• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

*Cordial* Debate Regarding Creation

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I was doing my daily devotional on Blue Letter Bible (if you are a Christian, this is a great website) and saw a link to a website called "Encouragement for Believers Science Update". This site isn't affiliated with BLB. It was just advertised on it. The article I read was astonishing. However, I do like to vet my sources and am hoping there are some users on this site that are more read in to this subject. The link to the article is provided below. It is a great read, cites many prominent scientists (Hubble, Hawking, etc), and at least seems to disprove the Big Bang Theory. Now, the article does state that their findings do not prove God exists or the creation "theory". However, it does disprove the Big Bang Theory. Please, do not turn this into a "You're going to hell because you don't believe in God!" or "Christians are just archaic idiots that don't believe real science!" threads. That's not the intent. The intent is good, honest debate citing sources and sound judgement. Thanks.
fms-found
 
I'm no physicist, but I usually check references as I read articles, especially if I'm reading extraordinary claims. The latest reference was from 2004 and the last one from a scientific paper was from 1974.

I'm extremely sceptical from my background in reading papers in the biological sciences that there is some genuine shift away from the Big Band Theory towards a new theory of heliocentrictity based on this article and its citations.
 
I was doing my daily devotional on Blue Letter Bible (if you are a Christian, this is a great website) and saw a link to a website called "Encouragement for Believers Science Update". This site isn't affiliated with BLB. It was just advertised on it. The article I read was astonishing. However, I do like to vet my sources and am hoping there are some users on this site that are more read in to this subject. The link to the article is provided below. It is a great read, cites many prominent scientists (Hubble, Hawking, etc), and at least seems to disprove the Big Bang Theory. Now, the article does state that their findings do not prove God exists or the creation "theory". However, it does disprove the Big Bang Theory. Please, do not turn this into a "You're going to hell because you don't believe in God!" or "Christians are just archaic idiots that don't believe real science!" threads. That's not the intent. The intent is good, honest debate citing sources and sound judgement. Thanks.
fms-found

Interesting article.

It never ceases to amaze me that people push the BBT as fact, when it is impossible to have occurred.
 
As a Person with a Science background, I have personally never seen any conflict
between the groups of thought.
Faith, and a belief in an omnipotent God,
do not contradict man's interpretations of observations.
Any difference in the story, such as time, fall within the error margins.
Think about it this way, If a modern Scientist tried to explain a Laser to
person from the new stone age (say 3500 BCE).
I suspect something may be lost in interpretation.
 
Interesting article.

It never ceases to amaze me that people push the BBT as fact, when it is impossible to have occurred.

Prove your assertion, and show your work.
 
I was doing my daily devotional on Blue Letter Bible (if you are a Christian, this is a great website) and saw a link to a website called "Encouragement for Believers Science Update". This site isn't affiliated with BLB. It was just advertised on it. The article I read was astonishing. However, I do like to vet my sources and am hoping there are some users on this site that are more read in to this subject. The link to the article is provided below. It is a great read, cites many prominent scientists (Hubble, Hawking, etc), and at least seems to disprove the Big Bang Theory. Now, the article does state that their findings do not prove God exists or the creation "theory". However, it does disprove the Big Bang Theory. Please, do not turn this into a "You're going to hell because you don't believe in God!" or "Christians are just archaic idiots that don't believe real science!" threads. That's not the intent. The intent is good, honest debate citing sources and sound judgement. Thanks.
fms-found

This is pretty simple, really.

The writer is taking snippets from "big names," removing their context, applying them across totally different hypothesis from different eras, and then just kind of sewing it all together in such a way as to make it appear to confirm what they already wanted to believe in the first place.

This is a really common tactic. It's how Ray 'Banana' Comfort "disproves" evolution, and it's how the quantum woo quacks make so much money.

They are relying on the ignorance of the reader in order to sell their point. The big names alone look impressive to someone who doesn't have any understanding of their ideas, or lacks any knowledge about the history of modern science.
 
