Is the Big Bang Theory supported by scientific evidence and why or why not?

[RaptorWizard]

Big Bang Theory wrong again? Plank telescope data doesn't 'fit' theory of Big Bang cosmic inflation

Also worth reading:

'Echoes' of the Big Bang Misinterpreted?
http://news.discovery.com/space/cosmic-background-radiation-big-bang-120615.htm

Higgs Boson & Big Bang: Large Hadron Collider Data Challenges Cosmic 'Inflation' Theory
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/higgs-big-bang-lhc-cosmic-inflation_n_3093057.html

"Our best fitting model, our best theory has a problem fitting the data"

Planck space telescope creates the most detailed map ever
created of the cosmic microwave background, supposedly a relic
radiation from the Big Bang reveals the existence of features
that challenge the foundations of our current understanding
of the Universe.

Big Bang Scandal Continues As Secular Science Ignores The Evidence Against It

Big Bang Theory is Proven Wrong Again as the largest known quasar group or object confirms Halton Arp's predictions. Why do they continue to ignore the evidence? Does secular science have an agenda? As they continue to just dismiss the real evidence against the big bang theory it is becoming more and more obvious to anyone paying attention that they are lying. Come on people, wake up and get on the side of the truth.

Stephen Hawking - No Need For God

From The Times:
Modern physics leaves no place for God in the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded.

Just as Darwinism removed the need for a creator in the sphere of biology, Britain's most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe.

In his forthcoming book, an extract from which is published exclusively in Eureka, published today with The Times, Professor Hawking sets out to answer the question: "Did the Universe need a creator?" The answer he gives is a resounding "no".

Far from being a once-in-a-million event that could only be accounted for by extraordinary serendipity or a divine hand, the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, Hawking says.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist," he writes.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going," he finds.

Pure Truth TV - Creation , God , UFOs & Extraterrestrials

Conspiracy theorists, Ufo's, Strange Occurrences, Life After Death & Unexplained Phenomena

 

[Ene]

Poimandres,

Thank you so much for these. I will watch them again after while. I'm in the middle of a painting project right now and have a deadline, but..wow...this is good stuff. Thank you, again.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Poimandres,

Thank you so much for these. I will watch them again after while. I'm in the middle of a painting project right now and have a deadline, but..wow...this is good stuff. Thank you, again.

Watch the first 2 videos; the last 2 are just if you are interested and have the time, but ya, the question on the creation is a big one for cosmology.

 

[Totenkindly]

.

- .... . / -- .. -. -.. / -... --- --. --. .-.. . ...

 

[Stanton Moore]

- .... . / -- .. -. -.. / -... --- --. --. .-.. . ...

What is this?
Provocation?
Flirtation?
Concatenation?
Since you ended with a period, I can only surmise that your intentions were not humorous…

 

[Stanton Moore]

Science is not perfect. It always needs revision, due to new information from better technology and more accurate models. But this doesn’t mean that the whole theory is wrong, and it certainly doesn’t mean that the void between knowledge and reality should immediately be filled with god, Jesus, or whatever belief you hold.
A giant quasar cluster does not argue for god.

 

[Totenkindly]

What is this?
Provocation?
Flirtation?
Concatenation?
Since you ended with a period, I can only surmise that your intentions were not humorous…

- .- .-.. -.- .. -. --. / .- -... --- ..- - / - .... . / -... .. --. / -... .- -. --. --..-- / .. / -.-. --- ..- .-.. -.. -. .----. - / ... - --- .--. / - .... .. -. -.- .. -. --. / .- -... --- ..- - / -.-- --- ..- .-.-.-

 

[Stanton Moore]

Auteur of binary provocation! Pointillist provoceteuse! This assault on my digi-person will be dealt with firmly after lunch!
…__------__----____... :: :: :: … . . . . :
SO THERE

 

[HongDou]

Honestly when I saw this thread title I thought you were talking about the TV show.

