The “Big Bang Theory” assumes that everything in the universe and everything in general came from an explosion of an infinetly small point in space where all the matter that we now see was compressed to the extent that it could no longer contain itself. Question; Where did all this stuff come from in the first place? I mean, it had to come from somewhere, right?
Please tell me if this is too deep for my tenth post. I don’t want to tick anyone off 
There is a simple, scientific answer to your question.
We don’t know. Yet.
But we’re trying to find out.
Right now our level of understanding brings us only a few Plank Intervals after the initial event of the Big Bang.
Since we don’t have a quantum theory of gravity, we don’t have the ability to unite Relativity with Quantum mechanics.
This would take us back to the Event itself, when gravity, electromagnetism, and the Weak & Strong nuclear forces were the same strength over the same distance over the same amount of time (in other words, one unified force).
One must remember, you can’t explore what was before the big bang, because not only here matter and energy created, but also space and time.
It takes a frame of reference to measure an event…with no distance and no duration in existance, no event is possible.
I should also mention that there is more than one Big Bang theory. There are a few competing theories which make slightly different predictions. We don’t know which one is the right one yet because some of these predictions are exceedingly difficult to test.
But we’re working on it.
Czarcasm wrote
Though I agree that we’re trying to find out, I was under the impression that current thought was that at the time of the big bang, there was literally no information in the universe, since everything was squeezed into zero volume. Therefore, (I believe), current thought indicates we can never know.
Smooth…ever consider a creator?
Matter and Energy can’t be created or destroyed now (only change forms), so why should it have then? Of course…well then all that matter came from a previos universe. But where did <i>that</i> matter come from? Pretty weak argument for evolutionists.
I don’t think it’s weak at all. We are coming right out and saying “I don’t know.”
You, on the other had are implying that a creator made it/put it there…whatever. Really? based on what?
I could then use your argument and say, “Where did the creator come from?” To which a creationist will, of course, reply…“He’s always been there.” (I’m not saying you are saying that, because, of course, you haven’t)
“He’s always been there”…hmm…I see that as a weak argument with no basic evidence.
When the ‘science minded’ don’t know…we say ‘don’t know’. We don’t just make things up and say, “Ahhh…that’s better.”
Let me clarify,
Pretty weak argument refers to evolutionists who say the matter came from previous universes which came from previous universes…etc.
If evolutionists can say that, wht can’t creationists say God has always been there?
Basically, what I am saying, is that if Charles Darwin refuted his own theory of evolution (yes, he did), then why is it such a religion today? Should schools teach creationism and let the students decide? No, that would make some reputable evolutionists verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry unhappy.
Ok…I follow you, but it is just a theory…no one is saying that that is what happened.
Because, God is not a theory. Not in they eyes of a creationist. To them, god is fact. (A fact without any evidence.)
I am not saying that he didn’t, I’d have to read up about where CD contradicted his theory.
But theories are proven wrong all the time…that the woderful thing about science…it’s self correcting…Many people have shown what he suspected to be acurate.
The ToE is not a religion. It’s a scientific theory with supporting evidence. Religions are based on believe and faith sans evidence of any kind.
Sure…teach Creationism in school…Catholic schools (Or any other religiously based education centre.) not public based schools. There are MANY schools in the world that have students that are not Christian. Why should Christian beliefs be force upon them?
IMHO, teaching Creationism in schools along side ToE and the Big Bang is like telling the students to deside on who brings them gifts at Christmas: Santa or their parents.
The Parent Theory has a lot of evidence in its favor. The Santa Theory has none. The answer is obvious.
But it isn’t so obvious with Creationism. Tell me of one Creationist that would want their child/student to question their religion?
BTW: We are getting off track here…the OP was about the Big Bang… The ToE is something completly different.
moronmountain:
No, he didn’t. This is an outright lie started and propagated by creationists. See these links:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
and
http://www.ediacara.org/hope.html
for more information.
It isn’t a religion. It’s actually two things: observable facts, and a theory to account for them. Confusing the two things is one of the problems that creationists have.
The observable facts are pretty much undisputable. The distribution and frequency of various characteristics of individuals within a species do change over time. Given enough time and changes, these changes accumulate so that part or all of the individuals within the species are different enough that they are no longer the same species as their ancestors, or their distant cousins (who might be yet a third different species).
