BAC Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 i have a new theory that backs up true science all beleavers in christ have failed to prove me wrong unlike the theory of the big bang this tends to get a bit more into detail you must at least know a little bit about atoms to understand it but i am not here to propose that the theory is correct i want some one to prove this theory could not scientifically be true... here is a discussion between a best freind and me that went on for about 3 weeks and still continues these are some of the questions i had been asked and how i answered the theory is not fully presented here but it is a broad veiw of what my idea is. "science vs christianity" 1. how did all the different elements come to be in your theory since it was from one partical that replicated(water, light,plasma,rock,air, even flesh & bone?? (THE PARTICLE THAT ISNT OF MATTER WHICH IS THE GOD PARTICLE SELF REPLICATED JUST LIKE A CELL DOES and than than matter was left over by the self replication kind of like energy to an atom being realesed by nuclear fission turning the energy released into radioactivity the god particle kept self replicating leaving more small pieces of matter behind matter so small its smaller than a quark or even smaller than whatever a quark is made of perhaps and since things seek to bond with each other the small particles started combinding forming other particles leading up to quarks than many quarks leading up to atoms atoms leading up to simple shugars and proteins than thay lead up to compounds than thay lead up to dna strands than thay lead up to more macro molecules or organells and such than cells than cells form structures of simple life such and bacteria and viruses etc... hope you know the rest) (thus if thay can make life thay can also make non liveing compounds as well) 2. if this partical replicated how did it seperate it self from the others just like a blood cell does a process kind of like meiosis 2 since there is stars and rock the star would melt the rock if it is from the same material (you need to be more clearer i dont understand your question) 3 were did the laws of physics come from? (many of the laws of physics come from a thing called magnitism made from positive and negative charges of elements and particles.) 4 how did life form so functional it is able to reproduce, eat and drink well life is just a bunch of smaller particles working as a group in order to grow and reproduce just like the god particle and in order to do that thay need to eat and drink which would be gathering other building blocks which would be the elements and molecules the food or drink is made out of. 4 (continue)and since evolution is false how did your life form from the big bang (this isnt the big bang the particle is a god particle it startted spreading across the universe/vast nothingness by self replicating and small exploshions accured every now and than becuse of the matter left behind forming into something similar to the hydrogen bomb leaving mass radio activity behind but the explosions spread the matter and particles furthur and faster) 5 how did your partical replicants not entropy over billions of years (i just awnsered ur question in the above awnser) 6 if your theory is before the big bang and since the earth was never molten which prove big bang false how did earth form i awnsered this already to. but to repeat since particles can form eather non liveing or liveing things the earth was obviously formed first in order to form life the explosions lead to heat this caused new molecules to form as well as energy and the molecules started forming into giant balls of burning gas molecules this provided light some other molecules affected by light from the large amount of gas molecules burning brightly "being stars/sun's formed other molecules that combined with others forming solid forms such as iron or granite and such clumping togather by larger chunks of iron having greater gravity pulling them in becoming infused with the larger chunk and forming a bigger one and thus forming earth... im sure you know the rest 7 this is not really a question just a statement your theory is based of pure 100% random chance and is only limited by your imagination. (my theory is based on random chance but it is so plausable and makes so much sense it cannot be considered a bullshit theory it makes more sense than the big bang)
BAC Posted April 8, 2009 Author Posted April 8, 2009 it is described in the above message you may need to refresh your page sorry for the delay
Mokele Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Your "Theory" is nothing but baseless and seemingly random thoughts, devoid of any sort of internal logic or empirical evidence. Do you have any actual empirical evidence to support this? 1
BAC Posted April 8, 2009 Author Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) i must ask are you christian? before i answer your question and fyi im not atheist so dont insult me Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedwell in any case i want one who actually has brains to back fire my theory and prove me wrong i get my theory from the simple thought of what are protons and neutrons made of "quarks and leptons! what are quarks and leptons made of? eventually your going to reach the solid particle that cannot be divided and that should give you the answer to life's creation should it not? but we lack evidence and knowledge in such a subject Edited April 8, 2009 by BAC Consecutive posts merged.
Mokele Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Religion is absolutely irrelevant to the question. What matters is one thing: Show me empirical evidence of your theory.
BAC Posted April 8, 2009 Author Posted April 8, 2009 okay well you know the evidence of why the big bang cant be true right? other wise i will start thair.
Mokele Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Oh, you're one of *those* crackpots? Show me empirical evidence, and stop wasting our time with your gibberish.
BAC Posted April 8, 2009 Author Posted April 8, 2009 dude you shouldnt be a moderator of this site i was so syched to talk to some one smart well here's your proof dick ! polonium halos and granite ultimately prove that the big bang never happened the earth wasnt at a pure hot state of magma as well as the law of conservation of angular momentum" renagade motion well every thing in the universe is spinning according to the bigbang everything should be spinning in the same direction but how can you explain some planets spinning backwards huh? as well as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermo dynamics.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 What is "plotanium"? Why should everything be spinning in the same direction according to the big bang? The universe did not start with a large angular momentum, from what I understand.
BAC Posted April 8, 2009 Author Posted April 8, 2009 :doh:dude if you guys dont beleave me you need to take advise from real scientists alright i have a freind comeing on to explain this better to you guys
BAC Posted April 8, 2009 Author Posted April 8, 2009 dude i just did OMG read the thingy Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedprozak why dont you explain it already instead of watching?
proofnottheory Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode? This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter). Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from? Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity? Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?
BAC Posted April 8, 2009 Author Posted April 8, 2009 yeah if the godzilla dude knows how to read thats al;l the proof he needs is in what you and me are trying to tell him
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 If the universe started with no angular momentum, it is in fact required for some things to spin the other way -- net angular momentum must remain zero. As for the rest, they are acknowledged problems. (Well, not sure about the entropy thing.) How does your theory address them?
BAC Posted April 8, 2009 Author Posted April 8, 2009 hey your not calling me a crack pot like the other guy how sweet and what do you mean you dont understand the entropy thing
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 proofnottheory: You know, repeating yourself would be a clever response if it weren't for the fact that the exact same argument has been made verbatim on quite a few dozen other websites. Would you like to answer our questions or just copy and paste a message again?
proofnottheory Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit. Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some natural satellites have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have satellites orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum? Also, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and "clumps". If the Big Bang was true, all matter would be (roughly) evenly distributed. In the universe, there are too many “large scale structures” to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years, as suggested by the Big Bang Theory. Also, when observing globular clusters (groups of tens of thousands, to one million stars), they appear older than the universe, which falsifies the Big Bang Theory. Finally, there are contradictions between the Big Bang Theory, and thoughts of various religions.
proofnottheory Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence. The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth. A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock. An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly
mooeypoo Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit. Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some natural satellites have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have satellites orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum? Also, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and "clumps". If the Big Bang was true, all matter would be (roughly) evenly distributed. In the universe, there are too many “large scale structures” to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years, as suggested by the Big Bang Theory. Also, when observing globular clusters (groups of tens of thousands, to one million stars), they appear older than the universe, which falsifies the Big Bang Theory. Finally, there are contradictions between the Big Bang Theory, and thoughts of various religions. Oie, Oie. Sources, my dear friend, sources. You're saying quite a lot of claims that are proven otherwise in scientific publications (The "Big Bang" theory, for example, is well proven in both observation and predictions as well as in math). If you claim otherwise, you need to supply sources. References. Proof. Otherwise your "theory" is as good as any other unfounded hypothetical myth. ~moo
Recommended Posts