Last edited:

Remember the last time we talked, and I told you NOT just to post links when I ask you questions? For Ion's sake, can you just answer me straight up instead of showering my with links to rather unimaginatively designed websites?

I mean seriously, the first paragraph actually says this: " First of all and most importantly, it contradicts the Bible which is absolute Truth."

What nonsense. He goes on to offer no proof as to why the Bible's "Absolute Truth" is superior, instead goes on to create positions for himself to knock down.

Seriously, I don't mind even if you Copy and Paste.
 
Remember the last time we talked, and I told you NOT just to post links when I ask you questions? For Ion's sake, can you just answer me straight up instead of showering my with links to rather unimaginatively designed websites?

I mean seriously, the first paragraph actually says this: " First of all and most importantly, it contradicts the Bible which is absolute Truth."

What nonsense. He goes on to offer no proof as to why the Bible's "Absolute Truth" is superior, instead goes on to create positions for himself to knock down.

Seriously, I don't mind even if you Copy and Paste.

The Big Bang Theory Collapses
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.

"Down with the Big Bang;" "The Big Bang Theory Goes Kerplooey;" "The Big Bang Theory Explodes;" "Sorry, Big Bang Theory is a Dud;" "Map Challenges Theory of Universe;" "Astronomers' New Data Jolt Vital Part of Big Bang Theory;" "Quasar Clumps Dim Cosmological Theory." These have been titles of a few of the articles found in newspapers and science journals in the last two or three years, as the Big Bang theory has received one body blow after another. And why not? We know that the universe did not begin with a big bang -- it will end with a big bang, for "but the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (II Peter 3:10 ). Cosmologists have thus miserably failed as to the time, nature, and cause of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory concerning the origin of the universe was spawned about 50 years ago, and soon became the dogma of the evolutionary establishment. It has had many dissenters, however, including the British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, the Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven, and astronomers Geoffrey Burbidge and Halton Arp. According to the Big Bang theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago, all of the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg, or plasma ball, consisting of sub-atomic particles and radiation. Nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got there -- it was just there. For some equally inexplicable reason, the cosmic egg exploded. As the matter and radiation expanded, so the theory says, it cooled sufficiently for elements to form, as protons and electrons combined to form hydrogen of atomic weight one, and neutrons were subsequently captured to form helium of atomic weight four. Most of the gas that formed consisted of hydrogen. These gases, it is then supposed, expanded radially in all directions throughout the universe until they were so highly dispersed that an extremely low vacuum and temperature existed. No oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, sulfur, copper, iron, nickel, uranium, or other elements existed. The universe consisted essentially of hydrogen gas. Then somehow, we are told, the molecules of gas that were racing out at an enormous speed in a radial direction began to collapse in on themselves in local areas by gravitational attraction. The molecules within a space of about six trillion miles diameter collapsed to form each star, a hundred billion stars somehow collected to form each of the estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe, and our own solar system formed about five billion years or so ago from a cloud of dust and gas made up of the exploded remnants of previously existing stars. No satisfactory theory exists to explain any of these events, but cosmologists remained firm in their conviction that all of these marvelous events would eventually yield to credible explanations. But now a cruel fate has befallen the grandest theory of all -- the Big Bang theory.

Based on the Big Bang theory, cosmologists predicted that the distribution of matter throughout the universe would be homogeneous. Thus, based upon the so-called Cosmological Principle, it was postulated that the distribution of galaxies in the universe would be essentially uniform. No matter in which direction one looked, if one looked far enough, one would see the same number of galaxies. There would be no large scale clusters of galaxies or great voids in space. Recent research, however, has revealed massive superclusters of galaxies and vast voids in space. We exist in a very "clumpy" universe.

The present crisis in Big Bang cosmologies began in 1986, when R. Brent Tully, of the University of Hawaii, showed that there were ribbons of superclusters of galaxies 300 million light-years long and 100 million light-years thick, stretching out about a billion light-years, and separated by voids about 300 million light-years across.[1] These structures are much too big for the Big Bang theory to produce. At the speeds at which galaxies are supposed to be moving, it would require 80 billion years to create such a huge complex, but the age of the universe is supposed to be somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years.