The (modern synthesis of this) theory of how this happens is called the Theory of Evolution, and is very well supported by the evidence. The theory makes testable predictions that have held up very well. The fact that there are a few different flavors of these theories, and that they differ in details is great bull fodder for the creationists. But as with every scientific study, this just means that we don’t have all the information yet, and that research is continuing. The basic facts are not in dispute by any reputable scientist in the field.
Teaching my kids mythology and religion and telling them it’s science does make me a bit unhappy, and I’m not what you’d call a reputable evolutionist. Just an average guy who wants his kids to learn.
In science class, I want them to be taught the facts as we know them, the processes that reveal those facts, and the best theories we have to explain them. In Social Studies, Mythology, comparative religion, and philosophy classes, I want them to learn about those things. If I want to steep my kids in a specific religious doctrine, I’ll do it at home, church, or private school, and on my own dime.
(Actually, I’m talking in the past tense about my desires for my kids, because they’re pretty much grown up. The youngest is 21, the oldest is 24. I’m beginning to think I may be middle aged! )
Ugly
Moronmountain, please try to keep straight the distinction between cosmology and biology. While all of science is ultimately interconnected, there’s really no immediate link between evolutionary biology and the Big Bang theory, besides the fact that both of them contradict Babylonian mythology.
DNFTT
That’s a lie. Lying is a sin. Repent, sinner.
Thanks for the links.
I didn’t think he refuted his own theory…looks like my Spider Sense is still working. 
See moronmountain? This is an example of what I was talking about. If we don’t know…we say so. (Someone usually comes around to help.) We don’t just make things up or go along with those who do.
So in relation to the Big Bang…what started it?
Official Answer: (As Czarcasm already stated)…We Don’t Know.
Yeah, moronmountain. Lies make baby Jesus cry. You don’t want to make baby Jesus cry, do you?
Actually, matter can create itself, getting it to stay is the problem.
Matter creates itself all the time in terms of virtual pairs, which almost always anhiliate each other almost instantly.
About 8 years ago, Fermilab disproved the concept of parity. This means that not necessarily the same amount of matter and antimatter is created.
So, the universe may very well have started in something like an extremely massive virtual pair that mostly self-anhiliated. What’s left over is the universe as we know it.
moronmountain wrote:
Actually, mass-energy can be created out-of-nothing, but only for brief instants. The amount of mass-energy created, multiplied by the amount of time the mass-energy exists, cannot be greater than Planck’s constant h = 6.626 x 10[SUP]-34[/SUP] Joule-seconds. This is a consequence of the Uncertainty Principle, and explains the exchange of “virtual photons” between charged particles (which transmit their electromagnetic attraction or repulsion).
I asked this question a few weeks ago. All I got was “we don’t know” or “God.”
Great…the one link references the other, and the one not referenced by the other was written by a guy who calls himself “Nike”. Um…help me on that one here. Just because one guy says my former statement is false doesn’t make him right and me a liar. I informatively told you what I have read in a book I don’t feel like opening right now (I’ll do it tomorrow or Wednesday for all you curious people), so (thank God…[oops, shouldn’t say that on this thread]…thankfullym for semantics) I was telling the truth. And knowing a few random things about science doesn’t make Evolution a fact either. Liars.
Of course, the Big-bang, according to Creationists, would never have happened because (in order to be as PC as possible) “a” God (not “the” God) created the original universe…direct linkage to the original question.
Creationism is not exclusively a Christian belief. There are non-Christians out there who believe Creationism.
But, since no one here is going to switch views anytime soon and the same empty arguments are going to pass from one side to the next, this thread should be disbanded, or we should start swapping good Chocolate-Chip Universe Recipies…“At any party, they’ll make a BANG”…ugh…I’m going to bed.
If you had bothered to read the link, you would have noticed that he had given the name and author for a book, then quoted that book.
Nor does it mean that you’re telling the truth.
True, but you’ve shown quite convincingly that you barely know any facts about science, so the evolutionists are winning this round. Nobody has claimed that evolution is a proven fact, that’s why it’s called the “Theory of Evolution”. However, evolution can explain more of the evidence available to us right now than any other theory.
**
What’s your point? That doesn’t prove anything.
Look, you started with a post that contained false information, which others posters promptly tore to pieces. Rather than admitting that you were wrong, you changed the subject from the Big Bang to evolution and posted some more lies. When those were refuted, you continued to make denials and claimed that your statement had to be true because nobody could prove them false (this is a classic use of false logic). Finally, when you realised that you were being creamed, you said that the thread should be shut down. It’s clear that you’re in way over your head here.