>>28
Oh god another idiot.
Firstly if you don't know words like "net", "distribution", "average" etc then go away.
Secondly you're confusing "big bang theory" with theory of stellar and planetary evolution (which for the hard of thinking is nothing to do with the theory of evolution relating to living beings).
Thirdly you show a complete lack of any understanding of any physics.
--If planets were formed by many small collisions, the impacts would be largely self-cancelling, and the planets would not spin
Planets aren't formed by many small collisions, they are formed by many small collisions, gradual accretion, several large to massive collisions etc. This also takes place in a gravitationally chaotic setting, there's forces pulling all over the place, highly unstable orbits, things being pulled and pushed around. Conservation of momentum means that the total momentum will result in a net rotation of a certain direction but the components don't have to be equal and a reverse orbiting planet is not impossible.
-- Gas dissipates rapidly in a vacuum, rendering the formation of gaseous planets like Jupiter and Saturn impossible. (This fact alone renders the theory for the formation of the planets completely invalid)
*headdesk* Gas dissipates because of the motion of the particles, with any reasonable distribution of velocities (uniform, boltzmann, gaussian etc) a gas will expand outwards. Think of being inside a sphere (your cloud of gas) there are more directions heading further from the centre of the sphere than towards it, thus the particles will disperse. When you have a large amount of mass gravity becomes important, skewing the above distributions by applying a force inwards and resulting in the gas coming together. And by your argument the Earth would have no atmosphere and we'd all DIE (the edge of the atmosphere is in contact with a vacuum, would dissipate, the next layer is in contact etc).
--If the big bang theory was true, all the planets in the solar system would have largely similar chemical composition. However, there is enormous diversity among planets.
Initially dust grains would start to form from the heavier elements, these would build up on each other forming asteroids and rocky planetessimals. When these get big enough the more gaseous elements will start to collect aswell (and being a gas with weak inter atomic bonds it takes a greater gravity to hold a large amount in place) resulting in different elemental makeups between certain classes of planets. Then pressure and temperature will affect chemical reactions and states of matter resulting in differing chemical makeups.
-- The big bang cannot explain the formation of 'rings', such as those of Saturn.
Which creationist's arse did you pull that one out of? The rings are gas and small rocks that have the right momentum to remain in orbit without flying off or accreting in.
-- Scientists agree the universe had a beginning, called 'singularity.' The means that there was nothing in the beginning, suggesting that first there was nothing ... then it exploded.
Called "a singularity", a singularity is such named simply for being a point source, they are also found in black holes. A singularity doesn't mean nothing, it means something in an infintessimal space. It also didn't "explode" as such, space itself expanded, that singularity WAS THE UNIVERSE, it wasn't a load of nothing and that. Also science accepts that theories have limits and that current physics breaks down at t=0, but accepting these limits and then trying to work past them is how we learn. There are current theories that offer solutions to things like this (though they are at the very early stages of development and aren't even close to being taken as close to true, merely a possibility) but if you're having problems with planetary evolution there really is no hope for you getting even the most basic fundamentals of M-theory.
-- If solar system formed as the big bang theory suggests, all planets would also rotate in the same direction. Pluto and Venus rotate backwards. Uranus is tipped on its side, and rotates like a wheel.
As I said above, planetary formation was a highly chaotic period, a large planetoid (maybe the size of an Earth or two) hitting Uranus would easily give it a hefty knock. Venus is just one planet and one planet being spun the other way (erratic orbiting planetessimals going nearby pulling on it, impacts coming in the other direction etc) is not a problem, net angular momentum still works out fine. And Pluto doesn't even deserve to come into this, it's a tiny rock and on the energy scales we're talking about the requirement to spin it the other way is low.
-- The big bang theory indicates that all the planets' moons should orbit in the same sense, but there are at least 6 moons with backwards orbits. Also, Neptune, Saturn, and Jupiter have moons orbiting in both directions.
Again with the above arguments about why some things can spin the other way.
-- The big bang theory fails miserably at explaining why the Earth and it's moon have such a dissimilar composition.
Not sure on the current theories on our moon, possibilities though include being formed from Earth at a time when the distribution of chemicals was different to today or that the moon is a passing planetessimal that got caught by the Earth.
--That pretty well mops the floor with the Big Bang theory. Most of the above points are not only unexplained, but *contradicted* by the big bang theory, which could adequately be dubbed "A Fairy Tale for Physicists."
The fact that you're even calling this "Big Bang Theory" and have only one point that's even about the Big Bang itself proves just how retarded you are.