Edit: To stay on topic I believe God created the Big Bang which in turn created everything else. Or in broader terms, God created science and then let science do its thang. (◕‿◕✿) I don't see that option on the poll. Also the poll question is different from the question in the topic name - that's misleading sir!

 

[LittleV]

This reminds me of the quote: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” by Carl Sagan that my skepticism professor (cognitive neuroscience) lives by in his research and approach to all forms of understanding. Anecdotes need not apply. He appears like an ADHD-ridden ENTP to me… an interesting guy.

The thing is… deep-rooted theories have had garnered consistent, published support, in which new, sufficiently robust theories could only accumulate through time and effort. Even when challenging theories with satisfactory evidence would arrive and successfully continue to be built, old theories could not be refuted without direct comparison. And many times, we do not have all of the resources to make this possible. It essentially starts out as one piece of evidence against lifetimes of published work; and sometimes, scientists are fundamentally alone in their endeavors.

 

[93JC]

The Big Bang Theory isn't funny, it ran its course, and it should go off the air.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Science is not perfect. It always needs revision, due to new information from better technology and more accurate models. But this doesn’t mean that the whole theory is wrong, and it certainly doesn’t mean that the void between knowledge and reality should immediately be filled with god, Jesus, or whatever belief you hold.
A giant quasar cluster does not argue for god.

I agree that we should always be open to new information, though interpreting the information and synthesizing it together into an accurate model of our cosmos is very much a journey not far from the shore we started at. As such, any theory we have developed in cosmology can at any point be questioned and completely revolutionized when sufficient evidence in favor of such a paradigm shift presents itself. I'm not jumping to any conclusions about God or an eternal universe and such, but I am presenting the information as observed by other scientists. What the information means however or whether it's even accurate is a very open debate.

This reminds me of the quote: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” by Carl Sagan that my skepticism professor (cognitive neuroscience) lives by in his research and approach to all forms of understanding. Anecdotes need not apply. He appears like an ADHD-ridden ENTP to me… an interesting guy.

The thing is… deep-rooted theories have had garnered consistent, published support, in which new, sufficiently robust theories could only accumulate through time and effort. Even when challenging theories with satisfactory evidence would arrive and successfully continue to be built, old theories could not be refuted without direct comparison. And many times, we do not have all of the resources to make this possible. It essentially starts out as one piece of evidence against lifetimes of published work; and sometimes, scientists are fundamentally alone in their endeavors.

I think Sagan is wise to emphasize this scientific method of rigourously testing and interrogating our fundamental assumptions against what the perceived reality presents us with, but it's also important to realize that science rooted solely in observations is limited by the context it's working with. Newton actually said that no great discoveries were ever made without a bold guess, so basically we just can't forget that we need to not only be skeptical of outrageous ideas, but we also need to be open to them and even work to generate some of our own. One such claim I would have faith in is that our world is largely an illusion, a dim reflection of something much higher up. Is my theory supported by scientific evidence? No, of course it isn't! I believe that there will always be more to our world or the reality for that matter which we just don't know about yet, from the round Earth to the sun-centered solar system, the dynamics of the universe at large, and perhaps next even to the realm of metaphysics, which is beyond what we currently know or can experience, though as I demonstrated in this chain, past experience shows a pattern of an ever expanding awareness as to the nature of the creation at all levels.

 

[Mole]

I believe God created the Big Bang

C'mon, there was no big bang, rather time and space started expanding, and continue to expand and accelerate today.

There was no explosion, things did not explode away from each other.

So the big bang is a figment of the religious imagination in order to posit a big banger, called God.

 

[HongDou]

So the big bang is a figment of the religious imagination in order to posit a big banger, called God.

