This theory is erroneous and illogical at best. It presupposes that spectacular and grand organization can come from chaos. I’m not saying that something simple and useful may result from a random act, I am just not agreeing with that such complex systems as a solar, molecular, and all of life as we now it can come out of some Big Bang magic act.
Since this theory can not be proved it is easier to reject. But even better is to prove that it can not work. I give three examples.
Let’s take a million lines, give or take 100,000 lines, of C++ code. It doesn’t matter what they are: for loops, conditional statements, class definitions…etc. Now, let’s randomly sort them.
According to this theory, it will compile without errors or warnings and will give us WindowsXP Professional. Amazing! I wasn’t expecting it to be any more functional then Notepad.
Next example. Let’s make a Thanksgiving feast. Take a big bowl, add to it a turkey. Doesn’t really matter if it is alive or dead. Toss in some vegetables, cranberries, a pumpkin for the pumpkin pie, add something to drink… put it in the oven say 1000 degrees or whatever. Give it 30 minutes.
According to this theory, we got the best Thanksgiving ever.
The latest calls for a random substance to be poured onto a medium such as a paper. This paper is then to be folded several times and stomped on….etc. When unfolding we should get something Michelangelo could have painted, but I am afraid it isn’t even worthy of Picasso.
Posted by Michael at September 27, 2003 08:27 AMHey... if a big bang never happened why have physicists been able to prove that all the galaxies in the universe are moving away from one central point? This seems to be pretty good proof to me that there had to be a time when they were all a lot closer and there was a cataclysmic event that sent them on their current course.
It is pretty bold to claim that God couldn't have created the Universe using a big bang when existing evidence shows that it looks like that is how He did it. I don't claim to know for sure how everything got started but I think it is silly to disclaim a plausible theory without discussing any of the existing scientific evidence that supports the theory.
All you've done in your post is try to argue that a complex organized system can't come about without intelligent design. I don't think that comes even close to disproving the theory that there was a big bang...besides...I think XP might have been made the way you describe! I've run into enough problems so far that might support your theory for its creation!
Posted by: Jeremy at September 30, 2003 10:56 AMThere is no centeral point or a center point [of the Universe], but I get what you mean. Good arguements. I will post a new message in response.
Posted by: Michael at September 30, 2003 12:44 PMI dont see what the Big-Deal is with this just leave it be and get on with your life
I agree with Michael one something cant come from nothing and something as complex as a whole universe can not come from total chaos. There is more scientific evidence to disprove the big bang then prove it.
Posted by: Nathan at June 3, 2004 03:46 AMI totaly agree with you. It's totaly impossible for the big bang to happen. It takes way more faith in the big bang then any other thing because of the total chance that it could happen. It would just be like throwing ink at a paper and getting a dictionary.
Posted by: Brendan at November 10, 2004 10:53 AM