Stupid Big Bang

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
A.prophet's picture
That's your call... as for me

That's your call... as for me, I'm submissive to that con man

Sky Pilot's picture


"as for me, I'm submissive to that con man"

I have no reason to submit, besides I have bad knees and kneel to no one.

A.prophet's picture
Your call... I'm not asking

Your call... I'm not asking anyone to convert

The knowledge I've gained from the Quran is enough to keep me on the ground till death

Sapporo's picture
Mohamed: The knowledge I've

Mohamed: The knowledge I've gained from the Quran is enough to keep me on the ground till death

Well it certainly isn't enough to land you on the Moon.

A.prophet's picture


No one is landing on the moon any time soon

Sky Pilot's picture


"No one is landing on the moon any time soon"

The Chinese and the Russians have said that they were going to the moon in the 2020s. Do you think they will be able to survive the radiation?

Sky Pilot's picture


"Well it certainly isn't enough to land you on the Moon."

If muslims were on the moon or on another planet how would they know when Ramadan is and when it is OK to eat? Some religions are not meant for the modern times. Imagine the Israelites having a New Moon festival on the moon.

arakish's picture
@ Mo

@ Mo

It is Proxima Centauri. Quit showing your complete ignorance and illiteracy on this subject. Go back to school young man and quit skipping classes.

You are wrong about using Luna's revolutions around the Earth to measure Earth's revolution around Sol. That is not how it was ever done except in your ancestor's goat herding and caravan days in the desert.

Earth's revolutionary period about Sol is nearly 31,471,362.67879 seconds, or about 365.249... days. The nearly ¼ day is the reason for the leap years.

As for this "creatard" you speak of, provide OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE; otherwise, apply...

The Eight Razors:

  1. Sagan's Razor: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  2. Hitchens's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
  3. Arakish's Razor: NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE.
  4. Xenoview's Razor: Objective claims requires objective evidence.
  5. Randomhero1982's Razor: If it's not evidenced, it's bollocks.
  6. Cognostic's Razor: Any dweeb can make an assertion.
  7. LogicFTW's Razor: You MUST first prove your religion is not a con.
  8. Tin-Man's Butter Knife: Any ridiculous nonsense presented will be countered with opposing ridiculous nonsense of an equal or greater amount.
  • Cognostic's Shovel: When someone starts slinging bullshit at you, get a shovel and sling it back.

On an earlier note, you wanted to know names for a more personally discussion. You do not warrant the right to know anyone's name. Go practice your Apologetics where it will be appreciated.


Tin-Man's picture


Hey! Don't forget about Cyber's Razor!

arakish's picture
I haven't forgotten. Just

I haven't forgotten. Just ain't gotten around to adding it yet. Thanks for the reminder.


A.prophet's picture
I'm out

I'm out

see you guys later in the next topic

CyberLN's picture
Sorta reminds me of something

Sorta reminds me of something...


Attach Image/Video?: 

LostLocke's picture
Wait. Are you saying that he

Wait. Are you saying that he's running away from us?
Or are you implying that we should run away from him? :P

I could get on board with either.

CyberLN's picture
Hmmm...choice is yours I

Hmmm...choice is yours I suppose...I may opt for both ;)

arakish's picture
@ Mo

@ Mo

I'm out

see you guys later in the next topic

Reminds me of something also...


Attach Image/Video?: 

Grinseed's picture
@ Mohamed, this may be the

@ Mohamed, this may be the closest thing you get to a "decent chat"....

"In the beginning, cosmologists explained that the universe began from an explosion they called "The Big Bang".

No. Theist critics called this theory the 'big bang" as an insult and like most insults it remained popular in the news media. No cosmologist ever suggested there was an explosion, an expansion but not an explosion.

"The first scientific writings explained that it all began from the collision of 2 atoms at the speed of light..."

Do you have a reference for these "first scientific writings"? It is generally accepted among real astrophysicists that before the singularity known as the "big bang" there was no time, no space, no matter and therefore nothing we call the speed of light and certainly nothing we would call "atoms". Deuterium, the first element to form, according to one of your own references, did not appear until three minutes after the expansion began.

"...and therefore the Hadron Collider was built to recreate the scenario of the beginning."

