been studying space and distant galaxies for centuries using telescopes and have reached this conclusion after countless studies and evidence.
Also, something which may amuse you, is the existence of tardigrades; creatures which can survive the depths of space. Space being the harshest of environments, it then shows that life can generate and sustain in impossible climates including ancient earth.
Fix the Title chapter 1 . 6/24/2007
It's "overthrown", not "overthrowed." A good first impression is important when writing this kind of essay.

Essays of this type always remind me of a quote (too bad I can't remember who first said it):

"I'm always amazed at fundamentalists. They love God, but as soon as they see the elegance of the science He used to create the universe, they look for ways to disprove it. Why? It's like loving the work of an artist and hating the way he painted it."
Pseudo Psam chapter 1 . 5/27/2007
Saying that the simplest solution is probably the right solution means that the simplest solution isn't always the right solution; and what evidence is there to back up the idea that the simplest solution is probably the right solution? That would be like saying 1111, because 11 is simply two 1's; but 11 is not 11, it is 2. Anyway, even if the simplest solution were the right solution, can one really think that it is the Abrahamic god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, who is the simplest solution? He is a very complex one; after all, monotheism came later than polytheism. People needed to really think about the possibility of only one god, as oppossed to many gods.

The fact that everything in the universe is, as you said, perfectly aligned means nothing on behalf of God's existence. Many Creationists argue the existence of God on the basis of "what are the chances?" Well, the fact is, as slim as the chances of the universe being, as you said, perfectly aligned, it is. That means that if it is, then it is possible. If one reached into a bag of marbles, which contained only one red marble, and the rest were blue, there is still chance slim chance that the red marble will be the one removed from the bag. It may take many tried; it may never happen; it may even happen the first time. There could have been millions of previous universes before ours came into existence. The same goes for the creation of the sun, the creation of Earth, the presence of water on Earth, as well as all the needed elements to create the compounds of protocells, which, eventually, led to living cells and evolved, over millions of years, into us. As small as the chances may be of such a thing happening, it did happen, and the proof is that we are here right now. Using the "what are the chances?" card can be used in an debate over the existence of extraterrestrial life, because there are no ET organisms to human knowledge.

Speaking of human knowledge, though much of what has been provided by science could be wrong, it is far more rational and logical than God and has contributed far more to society (electricity, roller coasters, flying to the moon, medicine).

Newton's laws have very limited application and starting to become more out-of-date in the quantum world. Many people think that the nucleus of an atom is round; however, that is no longer accepted among most physicists. Newton's laws may be analogied to Lamarck's theory of how organisms acquired new traits. Lamarck's theory was that animals gave traits that they wanted to their offspring (e.g. the gradual growth of an giraffe's neck). The theory seemed pretty rational, but Darwin's theory of Natural Selection proved to make more sense, and it was gradualism that causes the giraffe to have a longer neck, because the gene for a longer neck is beneficial to the survival of the giraffe. Not only will a giraffe be able to get more food with a longer neck to live long enough to reproduce, but a longer neck is more appealing, and a giraffe will want to have offspring with longer necks and, therefore, only breed with others who have long necks. Lamarck's theory was close, but not as rational as Darwin's. In the same way, Newton's laws may someday come to be replaced by new laws of physics and motion.

The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy has also been used by many Creationists in the God debate. It seems like they've caught on t something, but they really haven't. The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed so long as no nuclear reactions take place. In addition, when matter and antimatter come into contact, they anhilate and are, thus, destroyed.

Finally, the Big Bang is a reaction. An explosion is the result of a catlyst, and a catlyst simply speeds up a reactions. Reactions can create things, and catlysts make them faster. This stuff goes on in your own body.

God can just as easily be overthrown as the Big Bang.

I respect your views, but I do not agree with them. You brought up some good points, but, like many Creationists, you failed to acknowledge the complete Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy and that Newtonian physics do not apply to quanta. Finally, trying to prove that science contradicts itself doesn't prove that God exists.

Tiefling chapter 1 . 5/27/2007
Not bad in terms of the writing style, but it needs a little editing. As to the content...

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is also not incompatible with scientific theories as to the creation of the universe. You could simply say that the big bang, or some other theory is how God did it.

"overthrowed" isn't a word. That should be "overthrown". It doesn't bode well when you make a mistake in the title.

"Ever noticed how perfectly aligned everything is?"

What do you mean by 'aligned'? Aligned with what? The stars seem scattered randomly to me. Constellations are invented by humans, projecting patterns on what we see.

