Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Faultline
Also you're setting up the BB Theory as a strawman. It's a common logical fallacy to misrepresent your opponent's argument so you can bash it down easily.
|
I'm not making up any strawmen here. I am simply questioning the ASSUMPTION that all matter formed from the events of 0,0,0,0. I specifically have come to doubt the notion that iron did not predate this event. I see no evidence this is true.
Quote:
|
Short point, the BB is more than an assumption. It's a complex and involved theory worked out with math.
|
Wait a moment. I will grant you that there is 'math' to suggest that all the galaxies originated from an AREA of space that we can ROUGHLY identify. I do not know of any math that insists that it had to have been a "bang" (all matter created in the event) rather than a slam (matter predated the event). Do you?
Quote:
|
Look up "THEORY" in a scientific sense and you'll see that it is so far from an assumption it's silly to call the BB anything less than a solid scientific theory.
|
Actually, that is one THEORY I have studied for quite some time and it is another theory I have come to questions, just as I question the THEORY that the sun is mostly made of hydrogen.
The belief that the universe is predominantly made of hydrogen springs from two basic ideas. The first idea is that all matter we have today was created in the events of the BB. The second pillar that this hydrogen idea is based on is the notion that by counting photons we can accurately predict solar composition. I see no evidence that either of these assumptions is true.