I was giving them a possible answer, I don't recall saying anything along the lines that it was close to a fact.
That's why I said
"could have caused it"... Please read my posts... I am not attacking you.
Are you doubting evolution, or Darwinism? If it's the first... Let me know, because the last time I checked there where plenty of changes...
Many people question Darwins theory... That's why its still a Theory:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_DarwinDarwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."
And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
The Big Bag is still a Theory... Its not Proven:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_BangAnd here is why it's being questioned as it has MANY holes like I have been saying:-
Features, issues and problems
While currently there are very few researchers who doubt the Big Bang occurred, in the past the community was divided between supporters of the Big Bang and supporters of alternative cosmological models. Throughout the historical development of the subject, problems with the Big Bang theory were posed in the context of a scientific controversy regarding which model could best describe the cosmological observations (see history section above). With the overwhelming consensus in the community today supporting the Big Bang model, many of these problems are remembered as being mainly of historical interest; the solutions to them have been obtained either through modifications to the theory or as the result of better observations. Other issues, such as the cuspy halo problem and the dwarf galaxy problem of cold dark matter, are not considered to be fatal as they can be addressed through further refinements of the theory.
The Big Bang model admits very exotic physical phenomena that include dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic inflation which rely on conditions and physics that have not yet been observed in terrestrial laboratory experiments. While explanations for such phenomena remain at the frontiers of inquiry in physics, independent observations of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Type Ia supernovae strongly suggest the phenomena are important and real cosmological features of our universe. The gravitational effects of these features are understood observationally and theoretically but they have not yet been successfully incorporated into the Standard Model of particle physics. Though some aspects of the theory remain inadequately explained by fundamental physics, almost all cosmologists accept that the close agreement between Big Bang theory and observation have firmly established all the basic parts of the theory.
The following is a short list of Big Bang "problems" and puzzles:
Horizon problem
Main article: Horizon problem
The horizon problem results from the premise that information cannot travel faster than light, and hence two regions of space which are separated by a greater distance than the speed of light multiplied by the age of the universe cannot be in causal contact.[24] The observed isotropy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is problematic in this regard, because the horizon size at that time corresponds to a size that is about 2 degrees on the sky. If the universe has had the same expansion history since the Planck epoch, there is no mechanism to cause these regions to have the same temperature.
A resolution to this apparent inconsistency is offered by inflationary theory in which a homogeneous and isotropic scalar energy field dominates the universe at a time 10-35 seconds after the Planck epoch. During inflation, the universe undergoes exponential expansion, and regions in causal contact expand so as to be beyond each other's horizons. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle predicts that during the inflationary phase there would be quantum thermal fluctuations, which would be magnified to cosmic scale. These fluctuations serve as the seeds of all current structure in the universe. After inflation, the universe expands according to Hubble's law, and regions that were out of causal contact come back into the horizon. This explains the observed isotropy of the CMB. Inflation predicts that the primordial fluctuations are nearly scale invariant and Gaussian which has been accurately confirmed by measurements of the CMB.
Flatness problem
The overall geometry of the universe is determined by whether the Omega cosmological parameter is less than, equal to or greater than 1. From top to bottom: geometry in a closed universe, an open universe and a flat universe.Main article: Flatness problem
The flatness problem is an observational problem associated with a Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric.[24] In general, the universe can have three kinds of geometries -- hyperbolic geometry, Euclidean geometry, or elliptic geometry -- depending on the total energy density of the universe as measured by means of the stress-energy tensor. It is hyperbolic if its density is less than the critical density, elliptic if greater, and Euclidean at the critical density. The universe must have been within one part in 1015 of the critical density in its earliest stages, or it would have caused either a Heat Death or a Big Crunch, and the universe would not exist as it does today.
A possible resolution to this problem is again offered by inflationary theory. During the inflationary period, spacetime expanded to such an extent that any residual curvature associated with it would have been smoothed out to a high degree of precision. Thus, it is believed that inflation drove the universe to be very nearly spatially flat.
Magnetic monopoles
The magnetic monopole objection was raised in the late 1970s. Grand unification theories predicted point defects in space that would manifest as magnetic monopoles with a density much higher than was consistent with observations, given that searches have never found any monopoles. This problem is also resolvable by cosmic inflation, which removes all point defects from the observable universe in the same way that it drives the geometry to flatness.[24]
Baryon asymmetry
It is not yet understood why the universe has more matter than antimatter.[24] It is generally assumed that when the universe was young and very hot, it was in statistical equilibrium and contained equal numbers of baryons and anti-baryons. However, observations suggest that the universe, including its most distant parts, is made almost entirely of matter. An unknown process called baryogenesis created the asymmetry. For baryogenesis to occur, the Sakharov conditions, which were laid out by Andrei Sakharov, must be satisfied. They require that baryon number be not conserved, that C-symmetry and CP-symmetry be violated, and that the universe depart from thermodynamic equilibrium.[27] All these conditions occur in the Standard Model, but the effect is not strong enough to explain the present baryon asymmetry.[28] Experiments taking place at CERN near Geneva seek to trap enough anti-hydrogen to compare its spectrum with hydrogen. Any difference would be evidence of a CPT symmetry violation and therefore a Lorentz violation.