Not really. As per Wikipedia, "The aim of the Large Hadron Collider is to allow physicists to test the predictions of different theories of particle physics, including measuring the properties of the Higgs boson and searching for the large family of new particles predicted by supersymmetric theories, as well as other unsolved questions of physics."

The LHC was never intended to recreate the conditions for the "Big Bang" because it would be impossible to do so, if only because no-one has ever claimed to know exactly what those conditions were or how to go about reproducing them. However they have been hugely successful in regards to the Higgs boson and other particle physics research.

"Unfortunately for them, the results were insufficient and therefore the writings have change omitting any kind of collision, yet they still claim that the universe began from a massive explosion."

A preposterous claim. Evidence? References? Names, even? I refer to the world wide acclaim that followed the research the LHC created for the Higgs boson. The LHC is a research machine, not a theory. It makes no sense to claim a machine being 'wrong'.

"In the Quran, Allah explains that the composition of space's dark void was only composed of smoke................I began with hydrogen and helium to emphasize that everything in the universe is originally a product of the two."

Speculative phantasmagorical suppositions that I cannot dignify with a response.

"Nebulae are split into 4 main types... Planetary, Dark, HII (hydrogen 2) & supernova remnants. I shall start with the Planetary nebula."

NASA declares there are at least eight types of nebulae
Galaxies, Globular Clusters, Open Clusters, Emission Nebulae, Reflection Nebulae, Dark Nebulae, Planetary Nebulae and Supernova Remnants.

Nebulae (plural form of nebula) was the name given to what appears to the naked eye to be indistinct clouds of gas and dust. Go out tonight and have a look yourself. It was only in the 1920s, Edwin Hubble, using the newly built Mount Wilson Observatory in California, found the nebulae were fully formed galaxies, just like our Milky Way. Got that? Nebulae is the old name for galaxies! Galaxies, complete with billions of stars and solar systems. And Hubble discovered the universe was full of billions of them. And the stars ranged in age from newly formed to decaying red giants and everything in between.
Hubble also discovered that the universe was expanding, which proved a mathematical hypothesis by Georges Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic priest, astronomer, and physics professor that demonstrated that the universe emerged from a singularity that was to be called the "Big Bang". And so we come full circle.

The rest of the OP is a display of a real lack of knowledge about science at best. Cosmologists taking photos of the Big Bang and none of the Nobel hungry scientists have managed to publish those photos on the web? Really? You don't know your average ambitious cosmologist.

"Cosmologist would not find any planetary nebulae in the direction of the center of out galaxy...'
You are basically saying cosmologists would not find galaxies in the direction of the centre of our galaxy, which while true, is a silly sort of statement, if you think about it.
You wanted 'a decent chat'. I recommend that before you can have that decent chat you need to do some decent research of basic science and science history, rather than just grabbing stuff off the internet that appears to satisfy your unsubstantiated views.

I also think you should display the same common courtesy you demand from those you seek chats with and who disagree with you.
You owe CyberLN an apology.
She is neither annoying or dumb.
She asked you a valid question, you insulted her.
If the faith you love so much is the faith of peace then make that apology.

SecularSonOfABiscuitEater's picture
Lmao I nearly fell on my ass

Lmao I nearly fell on my ass laughing at this post.

arakish's picture
You ain't the only one. It

You ain't the only one. It is just amazing how Religious Absolutists know so little about anything yet try to make you think they are pioneering geniuses behind the science.

Purely amazing.

***tree returns to forest slowly shaking its boughs***


EDIT: fixed misspelling

rat spit's picture
@ ‘Mud: here’s a counter

@ ‘Mud: here’s a counter question. Do you think my penis is smaller than my country’s national average?

Randomhero1982's picture
Told you all, thick as shit.

Told you all, thick as shit.

These retards always think of It as an event and not the model.

What a twat.

Sheldon's picture
Firstly big bang was a term

Firstly big bang was a term used to decry the theory when it was first published, it wasn't used by science until it became popularised and caught on. Secondly the theory doesn't make any claim for a bang or explosion. Lastly why have you brought your denials of a scientific theory to an atheist chatroom, surely a scientific site would be a better idea?

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
I'm sure the majority of this

I'm sure the majority of this has been covered by the wonderful citizens of Atheist Republic but I almost feel compelled to reply for some bizarre reason.