In November of 1989, Margaret Geller and John Huchra, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, announced the results of their research. Their map of the sky revealed what they termed the "Great Wall" -- a huge sheet of galaxies 200 million light years across and 700 million light years long.[2] A team of American, British, and Hungarian astronomers, it is reported, discovered even larger structures.[3] They found galaxies clustered into thin bands spaced about 600 millon light years apart. The pattern of these clusters stretched across about one-fourth of the diameter of the universe, or about seven billion light years. This huge shell and void pattern would have required nearly 150 billion years to form, based on their speed of movement, if produced by the standard Big Bang cosmology.

Even more recently (January 3, 1991), Will Saunders and nine fellow astronomers published the results of their all-sky redshift survey of galaxies detected by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite. This survey revealed the existence of a far-greater number of massive superclusters of galaxies than can be accounted for by Big Bang cosmologies.[4]

In an attempt to salvage the Big Bang theory, cosmologists have invented hypotheses to explain the failures of their hypotheses. One of these is the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) theory. According to this theory, 90-99% of the matter in the universe cannot be detected. If CDM existed, it would supply sufficient gravitational pull to create large clusters of galaxies. The structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM did exist, it could not account for their formation. Saunders and co-workers thus state that the CDM model can be ruled out to at least the 97% confidence level. In the same issue of Nature, in which is found the article by Saunders, et al, there appears an article by David Lindley in the "News and Views" section (p. 14) entitled "Cold Dark Matter Makes an Exit." Caltech cosmologist S. George Djorgovski, taking into account the astronomical observations that contradict the CDM theory, states that the demise of the notion of the existence of cold dark matter is inevitable.[5]

Also very recently, the U.S.-European Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT), detecting x-ray emissions, discovered evidence of giant superclusters of quasars on the edge of the universe, supposedly eight to 12 billion light years from the earth.[6] Physicist Paul Steinhardt, of the University of Pennsylvania, states that "This may be the start of the death knell of the cold-dark-matter theory. " Even if this hypothetical matter existed, it still could not explain the existence of these giant clusters of quasars.

If all of this weren't bad enough news for Big Bang cosmologists, results from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) should really make them wish they had gone into some other field. Based on the Big Bang theory, it was predicted that there should exist a background radiation equivalent to a few degrees Kelvin. Sure enough, in 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, radio engineers at Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, discovered a microwave background radiation of 2.7° K. Evolutionary cosmologists were absolutely delighted. This discovery was considered proof of the Big Bang, and Penzias and Wilson were duly awarded Nobel Prizes. It now appears, however, that the background radiation may turn out to be additional evidence against the Big Bang theory, rather than its proof.

Since the Big Bang theory predicted a homogeneous universe with matter evenly distributed throughout the universe (which it most certainly is not, as described above), evolutionary cosmologists expected that the background radiation would be perfectly smooth. That is, no matter in which direction one looked, the background radiation would be the same. Just as predicted, the background radiation was perfectly smooth. Theorists were delighted, smug in the assurance that this background radiation was the leftover whimper of the Big Bang. Now, however, it turns out that the universe is not homogeneous, but is extremely lumpy, with massive superclusters of galaxies and great voids in space. Thus , if the background radiation is left over from the Big Bang, it should not be smooth, but should be more intense in certain directions than in others, indicating inhomogeneities at the very start of the universe, immediately following the initial moments of the Big Bang. Astronomers thus began to search for differences in the background radiations. All measurements showed it to be perfectly smooth. Thus COBE was launched to an orbit 559 miles above the earth, carrying sensitive instruments to measure the background radiation. Alas, preliminary data from COBE announced in January, show absolutely no evidence of inhomogeneity in the background radiation. It is perfectly smooth.[7]

"No energetic processes, even unknown ones, could have occurred that were vigorous enough to either create the large-scale structures astronomers have observed or stop their headlong motion once created. There is simply no way to form these structures in the 20 billion years since the Big Bang."[8]

Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies."[9],[10],[11]

Eventually, all such theories will fail, for "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1 ). "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1 ).

