In what sense was the BB chaotic? Even if we accept Inflation to have occurred after the BB then both events together took less than (the very first) one hundredth of a second to happen. There was “no time” for it to be immensely chaotic.
When you mention Big Bang Evolution in your posts title you give the impression that you are referring to the Evolution of the Cosmos. However your post implies that you are talking about Evolution of life on Earth which has nothing to do with the BB. Just because one happened after the other does not imply causality.
This is the kind of “common cause” fallacy typical of certain fundamentalist sects that have only one Science book.
All of 'life' came from the big BANG which was explosive!!! I know the subject well since 1963 so don't down play this. The force was immense-micro at its source to be sure.. What was the original SOURCE of life if not from the big bang as it is given today?
Let's leave bait and switch distractions like 'fundamentalists sects' alone as that's not the issue here. Who cares-I don't.
The' most explosive since the big bang'. Does it say that as opposed to what you said?
How about" hyper"-Big Bang?
Please tell us what YOU think, Doctor.
What was the original SOURCE of life if not from the big bang as it is given today?
That question may be as unanswerable as the question of "where did God come from". Meanwhile, the real point is that as we research and discover the history of the universe, science expands its knowledge and usefulness. Even if we'll never know "everything", we'll keep learning more and more.
I will accept that the BB created all matter that exists today in that first instance. Your use of the word chaotic sounded to me the way I hear Theists use it. I just had a discussion with some Muslims who said something similar and used the word “Chaos” disparagingly so they could then say we are too well “designed” to come from something so chaotic. That was their “bait” but it showed a complete lack of understanding of the BB.
I also understand the BB theory but I cannot see it as being the cause of Evolution. I can handle arguments about de Sitter cosmology and Relativity or the Higgs effect that gave the initial mass to some particles but I cannot see a direct correlation between the BB and Evolution. Would you agree that the BB gave rise to the gas clouds which became stars after billions of years thanks to gravity and billions of years later exploded to provide the elements and the amino acids which in turn gave rise to simple life forms appearing about 3.5 billion years ago? (a short history Lol). Then life began to evolve very slowly at first due to the environment that this original life found itself in.
Yes, in the ultimate sense if the BB model is seen as the “prime mover” then it created the environment over 10 billion years later where life in Earth’s seas would be formed and then Evolution would kick in but there are many steps in between the two “events” that need to be given consideration.
Evolution didn't come out of the big bang any more than did any other fundamental property in our universe. We wouldn't say the speed of light, or gravity, or the photoelectric effect came out of the big bang. All these things are just a reality of the conditions of the universe as we know it.
Yes. The big bang would deal with the composition of all matter "exploding" outward, but this chaotic event (even if it was actually chaotic) would only define the earliest periods of the universe. As time ticked by the fundamental properties acted to create galaxies, planets, stars, and ultimately us.
To this end, evolution really boils down to being an extremely late comer to the party, and it happens on at least one planet where life somehow came to be, and as a result where there were selection pressures to support a greater propensity for survival and reproduction caused the life forms to evolve.
Trying to pair evolution to the big bang is a bit of a stretch IMO...mostly because I don't think there can be an inference drawn to support the conclusion you stated.
You do realize that you are demonstrating that you don't know what either the Big Bang theory or evolutionary theory says, right?
The Big Bang happened billions of years before the Earth even formed, much less developed life. (And the origin of life comes under abiogenesis, not cosmology) The Big Bang may cover where the matter that life is made of comes from, but a generation or two of stars had to form and die to create the heavier elements before life could even start to form. Life certainly didn't appear as an immediate result of the Big Bang.
Furthermore, your description of the Big Bang as an 'explosion' betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory. It was not like setting off a bomb, which explodes. It was a rapid inflation of an extremely dense and hot core of matter. Examinations of the cosmic microwave background (the remnant of the Big Bang which is still observable today) shows that the universe was incredibly uniform and that there were only very tiny fluctuations in density and temperature. Kind of the opposite of chaotic.
You say you've been knowledgeable about this since 1963. Have you actually read anything on the topic that has been published since 1963? We've learned a lot in the past 50 years, you might want to catch up.
NO it is you that doesn't understand either or the implications!!!
Empty assertions are, well, empty. You've clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding of both Big Bang theory and evolution, so why should anyone place any credence in your unsupported claims? Try providing actual evidence that back up your statements if you want to be taken at all seriously.