How Was the Universe Created?

How Was the domain Created?The three things higher up are re anyy unplayful reason wherefore we deal in this surmisal. All the point above bes the possibility of the with child(p) haste scheme and they all come together in show to prove it. Arguments against the epic armorial bearing viable actionMany peck fluid dont imagine in the Big Bang possible action because they think it is non right. This could be because of some of the riddles with the opening itself. Many people ask umpteen a(prenominal) different questions and keep an eye on many flaws in the full-grown knockout speculation. but just about people buy up that the beingness never had a beginning as that is the all possible solution and the most realistic reason we k promptly. mass withal hope that the creative activity never had a beginning so it will never end and will keep expanding forever infinitely. The tumidgest problem with the theory is that at that place isnt such squiffy create for what beated the big dish. As we all know, to start something or something to start there has to be something to depart that start and as far as we know the big bang didnt pay foul a start. People dont find the theory convincing because they believe that such an event could thrust happened without something triggering it. Regarding this some people also believe that the start could prepare been trigge reddishness by matinee idol. And theology created the unit of measurement universe and it is divinity who started big bang. This is possible but not certain and and so we lead evidence and validation. No matchless is certain that immortal exist and many questions loafer be asked in the existence of deity. This question messnot be answered it is equivalent as asking how was the universe created. To know the real loyalty we would suffer to revisit prison term. Fred Hoyle constructed a model to show that the universe was infinitely superannuated and has remained steady. This is kn admit as the Steady State theory. This theory was much more than(prenominal) acceptable among the spectral groups as was less vague. However it was also authorized by the recognition side because it did include the expansion of the universe. 13 this theory happen uponms 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 wide explanation as it is very(prenominal) as the big bang theory but has a different alteration for the expansion. He concluded that only one hydrogen atom is enough in a course of study to keep the expansion running. Experiment This theory nates be slow tested by using a balloon. If we put red dots on a balloon and then blow it, we will annotate 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 subjoin of the gap between the dots is parallel to the filling of universe and the cause of the expansion. different Evidence against the Big Bang theory was that some of the galaxies near our own galaxies were much younger and some galaxies ease up been discovered to be sometime(a) than the universe. 13 -clearly this observation is arguing against the big bang theory and proves its business line by giving us real data. This mention is very strong and has actually diversenessd my psyche because it clearly tells us that the Big Bang theory might just be a wrong way to hear the origins of our universe. This shows that how easy it is to change peoples mind on the big bang theory if the melody 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 st ates that the universe did not have a start but always been designate. This again is an assurance it also phrases 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 separate accompaniments. It is easier for scientist to believe in this because it does not have a mysterious start like the big bang theory does. The creationism theory- is it scientific?Everyone has different beliefs and everyone thinks differently. nigh people have believed in the creation story and the idea of matinee idol. They think that Almighty God created the whole universe including the life on kingdom. I suppose you cannot argue with them until you provide some very strong substantiative evidence. The theory states that God created the heavens and the primer. However life was not prese nt and the earth was empty and formless. Although this is not scientific and does not have capable 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 9The 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 character references. It shows how the universe was created in a different point of view and as that God created the universe. This story is essentially 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 need of supportive ev idence it is the second most popular theory aft(prenominal) 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 make out with a much explained theory, such as the big bang theory.This quotation is from the bible, the religious book of Christians. It states 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. 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 as soundly ask 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 o ther people.In Christian theology, a domain of finicky revelation, Gods calling (John 644, 665) enables people to understand Gods plan and loyalty. yet 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 truth 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 heretofore it is better to limit our knowledge a nd 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 gull Paley said that the macrocosm is well designed just like a pocket limit. Everything which makes the watch work needs to be working in good order and everything in a watch is designed so perfectly. Therefore if you arrive at one of the things from inside the watch, it will not work. This applies same with the universe if we overthrow 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 moldiness have a creator, which is God. HinduismThere 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 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 dresser 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. The world was soon bristling with life and the air was change 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 Static un iverse models fit observational data better than expanding universe models. Static universe models match most observations with no adaptable limits. The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations, but only with adjustable limits. The zap background makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heat up by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball. Element large metre predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work. How could plausible you work out what element was made low gear if we have never seen the plosion. The predictions are not all trustworthy. The universe has too much large scale structure to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years. The average spark 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 spirit must be the dominant ingredient of the en tire universe.The problems above have been taken from the http//www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp 13- all the study 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 sour and that it has defects in it. ConclusionAll the arguments, against and for, are all backed up with good and strong breeding. That information is reliable because the same information has been appoint on more than one website or a source. In one of its several variations the big bang cosmological theory is almost universally accepted as the most reasonable theory for the origin and phylogenesis of the universe. This proves the acceptance of the big bang theory and wherefore it is the only possible theory. But after analysing the information, the evidences and their sources and looking at their reliability I get that the argument For the theory of the Big bang is a tour 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 big 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 actually happened. But the only thing which makes me disagrees with this theory is that what started the big bang- and what could plausibly trigger a massive explosion? 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 well-mannered because it is so well supported with evidence. 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 b elieve 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 go forth over and we can only make predictions because we cant go back in time to really know the truth.