-- References --
R. B. Tully, Astrophysics Journal 303:25-38 (1986).
M. J. Geller and J. P. Huchra, Science 246:897-903 (1990).
E. G. Lerner, Aerospace America, March 1990, pp. 38-43.
Will Saunders, et al, Nature 349:32-38 (1991).
T. H. Maugh, II, Los Angeles Times, San Diego Edition, January 5, 1991, p. A29.
R. Cowen, Science News 139:52 (1991).
Reference 3, p. 41.
Reference 3, p. 42.
Reference 3, p. 43.
A. L. Peratt, The Sciences, January/February 1990, p. 24.
H. C. Arp, G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J. V. Narlikar, and N. C. Wickramasinghe, Nature 346:807-812 (1990).
* At the time of publication, Dr. Duane T. Gish was Vice-President of the Institute for Creation Research.

Cite this article: Gish, D. 1991. The Big Bang Theory Collapses. Acts & Facts. 20 (6).


Related Notes
Home
Home Home Celebrate Recovery is a biblical and balanced program that helps us overcome our hurts, hang-ups, and habits. It is based on the actual words of Jesus rather tha...
EBSCOhost: Rogerian theory: a critique of the effectiveness of pure client-centred the...
ROGERIAN THEORY: A CRITIQUE OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PURE CLIENT-CENTRED THERAPY THEORY AND PRACTICE ABSTRACT Rogers' Client-Centered Therapy (RCCT) included the phenomena `phenomenology' (i.e., multip...
The Big Bang Theory Collapses
 
I mean seriously, the first paragraph actually says this: " First of all and most importantly, it contradicts the Bible which is absolute Truth."

What nonsense. He goes on to offer no proof as to why the Bible's "Absolute Truth" is superior, instead goes on to create positions for himself to knock down.

Seriously, I don't mind even if you Copy and Paste.
The Big Bang Theory Collapses
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.

"Down with the Big Bang;" "The Big Bang Theory Goes Kerplooey;" "The Big Bang Theory Explodes;" "Sorry, Big Bang Theory is a Dud;" "Map Challenges Theory of Universe;" "Astronomers' New Data Jolt Vital Part of Big Bang Theory;" "Quasar Clumps Dim Cosmological Theory." These have been titles of a few of the articles found in newspapers and science journals in the last two or three years, as the Big Bang theory has received one body blow after another. And why not? We know that the universe did not begin with a big bang -- it will end with a big bang, for "but the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (II Peter 3:10 ). Cosmologists have thus miserably failed as to the time, nature, and cause of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory concerning the origin of the universe was spawned about 50 years ago, and soon became the dogma of the evolutionary establishment. It has had many dissenters, however, including the British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, the Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven, and astronomers Geoffrey Burbidge and Halton Arp. According to the Big Bang theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago, all of the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg, or plasma ball, consisting of sub-atomic particles and radiation. Nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got there -- it was just there. For some equally inexplicable reason, the cosmic egg exploded. As the matter and radiation expanded, so the theory says, it cooled sufficiently for elements to form, as protons and electrons combined to form hydrogen of atomic weight one, and neutrons were subsequently captured to form helium of atomic weight four. Most of the gas that formed consisted of hydrogen. These gases, it is then supposed, expanded radially in all directions throughout the universe until they were so highly dispersed that an extremely low vacuum and temperature existed. No oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, sulfur, copper, iron, nickel, uranium, or other elements existed. The universe consisted essentially of hydrogen gas. Then somehow, we are told, the molecules of gas that were racing out at an enormous speed in a radial direction began to collapse in on themselves in local areas by gravitational attraction. The molecules within a space of about six trillion miles diameter collapsed to form each star, a hundred billion stars somehow collected to form each of the estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe, and our own solar system formed about five billion years or so ago from a cloud of dust and gas made up of the exploded remnants of previously existing stars. No satisfactory theory exists to explain any of these events, but cosmologists remained firm in their conviction that all of these marvelous events would eventually yield to credible explanations. But now a cruel fate has befallen the grandest theory of all -- the Big Bang theory.

