Re: LOL "Big Bang"
That's not evidence, is it? Just another theory on top of another wild theory.
Where is the concrete evidence that this universe is exactly 13.8 billion years old? I doubt this Earth's cadre of scientists can measure or analyze every planet or particle in the universe. That would require close contact, which would be suicide.
So back to my original question. And I don't wanna see another ad hominem or another theory about how old the stars are, either. Since evolutionists/atheists make such a bold claim and want to mock God and falsely call him a wizard, then back it up with irrefutable evidence.
Just because you don't personally understand something does not mean it is invalid. However, I'll try and simplify things for you. Background: physicist turned science teacher - in fact, I will be teaching this exact topic to my year 10's (14/15 years old) in a few weeks time.
First of all, you need to understand what the 'big bang' refers to. The big bang theory does
not, strictly speaking, refer to the idea of something coming from nothing ('
creation ex nilho'). All the big bang really refers to is the concept that, 13.8 billion years ago, everything that makes up the universe today was all much, much closer together (ie could be contained within a beach ball). We're not sure what happened before that point, because physics as we understand it kind of breaks - there are lots of competing hypothesisesesesseseses, but no evidence as yet.
Keeping it simple; there are two seriously strong pieces of evidence for the big bang theory, and one supporting evidence which fits nicely into the explanation:
1) The CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation - you can think of it as a
thermogram if the universe with all the stars taken out) shows that all of the universe was in one place at one time (by 'one place', I mean 'close enough to be all influenced at once by the same thing'). This is because if the universe was
not all in one place at one time, there is no reason for the whole universe giving off (approximately) the same level of background radiation, which it does.
By analogy, compare
this example with a large cloud forming in the atmosphere. The cloud forming in the atmosphere might have significant temperature variations in it from one part to the other, due to difference in the air temperature that it is forming in. On the other hand, the cloud formed when boiling water is ejected into freezing air (as with the video example) will all be roughly the same temperature
because it all started in the same place. When we look at the background radiation of the universe, we find that it is all roughly the same - which is what our "boiling water in a mug" model predicts, not our "clouds forming in the atmosphere" model.
2) Red Shift of distant galaxies - the simple version is that 'red shift' has allowed us to discover that distant galaxies are moving away from us - and the further away from us they are, the faster away from us they are moving. This indicates that the universe is expanding away from a single origin point. That then means that if you go back in time, the universe shrinks - and if you go far enough back, the universe would all be in one place, which is what the CMBR also implies (see above). The amount of time you have to go back by is 13.8 billion years, which we can work out with a simple time = distance/speed calculation. The good thing about the red shift calculations is that if you apply it to any galaxy you get the same result (within experimental tolerance), which means that this applies consistently to every single galaxy out there.
3) This also fits in with what we can see in the universe. If we can see things that are more than 13.8 billion light-years away, the light must have spent more than 13.8 billion light years to get to us and so the big bang theory must have a problem with it. However, the furthest things we can see are (with certainty) just over 13 billion light-years away, and (at our best guess) 13.4 billion light-years away. While this doesn't confirm directly the 13.8 billion figure, it does fit in with it - and it certainly denies the '6000 year' concept of YEC.
Simples.
