(on the Big Bang)
A collision of that magnitude would be the biggest destructive force that has ever been suggested. Any organisms existing on any bodies in discussion would be wiped out. Furthermore, a collision of that size would not produce spherical masses, nor could less spherical masses be smoothed out over the years, as there is no friction in space.
45 comments
WTF?
"A collision of that magnitude would be the biggest distructive force that has ever been suggested."
The Big Bang wasn't a collision.
"Any organisms existing on any bodies in discussion would be wiped out."
There were neither organisms nor bodies during the BB.
"Furthermore, a collision of that size would not produce spherical masses, nor could less spherical masses be smoothed out over the years, as there is no friction in space."
Ever heard of gravity? And yes friction can exist anywhere in the universe.
Fanatic-Templar I must admit you do have a point. It is something that so far we are unable to determine. It is possible that it was simply the previous universe that had a big crunch, forming a super super massive blackhole that was so powerful it inverted itself in an "explosion" that we call the big bang... or something like that anyway.
Did you miss the part on how this explosion took place?, that ALL THE MASS in the universe was concentrated and the pression burst, finally?. Moreover, Do you realise that you don't have ANY BASIS for your claims about the impossibility of "creating" spherical masses?
Anna Ghislaine wrote: "I've never heard it described as a collision before. Where do these people get their ideas?"
Possibly from the 'ekpyrotic model', the hypothesis of M-theory (string theory) that speculates that the big bang was caused by the collision of two separate 'branes' in the 11 dimensional 'bulk'.
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/pdfswinter2002/04_07_winter2002.pdf
Like evolution before it, fundies probably consider they have mastered the subject after reading one article in American Science , having only understood about one word in ten.
There was nothing before the cosmic singularity, in theory. The fact that it was labeled 'Big Bang' is unfortunate, since a certain human subset can not escape the assumption that destructive pyrotechnics were involved.
@David B. - You probably hit it right on the head, there. Though I very much doubt they cracked open a journal - more likely, they happened to catch part of a "Nova" series on PBS (while monitoring said channel for atheistic influences, mind you) that discussed this in as lay-person terms as possible.
"Anyway, its not the "Big Bang", its the "Humongous Space Kablooie".
imagine what the fundies would of done if they named it "creation" [of the universe from a singularity]
@[b]Everyone naive to think a fundie would pick up a science mag
I doubt it. I think they hear the word "bang" and think "collision". They're just that stupid.
Besides, the singularity comes before the Big Bang - it's a theory of cosmic inflation in the end.
There was no life before the Big Bang!
Also the Big Bang is more accurately described as a rapid expansion.
You failed both physics class and biology didn't you?
And just in case, the ToE and cosmology are not the same thing!
justinhaddeland , you are confusing the Big Bang with the planetessimal collisions that formed the Earth .
The Big Bang happened about 13 billion years ago.
The collisions that formed the Earth occurred (mostly) between 5 and 4.5 billion years ago.
The two are separate events that have nothing to do with one another.
afterward .
The Big Bang wasn't a collision. In fact, we don't even know that there was a Big Bang since the theory doesn't even attempt to address the actual start point of the universe, only what happened immediately thereafter.
collision , no the big bang was not a collision of anything, it was the expansion of space/time from a singularity. No we dont understand the very beginning.
things living when the big bang occured - no
liquids will form spheres due to their own gravity.
It's a good thing the Big Bang was no collision, but an expansion, then, wasn't it?
Besides, there probably weren't any organisms at the time of the Big Bang. The Universe is about 14 billion years old, Earth is about 4 billion years old, and life did not emerge here until about 3 billion years ago.
They're not smoothed out by friction, stupid, they're formed by gravity.
I'm thinking he's got the Big Bang theory mixed up with the theory of our Moon being created by a large mass colliding with a still molten early Earth, which also happened before life began here.
Gravity compression creates rounded worlds, it's why you don't see Earth or even Mercury sized planets in irregular shapes like asteroids or Mars' smaller moons.
Or he's a Hovindite who buys into Kents ridiculous premise that science says the Big Bang spit out fully formed planets, the better to confuse fundies who now distrust any claim that science makes because "Kent Hovind exposed that!"
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