Based on the Big Bang theory, cosmologists predicted that the distribution of matter throughout the universe would be homogeneous. Thus, based upon the so-called Cosmological Principle, it was postulated that the distribution of galaxies in the universe would be essentially uniform. No matter in which direction one looked, if one looked far enough, one would see the same number of galaxies. There would be no large scale clusters of galaxies or great voids in space. Recent research, however, has revealed massive superclusters of galaxies and vast voids in space. We exist in a very "clumpy" universe.

The present crisis in Big Bang cosmologies began in 1986, when R. Brent Tully, of the University of Hawaii, showed that there were ribbons of superclusters of galaxies 300 million light-years long and 100 million light-years thick, stretching out about a billion light-years, and separated by voids about 300 million light-years across.[1] These structures are much too big for the Big Bang theory to produce. At the speeds at which galaxies are supposed to be moving, it would require 80 billion years to create such a huge complex, but the age of the universe is supposed to be somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years.

In November of 1989, Margaret Geller and John Huchra, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, announced the results of their research. Their map of the sky revealed what they termed the "Great Wall" -- a huge sheet of galaxies 200 million light years across and 700 million light years long.[2] A team of American, British, and Hungarian astronomers, it is reported, discovered even larger structures.[3] They found galaxies clustered into thin bands spaced about 600 millon light years apart. The pattern of these clusters stretched across about one-fourth of the diameter of the universe, or about seven billion light years. This huge shell and void pattern would have required nearly 150 billion years to form, based on their speed of movement, if produced by the standard Big Bang cosmology.

Even more recently (January 3, 1991), Will Saunders and nine fellow astronomers published the results of their all-sky redshift survey of galaxies detected by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite. This survey revealed the existence of a far-greater number of massive superclusters of galaxies than can be accounted for by Big Bang cosmologies.[4]

In an attempt to salvage the Big Bang theory, cosmologists have invented hypotheses to explain the failures of their hypotheses. One of these is the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) theory. According to this theory, 90-99% of the matter in the universe cannot be detected. If CDM existed, it would supply sufficient gravitational pull to create large clusters of galaxies. The structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM did exist, it could not account for their formation. Saunders and co-workers thus state that the CDM model can be ruled out to at least the 97% confidence level. In the same issue of Nature, in which is found the article by Saunders, et al, there appears an article by David Lindley in the "News and Views" section (p. 14) entitled "Cold Dark Matter Makes an Exit." Caltech cosmologist S. George Djorgovski, taking into account the astronomical observations that contradict the CDM theory, states that the demise of the notion of the existence of cold dark matter is inevitable.[5]

Also very recently, the U.S.-European Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT), detecting x-ray emissions, discovered evidence of giant superclusters of quasars on the edge of the universe, supposedly eight to 12 billion light years from the earth.[6] Physicist Paul Steinhardt, of the University of Pennsylvania, states that "This may be the start of the death knell of the cold-dark-matter theory. " Even if this hypothetical matter existed, it still could not explain the existence of these giant clusters of quasars.

If all of this weren't bad enough news for Big Bang cosmologists, results from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) should really make them wish they had gone into some other field. Based on the Big Bang theory, it was predicted that there should exist a background radiation equivalent to a few degrees Kelvin. Sure enough, in 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, radio engineers at Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, discovered a microwave background radiation of 2.7° K. Evolutionary cosmologists were absolutely delighted. This discovery was considered proof of the Big Bang, and Penzias and Wilson were duly awarded Nobel Prizes. It now appears, however, that the background radiation may turn out to be additional evidence against the Big Bang theory, rather than its proof.