In the beginning, cosmologists explained that the universe began from an explosion they called "The Big Bang

No cosmologist has ever said that, this is a general misconception of the incredulous where they mistake the two variations of the big bang theory, that being the following.
- The model
- The event

The model is accurate, testable and demonstrably correct, science has no issue with this.
The event is inaccurate and there is no reason to believe this.

I challenge Mohamed to provide one peer review paper that refers to the Big Bang as an event i.e explosion and so on.

The first scientific writings explained that it all began from the collision of 2 atoms at the speed of light and therefore the Hadron Collider was built to recreate the scenario of the beginning.

The truth is no one truly knows what happened prior to the big bang expansion after t=0,
Asking what happens before that is tricky as its prior to time and therefore akin to asking what is north of north.

Meanwhile the LHC was designed to test multiple avenues of particle physics, notably the search at the time for the Higgs boson all the way to various groups of new particles that are predicted within supersymmetry.

Unfortunately for them, the results were insufficient

Yes, the discovery of the Higgs boson was certainly insufficient...……. tut tut tut.

yet they still claim that the universe began from a massive explosion

No one says this other than possibly apologist philosophers who know no better.

If the Hadron Collider was wrong, then the theory as a whole should be wrong too.

Apart from the fact that it did its job, but that is easy to have missed.
After all, it's not like it made virtually every single media outlet to huge acclaim.

Allah explains that the composition of space's dark void was only composed of smoke and is derived to be purely Hydrogen and Helium

Give him a nudge and tell him he was wrong, missed out lithium and it was not smoke.

and truthfully I don't know

You should have started with this, or ended every paragraph with this.

the only explanation I could give for the time being is Allah.

And there we have it, an argument from ignorance.

the big bang is just a cluster of random events that do not correspond with one another to produce a common ancestor like the theory of evolution for example

Wrong. it is a model of the acceleration and rapid expansion of matter from a state of extreme high temperatures and density.

Your lack of knowledge is startling.

Nebulae are split into 4 main types... Planetary, Dark, HII (hydrogen 2) & supernova remnants. I shall start with the Planetary nebula.

Cosmologists have split planetary nebulae into subcategories based on the shape of the nebula, but that was a mistake they should've realized.


Diffuse nebulas tend to not be reflective and appear as opaque clouds that actually block light.
Planetary nebula is an astronomical object at the short-lived episode during a star's rapid stellar evolution.
Supernova Remnants occurs when a high-mass star reaches the end of its life.

the rest of the information should be searched by you

Of course, As clearly you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

n the picture attached you see 4 different planetary nebulae as explained by cosmologist, but in reality they are all the same only taken from different angles

You're tired, go back to sleep.

I shall refrain from explaining what cosmologist have deduced about the creation of a planetary nebula and go ahead and explain mine

I'm staggered beyond belief.

There really is no requirement to continue critiquing this dim-witted attempt to explain all and yet going on to expel the sort of drivel that would make even the most reasonably scientifically educated apologist shudder to their cores.

This is what happens when someone has been told rubbish with a vindictive agenda at hand.

1/10 - the one is for the beautiful attached image.

arakish's picture
@ BlindWatchMaker

@ BlindWatchMaker

It seems like you missed a closing blockquote tag somewhere...


TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
oh my, thank you lol

oh my, thank you lol

Asclepius32's picture
First of all:

First of all:
• Allah never mentions Hydrogen nor does he mention Helium anywhere in the Quran or Hadith. The main reference to the creation of the universe in the Quran is in verse 21:30 which says, “Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined and we struck them asunder, and we made from water everything that is alive.” Allah found it more suitable to speak in riddles inspired by Ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian mythology rather than to speak in a literal accurate straightforward way.
• The major elements of the universe is similarly the major elements of the human body, a quick google search would verify that.
• If you discard science and embrace Islamic mythology, expect to find the skeletal remains of gaints. At this moment, there are dwarfs somewhere underground in Siberia digging their way up through iron to begin the “apocalypse”. The sun is a macroscopic stoning tool to kill the devil. And the throne of Allah is right on top of Mecca, so with in modern science’s interpretation, Allah’s throne is everywhere.
لا اله


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.