CarlosFandangos wrote:

Remember the hot big bang model only deals with what we can actually observe and has made predictions of what we should observe before we even did. The hot big bang model is the only model out there that can explain the relative abundances of the light elements observed in the Universe. No other model can explain those. There are of course other observations (black body spectrum etc) that support the model but this is probably one of the best in terms of specifically backing this model only.

Hey Carlos... Everyone here was missing you, including me.
My point from the beginning of this thread is correct in that many scientists are looking at explanations other than the traditional BBT. Some even call it a theory in crisis. That was what the BBC show was all about showing how scientists are coming up with different explanations from the traditional model.
But this is nothing new... I'm sure you are aware of the many other models proposed but they all have holes, including what is still the most popular...BBT.
And I'm sure you are aware of articles over the past ten or more years about scientists seeking better explanations than the current model.
Some scientists are coming up with totally different scenarios... Others are doing what they call a pardigm shift. They are adding an eternal universe to BBT.
example:

Scientific American wrote:

Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of cosmology.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-myth-of-the-beginning-2004-05

Longloadr wrote:

KolmeNoidat wrote: message_sent wrote: I'm not sure why anyone still comments on these threads in a serious capacity, for the simple reason that Longloadr's raison d'etre isn't to present fact, or even win an argument -- it's to draw 0-0 by way of creating a stalemate where rational arguments are muddied and dragged down to his level so as to obfuscate and obscure. For that reason alone it's not worth bothering, I feel. At this point, I just wander onto Longloadr's posts for the free lulz...and to watch those with viable argument go head-to-head with a numskull ad ho·mi·nem    [ad hom-uh-nuhm ‐nem, ahd-] adjective 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

I see we're using large words now to make us seem slightly more intelligent

It's futile answering your arguments at this point considering how ridiculous they are. I could give you my own argument on this topic (or your 500 others), and it won't change anything. You have very warped views on things.

Just to amuse you,
what I do not understand is how religious people rationalize the creation of the world. If god created man and woman, where came the dinosaurs? The black people? The asians?
Educate me, Longloadr

KolmeNoidat wrote:

It's futile answering your arguments at this point considering how ridiculous they are. I could give you my own argument on this topic (or your 500 others), and it won't change anything. You have very warped views on things.

I shall assume you are unable to answer the argument.

KolmeNoidat wrote:

Just to amuse you, what I do not understand is how religious people rationalize the creation of the world. If god created man and woman, where came the dinosaurs? The black people? The asians? Educate me, Longloadr

"A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic."
Create another topic asking these great questions! But this thread is about how many scientists are looking for alternative explanations to the standard Big Bang model.

Longloadr wrote:

"A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic."

Dictionary.com wrote:

Word Origin & History Bullshit "eloquent and insincere rhetoric," 1915, Amer.Eng. slang. Bull in the sense of "trivial or false statements" (1914) is usually associated with this, but it existed since M.E. in the sense of "false talk, fraud," apparently from O.Fr. bole "deception, trick, scheming, intrigue," and perhaps connected to modern Icel. bull "nonsense." "Sais christ to ypocrites ... yee ar ... all ful with wickednes, tresun and bull." ["Cursor Mundi," c.1300] There also was a verb bull meaning "to mock, cheat," which dates from 1530s.

Dolorosa wrote:

And I can't wait till Ari gets here. If I'm not mistaken, both Lee Smolin and Neil Turok are professors at the Institute where he studies. Maybe Ari could convince them to write a short statement as to where they stands on the Big Bang Theory

That would be great...if Smolin and Turok would reply to me!! haha
But you made me curious... You can find more info on their positions. For example this site has a short Smolin video, along with this"
"Professor Lee Smolin from the Perimeter Institute gives his theory on the beginning of the universe.

He believes that that our universe is in fact the offspring – via a black hole – of a galaxy far, far away in another universe.

His idea is called cosmological natural selection. An elegant if controversial Darwinian approach to astro-physics."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00bjs5b
That doesn't sound like the standard BBT to me

Longloadr wrote:

Dolorosa wrote: And I can't wait till Ari gets here. If I'm not mistaken, both Lee Smolin and Neil Turok are professors at the Institute where he studies. Maybe Ari could convince them to write a short statement as to where they stands on the Big Bang Theory That would be great...if Smolin and Turok would reply to me!! haha But you made me curious... You can find more info on their positions. For example this site has a short Smolin video, along with this" "Professor Lee Smolin from the Perimeter Institute gives his theory on the beginning of the universe. He believes that that our universe is in fact the offspring – via a black hole – of a galaxy far, far away in another universe. His idea is called cosmological natural selection. An elegant if controversial Darwinian approach to astro-physics." http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00bjs5b That doesn't sound like the standard BBT to me

ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE, Longloadr, O_R_I_G_I_N

The Big Bang Theory does not address the issue of the origin of the Universe. It leaves this area free for scientists to hypothesise about over tea and cookies, like Carlos said.

Keep trying.

Edited to spell out the word ORIGIN, since some here have reading difficulties.

Dolorosa wrote:

The Big Bang Theory does not address the issue of the origin of the Universe. It leaves this area free for scientists to hypothesise about over tea and cookies, like Carlos said. Keep trying.

I like that you keep trying Dolorosa But, you really don't have an argument. As scientific American says "Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of cosmology."
Both the BBC and Scientific American understand that the standard Big Bang model is not as accepted as it once was.

Longloadr wrote:

As scientific American says "Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of cosmology."

And? How does that contradict what I said??? Or are you that ignorant as to assume that just because one theory doesn't cover something scientists should stop asking questions? Oh yeah, I forgot, so you are. After all, unlike the scientists who constantly refine their knowledge in search for answers, you already have one that covers them all

What was I thinking..?!

Why don't you just skip to your point, Longloadr???

The Big Bang Theory and any other related to it cosmological models...yada yada yada, blah blah blah, are all wrong, just like any other scientific theories or hypotheses that contradict the Bible.

All hail baby Jebus!

The End.



Correction, it should've said Qur'an and Allah.

KolmeNoidat wrote:

KolmeNoidat wrote: Just to amuse you, what I do not understand is how religious people rationalize the creation of the world. If god created man and woman, where came the dinosaurs? The black people? The asians? Educate me, Longloadr "A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic." Create another topic asking these great questions! But this thread is about how many scientists are looking for alternative explanations to the standard Big Bang model.

...except for the fact that in the Bible, Genesis 1:16, it says "Then God said, 'Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.' So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind."
Apparently, he made birds and fish and things like that...ehm...where's the dinosaurs? It doesn't say anything about those in here. Further down in the passage, he goes on to make cattle and other land creatures and eventually man and woman. There is reads, "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Correct me if I'm wrong, Longloadr, but Catholics generally depict God as a caucasian male, not a big, black woman

So, me questioning dinosaurs, races other than Caucasians, and so on, is not a deviation from the original topic - it is part of the theory behind the creation of the world according to the Catholics.