Since the Big Bang theory predicted a homogeneous universe with matter evenly distributed throughout the universe (which it most certainly is not, as described above), evolutionary cosmologists expected that the background radiation would be perfectly smooth. That is, no matter in which direction one looked, the background radiation would be the same. Just as predicted, the background radiation was perfectly smooth. Theorists were delighted, smug in the assurance that this background radiation was the leftover whimper of the Big Bang. Now, however, it turns out that the universe is not homogeneous, but is extremely lumpy, with massive superclusters of galaxies and great voids in space. Thus , if the background radiation is left over from the Big Bang, it should not be smooth, but should be more intense in certain directions than in others, indicating inhomogeneities at the very start of the universe, immediately following the initial moments of the Big Bang. Astronomers thus began to search for differences in the background radiations. All measurements showed it to be perfectly smooth. Thus COBE was launched to an orbit 559 miles above the earth, carrying sensitive instruments to measure the background radiation. Alas, preliminary data from COBE announced in January, show absolutely no evidence of inhomogeneity in the background radiation. It is perfectly smooth.[7]

"No energetic processes, even unknown ones, could have occurred that were vigorous enough to either create the large-scale structures astronomers have observed or stop their headlong motion once created. There is simply no way to form these structures in the 20 billion years since the Big Bang."[8]

Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies."[9],[10],[11]

Eventually, all such theories will fail, for "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1 ). "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1 ).

-- References --
R. B. Tully, Astrophysics Journal 303:25-38 (1986).
M. J. Geller and J. P. Huchra, Science 246:897-903 (1990).
E. G. Lerner, Aerospace America, March 1990, pp. 38-43.
Will Saunders, et al, Nature 349:32-38 (1991).
T. H. Maugh, II, Los Angeles Times, San Diego Edition, January 5, 1991, p. A29.
R. Cowen, Science News 139:52 (1991).
Reference 3, p. 41.
Reference 3, p. 42.
Reference 3, p. 43.
A. L. Peratt, The Sciences, January/February 1990, p. 24.
H. C. Arp, G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J. V. Narlikar, and N. C. Wickramasinghe, Nature 346:807-812 (1990).
* At the time of publication, Dr. Duane T. Gish was Vice-President of the Institute for Creation Research.

Cite this article: Gish, D. 1991. The Big Bang Theory Collapses. Acts & Facts. 20 (6).


Related Notes
Home
Home Home Celebrate Recovery is a biblical and balanced program that helps us overcome our hurts, hang-ups, and habits. It is based on the actual words of Jesus rather tha...
EBSCOhost: Rogerian theory: a critique of the effectiveness of pure client-centred the...
ROGERIAN THEORY: A CRITIQUE OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PURE CLIENT-CENTRED THERAPY THEORY AND PRACTICE ABSTRACT Rogers' Client-Centered Therapy (RCCT) included the phenomena `phenomenology' (i.e., multip...




are_you_kidding_me_rage_face_meme_posters-rbbfcab64f3f04cbd81360ed0ecf7659b_jih_8byvr_512.jpg


........
 
So, why have any debate or any science because if something contradicts the bible (cough...flat earth, moon providing it's own light..cough), then it is invalid. The bible is right because the bible says it is right, because it is the word of god because it says it is the word of god.

Well, this will certainly make the scientific method easier. Lets revise those periodic tables, from now on it is just air, earth, fire and water.

Xenu wept
 
The article I read was astonishing. However, I do like to vet my sources and am hoping there are some users on this site that are more read in to this subject. The link to the article is provided below.
Sorry, the article is complete bunk. As SmokeAndMirrors said, it's relying on the author's Christianity to find a predetermined conclusion and on the scientific ignorance of the general population to get away with false claims.

For example: the redshift. We observe the redshift because everything in the universe is moving away from us. Think of an ant on the surface of a balloon. From his perspective, he's standing still and the entirety of the balloon's surface and interior is moving away from him at varying speeds. However that's not because he's at the center, but because he too is moving away from everything else, because the entire balloon is expanding. (If you can visualize that balloon analogy well, it's also the explanation for #5.) Or here's a video.

