And why do you have to accept that the big bang is a miracle? All through history anything people can't explain they turn to religion and/or miracles. We don't understand enough about the big bang to start making claims like that.
I don't know who the rest of your post was directed towards, but I will gladly tell you why one must accept miracles in order to accept the big bang theory.
To begin with, modern day scientists have interpereted data gathered from our instruments, both land and space based to form a theory that states that the universe is expanding at a very rapid rate and that the further a thing is away from us, the more quickly it is moving away from us. This is an uneasy and fragile attempt to explain the fact that the further a thing is away from us, the more of its spectrum is shifted to red.
Modern science theorizes that the universe as we see it is the debris of a fabulous explosion with the fragments of that explosion still flying away in every direction. We have all heard it, and on the surface it makes sense and it is very easy to see how so many could be drawn into it. Lift up the corner and look underneath (so to speak) and there are some terrible problems with the big bang theory that no one in the scientific community even wants to begin to try to answer. In fact, if you ask questions about these problems, you will be immediately dismissed and no further discussion is possible.
Imagine that we are seeing the universe as it exists today as a film. A film that we can run in reverse. OK. Lets reverse it way backt to just a few frames after the big bang happened. As we ran the film back, we saw all of the fragments of the big bang moving back together. Closer and closer until all that is visible is a very bright light. The "big bang".
OK. Start the film backwards again. The light gets smaller and smaller until we reach the birth frame of the big bang. Stop the film. Here, according to modern science, we see a very small something. It is an infinitely hot, and infinitely small (zero diameter) and infinitely curved (round) pointlike dimension and it contains all of the matter and energy in the universe. In fact, it is the universe. This is what we are told by modern science.
Now, we have an infinitely small (zero diameter) spherical point and the big bang takes place. If that point expands a trillion bazillion times, what would it's diameter be? What is a trillion bazillion times zero? The answer is zero no matter how many times you figure it. If the temperature of that infinitely small, infinitely hot point were to drop by a trillion billion times, what would the temperature be? Infinity divided by anything is still infinity so no matter how much you cooled it off, it would still be infinitely hot.
Do you see a trend here? If the universe existed as the scientists say that it did, it isn't getting any bigger and isn't getting any cooler no matter how many frames we move forward. Now. This is where faith enters the religion of the big bang. Lets look at the birth frame of the big bang again. Now ask to see the frame of the film that is just before that one. As soon as you ask to see that frame or that what it is be described to you, the conversation is over and a veritable army of the faithful will come to the defense of their theory.
They will tell you that the question has no meaning. They will suggest that it is like asking who lives a few miles east or west of the equator. There will be talk of singularities that involve incredibly large amounts of mass that come from something like a black hole…but not, where the rules of light and energy don’t exist and a thing like time has no meaning. They will tell you flatly, with a straight face that in an environment that has no passage of time, a word like before has no meaning.
To that, a thinking person should reply that if there is no passage of time, and words like before have no meaning, how can words like after have any meaning either. You can’t have it both ways. Either there is the passage of time and there was a before, or there is no passage of time in which case, there can be no after.
If, as modern science tells us that everything is energy, and energy is mass, and everything was compressed into an infinitely small point, then you would have nothing but a single black hole and as science tells us, you can not big bang your way out of a black hole. If time can’t move, then we would find ourselves completely unable to run our film in either direction; and if they tell you that the energy = mass equation didn’t apply then, it stands to reason that there could be no black hole and in that case, one couldn’t claim the time suspension rules and the word before would have just as much meaning as the word after.
This being said, the big bang happening would have been as big a miracle as God saying “let there be light”.
As our instruments grow more sensitive, we can see more, and see further than we have ever been able to before and the more we see, the less likely the big bang becomes.
We have known for some time about the existence of background radiation in the universe. It is uniform in all directions. Some scientists at the Bell laboratories got a Nobel Prize for discovering that this background radiation was absolutely uniform in every direction. No matter which direction one looks in space, there it was and it was exactly the same. A dead flat, constant 3 degree Kelvin cold. They said that the fact that it was uniform in every direction was the final nail in the creationist coffin. It was proof of the big bang.
A few years later, some super detectors that we placed in orbit that were more sensitive than those used by the Bell laboratory scientists by orders of magnitude found that the flat background radiation wasn’t really flat at all but had some significant undulations and unevenness. It was then determined that the fact that the radiation was uneven and variable was the ultimate proof of the big bang.
In 1995, or maybe 1996 some findings were made with the Hubble telescope that if they are accepted as being correct, deal a major blow to the big bang theory. The pitiful dishonesty of the big bang scientific community was pretty well summed up in a single paragraph from the report.
“The basic theory of cosmology,that the universe burst forth in a big bang from a tiny volume long ago remains intact. But the details must be revised, ore explanations of stallar physics changed, to get stars older than the universe”
In short, with the Hubble telescope, the astronomers were finding 16 billion year old globular clusters in an 8 billion year old universe.
In order to maintain the big bang theory, scientists theorized inflation. They claim that if the could ignore the laws of physics for a millionth of a millionth, of a millionth of a second (I am not kidding) right after the incredibly hot and incredibly dense big bang went off and you allow the explosion to expand at 10 to the 25 times the speed of light and some suggest as much as 10 to the 50 the speed of light, we will have enough velocity to achieve the distribution and organization of matter to put the stars and galaxys in the positions in which we see them today. By ignoring the laws of physics for that wee bit of time, atomic ratios once again makes sense, and some of the questions about anti-matter, and one is excused from answering questions about what the universe looked like in that frame just before the birth frame since all of the echoes of it would have been lost.
Another miracle. Imagine that.. Now we have the anti creationists claiming two miracles in the process of the big bang. First, a small dense hot point that came from nowhere and started everything in motion, and in order to explain it, a magical suspension of the laws of physics for “just a little while” so that everything can expand at a zillion times the speed of light. I am all for science, but the claim of two miracles is just one two many for any scientific theory to hold water with me.