Globular cluster age
In the mid-1990s, observations of globular clusters appeared to be inconsistent with the Big Bang. Computer simulations that matched the observations of the stellar populations of globular clusters suggested that they were about 15 billion years old, which conflicted with the 13.7-billion-year age of the universe. This issue was generally resolved in the late 1990s when new computer simulations, which included the effects of mass loss due to stellar winds, indicated a much younger age for globular clusters.[29] There still remain some questions as to how accurately the ages of the clusters are measured, but it is clear that these objects are some of the oldest in the universe.
Dark matter
Main article: Dark matter
A pie chart indicating the proportional composition of different energy-density components of the universe, according to the best ?CDM model fits. Roughly ninety-five percent is in the exotic forms of dark matter and dark energy.During the 1970s and 1980s, various observations (notably of galactic rotation curves) showed that there is not sufficient visible matter in the universe to account for the apparent strength of gravitational forces within and between galaxies. This led to the idea that up to 90% of the matter in the universe is not normal or baryonic matter but rather dark matter. In addition, the assumption that the universe is mostly normal matter led to predictions that were strongly inconsistent with observations. In particular, the universe is far less lumpy and contains far less deuterium than can be accounted for without dark matter. While dark matter was initially controversial, it is now widely accepted in standard cosmology due to observations of the anisotropies in the CMB, galaxy cluster velocity dispersions, large-scale structure distributions, gravitational lensing studies, and x-ray measurements from galaxy clusters. In August 2006, dark matter was definitively observed through measurements of colliding galaxies in the Bullet Cluster.[30][31]
The detection of dark matter is sensitive only to its gravitational signature, and no dark matter particles have been observed in laboratories. Many particle physics candidates for dark matter have been proposed, however, and several projects to detect them directly are underway.
Dark energy
Main article: Dark energy
In the 1990s, detailed measurements of the mass density of the universe revealed a value that was 30% that of the critical density.[9] Since the universe is very nearly spatially flat, as is indicated by measurements of the cosmic microwave background, about 70% of the energy density of the universe was left unaccounted for. This mystery now appears to be connected to another one: Independent measurements of Type Ia supernovae have revealed that the expansion of the universe is undergoing a non-linear acceleration. To explain this acceleration, general relativity requires that much of the universe consist of an energy component with large negative pressure. This dark energy is now thought to make up the missing 70%. Its nature remains one of the great mysteries of the Big Bang. Possible candidates include a scalar cosmological constant and quintessence making up physical vacuum. Observations to help understand this are ongoing. Results from WMAP in 2006 indicate that the universe is 74% dark energy, 22% dark matter, and 4% regular matter.
And yet it is. Unless you are god, nothing can be proven.
Gravity - Is Not a Theory... It's like Air for Pete Sake...LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity (Read this do you see the word THEORY any place...NOPE)
I know the forumla to Gravity as much as I do working out Ditance and time...LOL
Gravitational force = (G * m1 * m2) / (d2)
where
G is the gravitational constant,
m1 and
m2 are the masses of the two objects for which you are calculating the force, and
d is the distance between the centers of gravity of the two masses.
So come on where is your Equation for working out when the universe will empload back upon us then ?...LOL
"if so why is fate so cruel?", because that's how it sounded.
I am saying some thing as perfect as the uneriverse and life must have more of a purpose than what scince or Faith has to offer... We would be neive to restrict our selves to either of those two notions...
Lol, you can't? How can you possible say that we shouldn't, or are "not meant" to understand the makings of the universe? I compare them quite easily.. Both where considered impossible feats, it's called progression. The statement you made came off as, "It's too complex so why bother?" which is weak and sad.
I think placing some one elses THEORY as fact in your head is Sad, but there you go...LOL
(What I am saying is the start of every thing is more complex than the Big Bang Theory, if any thing I am saying the Big Bang is too simple an explanation, and I am saying the real cause will elude us for years... I think we need to study life and death better, I think finding the answers to these two factors may give us a better understanding of the universe and the purpose we all belong to).
Try thinking for your-self... read a little on the Big Bang, work out that its a Theory not an Exact scince and examine the Theory before quoting it as Gospel...
I'll take that as pointed at me.
Your a Smart person... I am not questioning that, but your trying to paint me as the person who knows nothing yet I have done Quantum Physics in my BTEC course... I am not counting out the Big Bang theory, I just don't think it's finished by a long Chalk.
Discord
Light Style