Or the Gallactic Shells / Quantized Redshift. "Recent redshift surveys of quasars (QSOs) have produced no evidence of quantization in excess of what is expected due to galaxy clustering, [4][5][6][7] and consequently most cosmologists dispute the existence of redshift quantization beyond a minimal trace due to the distribution of galaxies across voids and filaments." Or, that's to say Evidence #2 doesn't even exist.

And by far the dumbest part of the entire article is #3 and #4. You just have to compare and contrast the two.

  • " ... no matter where we point our telescopes, we see the same uniformity in terms of the level of background radiation coming from outer space ... it suggests we are near the center of the universe"
  • " ... they expected to confirm an isotropic CMB just as the cosmological principle has always insisted. Instead, their data showed variations in the CMB revealing a cosmic north and south pole as well as a type of “cosmic equator” ... These observations would not be possible unless we were located in the center of this configuration. From the Biblical perspective, this makes sense and is further evidence of our central location in the universe."

The author is saying in #3 that because the CMB is isotropic, the Bible is correct, and then in #4 he says because the CMB is not isotropic, the Bible is correct.
 
Last edited:
Awww poor baby, the Big Bang is nothing more than fiction.....

No, that was crap. I didn't mean Copy and Paste the entire ****ing thing.

Jesus, now I have to dissect this whole thing.

Simply put, Darwin’s theory is easier to believe and has more immediate gratification. Men would rather believe that they are the gods of their own lives, than admit a responsibility to a higher, unseen being.

What? Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of mankind. That's a different topic.

First of all and most importantly, it contradicts the Bible which is absolute Truth. It would destroy the entire foundation on which Christianity stands- God’s love and personal care for us, despite our sin.

Amount of evidence offered for above claim: 0

econd of all, it is obviously false when compared to logical reason and scientific findings and laws.

Whole lotta' claims, no evidence.

Basically, it’s wrong and its detrimental to society.

Um, how?

The scientific definition of evolution is genetic change over time.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

If God specially created us, how were we created by chance refined by natural selection? Beware of logical fallacies and general misconceptions.

I love how he complains about them and then goes on and uses them in the next several sentences.

Big Bang- in the beginning was, was…? A flaming ball of mass?

A gravitational singularity no larger than a proton.

No wait, what came before that?

Asking what existed before the Big Bang is like asking what is North of the North Pole.

And where did all this energy come from?

All energy resided in that gravitational singularity.

Where did the mass come from?

All mass resided in that gravitational singularity.

Where did time come from?

Time is relative.

Where did the scientific laws come from?

Scientific laws are human interpretations of reality to the best of our knowledge.

Where did this dimension come from?

Define 'dimension.'

Science is the study of natural causes and effects.

"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied."

Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hat made the apple fall? Ahhh, gravitational forces. In the natural world, it is completely impossible for something to cause itself. Any scientists who argues this would be laughed out of science. A conversation might go something like this-

Scientist 1: So, how did you get here?

Scientist 2: Well, that’s obvious, I created myself.

Scientist 1: It’s a well known fact that everything has a beginning and an end, stop being ridiculous, now how did you get here?

Scientist 2: I’m dead serious, I created myself!

Scientist 1: Everyone is born and…

Scientist 2: Listen, scientifically all I know is that I’m here and I don’t remember being born. I must have just always been here…

Scientist 1: HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

The only thing laughable about this is how he sets up the argument so he can answer it, and then acts as if he just scored a major victory in this debate.

Let’s say that matter, energy, time, and scientific law simply created themselves out of nothing. Now, all the mass and energy in the initial flaming mass would have had to have been sufficient for the entire cosmos, according to the conservation laws of matter and energy.

I like how he started out talking about evolution and then somehow connected this to the Big Bang Theory.

You know how much mass would be in the initial ball?

Hence, gravitational singularity.

