How Was the Universe Created?

How Was the Universe Created? The three things above are really good reason why we believe in this theory. All the point above proves the possibility of the big bang theory and they all come together in order to prove it. Arguments against the big bang theory Many people still dont believe in the Big Bang theory because they think it is not right. This could be because of some of the problems with the theory itself. Many people ask many different questions and find many flaws in the big bang theory. Most people accept that the universe never had a beginning as that is the only possible solution and the most realistic reason we know. People also believe that the universe never had a beginning so it will never end and will keep expanding forever infinitely. The biggest problem with the theory is that there isnt such strong proof for what started the big bang. As we all know, to start something or something to start there has to be something to trigger that start and as far as we know the big bang didnt have a start. People dont find the theory convincing because they believe that such an event could have happened without something triggering it. Regarding this some people also believe that the start could have been triggered by God. And God created the whole universe and it is God who started big bang. This is possible but not certain and therefore we require evidence and proof. No one is certain that God exist and many questions can be asked in the existence of God. This question cannot be answered; it is same as asking how was the universe created. To know the real truth we would have to revisit time. Fred Hoyle constructed a model to show that the universe was infinitely old and has remained steady. This is known as the Steady State theory. This theory was much more acceptable among the religious groups as was less vague. However it was also accepted by the science side because it did include the expansion of the universe. {13} this theory seems to work on both scientific and the religious sides. Fred Hoyle believed that, if the universe is expanding there has to be something being made up in the spaces between galaxies. In practical I think this is very clear and a simple explanation as it is same as the big bang theory but has a different alteration for the expansion. He concluded that only one hydrogen atom is enough in a year to keep the expansion running. Experiment This theory can be easily tested by using a balloon. If we put red dots on a balloon and then blow it, we will notice that the red dots are expanding. If we focus ourselves from one red dot we will notice that the further dots are moving faster because the spaces between the dots are increasing. This increase of the gap between the dots is parallel to the filling of universe and the cause of the expansion. Other Evidence against the Big Bang theory was that some of the galaxies near our own galaxies were much younger and some galaxies have been discovered to be older than the universe. {13} -clearly this observation is arguing against the big bang theory and proves its argument by giving us real data. This source is very strong and has actually changed my mind because it clearly tells us that the Big Bang theory might just be a wrong way to describe the origins of our universe. This shows that how easy it is to change peoples mind on the big bang theory if the argument uses good scientific examples and proves thoroughly. The evidence above shows us a flaw in the big bang theory. Secondly, the next evidence against the theory is the steady state theory. The steady state theory states that the universe did not have a start but always been present. This again is an assumption; it also says the universe never had a start so therefore it wouldnt have an end. The steady state theory is not telling us that the universe is static. It does take Hubbles idea of expansion into account. I think this theory is as strong as the big bang because it does consider the other facts. It is easier for scientist to believe in this because it does not have a mysterious start; like the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“big bangà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  theory does. The creationism theory- is it scientific? Everyone has different beliefs and everyone thinks differently. Some people have believed in the creation story and the idea of God. They say that Almighty God created the whole universe including the life on earth. I suppose you cannot argue with them until you provide some very strong supportive evidence. The theory states that God created the heavens and the earth. However life was not present and the earth was empty and formless. Although this is not scientific and does not have sufficient evidence, we cannot disregard it because there are people who believe in this just like people who believe in the Big Bang theory. http://www.kiva.net/~kls/page4.html {9} The disagreement is mostly through the religious groups as they believe God created the universe. The Bible Genesis has given me arguments against the theory of big bang as it states the process in which God created the universe. It states that god created life on earth including all the seasons, the oceans, the sun, the moon, etc. {12} this website provides me with the Bible quotations. It shows how the universe was created in a different point of view and as that God created the universe. This story is basically a belief and faith of religious peoples; although it is unproven they still believe in it and think it is better than big bang. This theory is fascinating because regarding the lack of supportive evidence it is the second most popular theory after the big bang theory. However it does not have any proof for it beliefs. Although people still believe in it and it is good enough to compete with a much explained theory, such as the big bang theory. This quotation is from the bible, the religious book of Christians. It states à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“God created the earth. In the opening words of the Bible, God is unequivocally declared to be the creator of the earth (Gen. 1: 1, 2). The fact God created the earth is repeatedly taught throughout the Bible.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  {12} This has been taken from the bible. This source is reliable in a religion way. But it doesnt have the science behind it to back its ideas. But this source is reliable because it has been known for many years and many people believe in it. The bible states that God took 7 days to make the earth and the universe. Considering the vast population of Christians now days I think their arguments could be effective and can also affect other people. