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.
I'm thinking the good doctor is just a troll. Ah well....
NO YOU'RE a poopy pants!
My 6-year-old grand-daughter has a better understanding of how to structure an argument. "Doctor", my ass.
We do realize we are saying that evolution came out of the Big Bang which was an immense chaos?
When were we saying that? I missed it.
The material at the Big Bang wasn't immense. It was quite small. It got big later, though since time and space are one and the same, it's hard to speak about time in a situation like that in a way we can relate to our everyday lives.
What exactly are you a "Dr." of Howard Davis, since it apparently isn't physics?
I dont like the big bang theory, since it is an incomplete observation of something spawned from nothing, and does not seem to accept the idea of multiverses and so on, its kind of like saying the Earth is flat in a sense... where there was nothing and then something. Energy is often misunderstood on this planet, people fail to understand that it is motion, movement, vibration and spin of substance/stuff. Stuff is dependent on energy, and energy is dependent on stuff. The universe is continuously recycling itself.
Well, Danielle, the evidence of The Big Bang is there to be appreciated. It's like if you look at a crater in the desert from above, The impact pretty much has to be at the center of the crater. Everything in the universe is running away from the center. Just play it backwards and you're at the Big Bang.
Sure, the Big Bang is paradoxical to people used to everyday physics, but the moment of the Big Bang was just any day of the week.
I would say that it isn't a case of first there's nothing then there's something, because that presupposes that there was an empty universe waiting for energy and matter to show up. Instead, the universe was born ALONG WITH the sudden existence of matter and energy.
I think most cosmologists today would say that the matter and energy of the universe came from somewhere else. Unfortunately, there's no note in a bottle explaining where that might be. But there seem to be multiple dimensions and things called "membranes" or "branes" which can come into contact with each other, that contact creating a new universe. That's not proven and may not be provable, but we may have to do with speculation and theories in this area. However, that there was a Big Bang isn't disputed by any credible physicist I've ever heard of.
Is the observed data used as evidence for the theory only a perception of something else other than that theory ? The motion of galaxies, in their galactic structures, which appear to be expanding in some parts of space, and contracting in other parts of space. For me, saying everything in the universe originating from the center is like putting the earth in the center of solar system , with the planets and sun orbiting the earth. The big bang theory is based on a perception from an observation.
The motion of galaxies, in their galactic structures, which appear to be expanding in some parts of space, and contracting in other parts of space.
That's kind of irrelevant. What would a universe be like in which galaxies only expanded? Is such a universe sustainable or even possible? The galaxies behave based on the relative quantity of the forces involved. Things will tend to attract each other due to gravity unless some other force is stronger. It's stronger here, less strong there. It has nothing to do with the increasing expansion of the universe. (BTW, only the space between things is expanding. You and I aren't expanding.)
In nonexperimental sciences like astronomy and cosmology, the best idea is the one that makes the most sense by answering the most questions. There is no question of proof like one can have in chemistry or standard physics. You seem to be waiting for some sort of scientific proof that can be repeated by other researchers. Unfortunately, it's not a battle of results it's a battle of ideas.
If you can't accept that we have to settle for the best explanation and are waiting for proof, you'll have a long wait. Probably your entire lifetime. However, if that is your plan, you're being a little irrational by not accepting the prevailing idea.
Most cosmologists buy the Big Bang theory and at the same time the theory has some critics. Me? I have to go with the consensus, which is that there was a Big Bang and that if there are problems, they may be ironed out as time goes by but maybe not in my lifetime. Could a rival theory put the Big Bang on its ass? Could be, but there is no such opposing theory on the horizon right now. The main other theory out there seems to be "I don't like the Big Bang theory."