I never said that God existing is a fact. I believe in God, and my view/idea of God may be different than others' ideas of God. I am friends with people who are Jewish, Agnostic, Atheist, etc and I don't try to disprove what they believe in because I respect it. In the end all we can do is theorize and try as hard as we can to figure out how the world began, but there's no one absolute answer. I respect your beliefs and think they're reasonable so please respect mine. (◕‿◕✿)

 

[LittleV]

I think Sagan is wise to emphasize this scientific method of rigourously testing and interrogating our fundamental assumptions against what the perceived reality presents us with, but it's also important to realize that science rooted solely in observations is limited by the context it's working with. Newton actually said that no great discoveries were ever made without a bold guess, so basically we just can't forget that we need to not only be skeptical of outrageous ideas, but we also need to be open to them and even work to generate some of our own. One such claim I would have faith in is that our world is largely an illusion, a dim reflection of something much higher up. Is my theory supported by scientific evidence? No, of course it isn't! I believe that there will always be more to our world or the reality for that matter which we just don't know about yet, from the round Earth to the sun-centered solar system, the dynamics of the universe at large, and perhaps next even to the realm of metaphysics, which is beyond what we currently know or can experience, though as I demonstrated in this chain, past experience shows a pattern of an ever expanding awareness as to the nature of the creation at all levels.

I largely engage with that perspective. Another one of his favorite quotes was: “It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out,” also by Carl Sagan (although this was conveyed in similar ways by various people). I agree that science can be limiting (my professor would recognize it as being merely too youthful), but when considering what is possible to scientifically investigate, evidence is key to discrediting an existing theory and bringing a new theory to the limelight as common knowledge. There is much we do not know, though I am speaking in the land of science in regard to what would currently be reached to the community.

 

[RaptorWizard]

C'mon, there was no big bang, rather time and space started expanding, and continue to expand and accelerate today.

There was no explosion, things did not explode away from each other.

So the big bang is a figment of the religious imagination in order to posit a big banger, called God.

What's the cause behind the expansion of time and space?

 

[Infinite Bubble]

Yeah, it's kind of funny that some people think the big bang was literally a bang. It was just the expansion of matter from a singularity. Nobody knows the cause, but M-theory hypothesizes that it could have been from the collision of two branes.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Yeah, it's kind of funny that some people think the big bang was literally a bang. It was just the expansion of matter from a singularity. Nobody knows the cause, but M-theory hypothesizes that it could have been from the collision of two branes.

That's very difficult for me to visualize, and it's hard to see how a random collision could give birth to a very uniform cosmos with well-defined laws. I'm not saying the membrane theory is wrong, but I'm wondering how it works, assuming it could have been a cause for the genesis of our world.

 

[RaptorWizard]

I never said that God existing is a fact. I believe in God, and my view/idea of God may be different than others' ideas of God. I am friends with people who are Jewish, Agnostic, Atheist, etc and I don't try to disprove what they believe in because I respect it. In the end all we can do is theorize and try as hard as we can to figure out how the world began, but there's no one absolute answer. I respect your beliefs and think they're reasonable so please respect mine. (◕‿◕✿)

When it comes to what's important for us inside, a system of subjective values, or basically our own sense of personal meaning, I completely agree with you that we should be accepting of these differences and even come to embrace them.

Science and cosmology however are different. There could of course be multiple worlds and such where different timelines unfold throughout space in an endless variety of ways, but at least for the world we live in and are presently experiencing, beliefs just don't make the cut in that kind of investigation. That's when you need a critical process of testing and refining ideas against the external reality, and whatever system is proven to work or to correctly explain the mechanisms moving our world system is the theory we need to accept.

And this doesn't make the journey complete either. We always need a good amount of religious speculation to generate ideas about our world's history and the different places it could go in the future, and our theories should always be open to modification when new perspectives present themselves. Philosophy and metaphysics are of course also important pieces in the mix.

I guess we basically need a unified theory that is ever in expansion, can come to transform itself and lift us upwards to a higher awareness, and for this kind of thing, I have invented terms like "Universal Enlightenment" or "Transcendental Pinnacle". Those pretty much mean the ultimate state of being and the highest level of evolution. The show is still going on, and we are making good progress.

 

[citizen cane]

I don't know. How would a TV show be supported by scientific evidence?