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“In Christian theology, a domain of special revelation, Gods calling (John 6:44, 6:65) enables people to understand Gods plan and truth. Only those who encounter God and have their minds supernaturally opened by God can understand the truth in these matters. This rationale limits what secular scientists can learn and understand. Unless a scientist receives such a calling the scientist will be always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truthà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  {12}. This is a very strong statement and it explains what Christians believe in and argues against the scientist and other people who have beliefs in the big bang theory. I think this website is truly against any science views because from the quote you can see that it is very challenging. Basically it states that a person cannot know the real truth and only people who receive calling from God will find out the truth. It also suggests that God has given us knowledge however it is better to limit o ur knowledge and do not stand against God as he is the only creator. William Paleys argument Stretching the matter from the above explanation, this argument can be used as an example and be used as evidence. Using a concept of a watch Paley said that the world is well designed just like a pocket watch. Everything which makes the watch work needs to be working properly and everything in a watch is designed so perfectly. Therefore if you remove one of the things from inside the watch, it will not work. This applies same with the universe; if we remove the fundamental things such as gravity, it will not work. Thus, the pocket watch and the universe are parallel and they both had a creator. Hence, the universe must have a creator, which is God. Hinduism There are many religions in the world and they all have different beliefs. All the religions are anti- science as they all believe in god. For example Hinduism. Hindus believe that god created the whole universe. Their theory à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. Suddenly, from the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. Vishnus servant, Brahma awaited the Lords command. Vishnu spoke to his servant: It is time to begin. Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: Create the world.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahmas creation. {14} this proves that there is not only one religion that disagrees with the big bang theory. However this is only a myth, even the Hindus dont have proof for this. They cannot support their theory with evidence. There are over 270 different religions in this world. And they all have different arguments and different mythology. After looking at these religions I can also say that its not only the religions that have myths, even the scientist have myths- The Big Bang Theory. Problems with the theory à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Static universe models match most observations with no adjustable limits. The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations, but only with adjustable limits. The microwave background makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball. Element large quantity predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work. How could plausible you work out what element was made first if we have never seen the explosion. The predictions are not all true. The universe has too much large scale structure to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all red shift, which is exceedingly unlikely. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe. The problems above have been taken from the {http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp} {13}- all the information was repeated on many other different website which proves that it is a reliable source and it is true as it is accepted by many other people. The different points all add up to prove that the big bang theory is false and that it has defects in it. Conclusion All the arguments, against and for, are all backed up with good and strong information. That information is reliable because the same information has been found on more than one website or a source. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“In one of its several variations the big bang cosmological theory is almost universally accepted as the most reasonable theory for the origin and evolution of the universe.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  This proves the acceptance of the big bang theory and why it is the only possible theory. But after analysing the information, the evidences and their sources and looking at their reliability I feel that the argument For the theory of the Big bang is a bit more reliable and conclusive argument. I can say this because it backs up information with good scientific evidence and theories. I think that the big bang theory is one of the main theories and has been developed through many years. It is so well presented and is supported by enough evidence to make me accept it as truth and I believe that I would only change my mind if a different theory is proven to me with more stronger and good scientific evidence. My opinion I believe that the universe has have got to have a start but this case study has been a great adventure as it keeps changing my view and both the arguments are well balanced and are strongly supported with evidence. I believe that the big bang theory is the only plausible theory and it is one of the greatest theories ever explained in cosmology. This theory has been backed up with loads of information that the person who disagrees with this would have to show evidence and maybe explain why they think this is wrong, which I think is virtually impossible because more people believe in this theory than anything else. This theory is believed by mostly every scientist whereas not the religious people, as they believe in the creation and the god theory. The evidence with this theory is very clear and shows how the big bang could have happened. Literally I think the evidence we have for the big bang theory is enough to actually make another big bang model and find out what actua lly happened. But the only thing which makes me disagrees with this theory is that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“what started the big bang- and what could plausibly trigger a massive explosion?à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  this is the only question which is unanswered and I think we will never be able to accomplish to answer this question because it is to great and us humans are not capable of going back to time. I think most people believe that the big bang theory is correct because the things they hear from the news and other shows which tell them only about the theory, the press wouldnt talk against a scientist, so I believe that the peoples mind are changed by the people they hear their information from. But if a person like me who believes in what other people do, my mind can be changed if he information I read is reliable and backs up with good string evidence. However I also think that the big bang theory is one of the best scientific theories ever accomplished because it is so well supported with evid ence. This theory is also supported by many scientists, which also makes the normal people feel that this is the right theory, so all the people would have to accept it unless they challenge the theory and prove it wrong. In this case the arguments FOR the Big Bang theory is a bit more supported and is much more reliable. I can say this because the evidence I found was very reliable and sustain the arguments effectively. For argument are explained clearly and uses good science which makes me feel that it is right because I believe in science more than the religious arguments. Even the religious arguments are not reliable because they could have been made up by someone because we dont have the proof that God created the universe or we havent seen it happen. It is same with the Big bang we havent seen it happen, so it depends on the evidence we have left over and we can only make predictions because we cant go back in time to really know the truth.