"It was later in the course that I learned that he was not a good tenet of that belief"

Tenet doesn't really make sense in that context. A tenet is a factor of a belief system, not the person doing the believing.

"Leaving it up to random chance, it’s like dropping a pile of scrap metal on the moon and getting an interstellar spacecraft."

No, it's not. It is only the planets and stars that are supposed to have been created in the big bang, and they are just chunks of rock etc. The lifeforms that came after are probably the result of the process of evolution, which is not random chance.

"There are some things that typical “science” can explain. I acknowledge this with extreme hesitation; however, because I find it crucial to point out that conversely, there are just as many things that typical “science” cannot explain. For instance, it can readily give an explanation as to why the universe is expanding, but for some reason has no idea of why it is accelerating."

You are anthropomorphising science here. It isn't some sort of force with an agenda of its own, it is the results of the work of humans. Also, why do you keep putting it in quotes?

Yes, there are things which we have not yet explained scientifically. That's why people are researching all the time. Once we didn't know that, for example, germs caused disease. Now we do.

"Or what about black holes? God threw in that wrench just to make typical scientists look like jerks, I think."

What makes you think black holes contradict the big bang theory? There is quite a substantial ammount of scientific information available about black holes.

I wonder what a 'typical scientist' is in your view.

"How many planets can boast this phenomenon? Only Earth so far as we know."

You might have noticed, in all your looking up at the night sky, that there an awful lot of stars out there. Any of them could have planets, from which it might be possible to view an eclipse. We don't know, because we still know very little about the universe. We haven't even ventured out of our own solar system.

"So how could happenstance lead to such a miracle as that?"

I don't understand why you have attached some sort of particular significance to a random aspect of our planet.

"From personal experience, I can make a good hypothesis as to some of the reactions people would have if confronted about their atheistic dogma."

I'm not an atheist, myself. I don't fully understand the big bang theory though, being no physicist, so I can't really comment as to its accuracy. However, even if the theory is 'full of holes' as you say, that doesn't prove that a god created it, let alone that *your* God created it. There are almost infinite possible explanations, of which you have simply chosen one that suits you, which doesn't put you in a great position to be scorning someone else's 'dogma'.
MrFlames chapter 1 . 5/24/2007
This is spectacular! Bravo! One question, though: Why isn't it listed under humor?
Ness3665 chapter 1 . 5/24/2007
First of all, it's "overthrown," not overthrowed.

Secondly, your argument started off rather well, but it slowly got worse and became just ranting, which (of course) is not the best thing to do in a good essay.

When you learn more about the theories you're arguing against, you can write against it. I believe that God exists as well, and that He created our universe, but you can't argue against things without knowing much about them.
Hi'iaka chapter 1 . 5/24/2007
No, no, no.

Why is it that the "simplest" solution (according to you) requires the involvment of a Bronze-age sky god, rather than the natural forces of nature?

And as for the rest of your essay, you obviously don't know a damn thing about modern cosmology and astrophysics. Or perhaps you're just blinded by idiotic religion. A shame, either way.
Mal Renyolds chapter 1 . 5/23/2007
Sorry, but there's just too much BS to cover to counter it all, but first, you do relize that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion right, that actually it was more or less a large and sudden expansion. right?
Anonymous chapter 1 . 5/23/2007
For the most part, you have a nice writing style in this piece. However, in places your tone starts to deteriorate and you wind up just sounding petulant. One problem I think you have is that you are trying to argue a religious viewpoint with scientific evidence, and that you do not seem to understand this evidence. There is, as of this point, no scientific evidence for God. The idea that He makes things simpler is an opinion. I believe He's out there, and that He set everything in motion. But it's not a stretch to understand that for some people, an omnipotent being who created the earth and the heavens and everything in them is more complicated than simple, random chance. Religion is a matter of faith, and cannot be proved or disproved by science. By that same token, science is a matter of evidence and cannot be proved or disproved by belief.

The Big Bang theory is, right now, the best theory science has for the beginning. Does this mean that it is absolutely, certainly correct? Of course not. But it does mean that there is an enormous amount of evidence to back it up, and that such obvious objections like the laws of conservation have been considered, and that the current theory does not violate them. Railing against this theory, which you obviously do not understand, just makes you looks childish, as does the derision with which you refer to scientists. I am a Christian and a physicist, and it disturbs me more than a little that someone who obviously does not understand any of the science behind this theory can dismiss it as "crackpot" just because it doesn't seem simple enough.