The big mass would in fact become a black hole and would sit dormant in space forever. The Darwinist would have you believe that the explosion happened before natural law came into existence and then a few years afterward it set in. How scientific is this? Any more scientific than God? Certainly not. Any more logical than God? It is based upon a logical impossibility, since nothing can create itself. God is actually the only rational conclusion.

Wha- what? What makes you think that would mean it become a black hole? Also, what does this have to do with Darwinism?

Let’s say that the previous two strikes were ignored. I’d like for you to conduct an experiment. Take a sheet of paper and shred it. Then toss the shreds in all directions up in the air and run around kicking and stomping on them. After a few seconds of this, check and see if the paper has generated an organized pattern on the floor. Specially look for information, such as distinct words on the floor or perhaps meaningful pictures, such as one representing the Mona Lisa.

Repeat this experiment trillions of times and over the course of 13.7 billion years and tell me what happens.

The guy who wrote this does't even understand what he's talking about, and yet he thinks he has disproved it.
 
No, that was crap. I didn't mean Copy and Paste the entire ****ing thing.

Jesus, now I have to dissect this whole thing.



What? Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of mankind. That's a different topic.



Amount of evidence offered for above claim: 0



Whole lotta' claims, no evidence.



Um, how?



"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."



I love how he complains about them and then goes on and uses them in the next several sentences.



A gravitational singularity no larger than a proton.



Asking what existed before the Big Bang is like asking what is North of the North Pole.



All energy resided in that gravitational singularity.



All mass resided in that gravitational singularity.



Time is relative.



Scientific laws are human interpretations of reality to the best of our knowledge.



Define 'dimension.'



"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied."

Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The only thing laughable about this is how he sets up the argument so he can answer it, and then acts as if he just scored a major victory in this debate.



I like how he started out talking about evolution and then somehow connected this to the Big Bang Theory.



Hence, gravitational singularity.



Wha- what? What makes you think that would mean it become a black hole? Also, what does this have to do with Darwinism?



Repeat this experiment trillions of times and over the course of 13.7 billion years and tell me what happens.

The guy who wrote this does't even understand what he's talking about, and yet he thinks he has disproved it.

Did you actually read the article I quoted? :roll:
 
Alright, here we go again.

. According to the Big Bang theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago,

It's 13.7 billion years ago.

Nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got there -- it was just there.

All matter and energy was in the gravitaional singularity. The intense gravitational pull of such a dense singularity effectively means there is not time before the Big Bang. Like I said before; Asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what is North of the North Pole.

Then somehow, we are told, the molecules of gas that were racing out at an enormous speed in a radial direction began to collapse in on themselves in local areas by gravitational attraction. The molecules within a space of about six trillion miles diameter collapsed to form each star, a hundred billion stars somehow collected to form each of the estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe, and our own solar system formed about five billion years or so ago from a cloud of dust and gas made up of the exploded remnants of previously existing stars. No satisfactory theory exists to explain any of these events, but cosmologists remained firm in their conviction that all of these marvelous events would eventually yield to credible explanations.

Here's the real story: He is correct in stating that originally, only Hydrogen existed. (Although I've heard Helium could've formed also). Well, guess what stars are made of? That's right, hydrogen. What starts as perhaps a few Hydrogen elements clumping together eventually grows larger and larger, until it has immense gravitational pull. In the center of that star, a process known as nuclear fusion occurs. Atoms combine to form heavier elements, such as iron and oxygen. Eventually, the star runs out of hydrogen, and collapses, no longer able to support itself. When that happens, it explodes, sending out all those heavier elements it formed. Over the course of a billion or so years, those elements began to swirl around another star, where they themselves begin to clump together. Long story short, eventually you get planets.

Based on the Big Bang theory, cosmologists predicted that the distribution of matter throughout the universe would be homogeneous. Thus, based upon the so-called Cosmological Principle, it was postulated that the distribution of galaxies in the universe would be essentially uniform. No matter in which direction one looked, if one looked far enough, one would see the same number of galaxies. There would be no large scale clusters of galaxies or great voids in space. Recent research, however, has revealed massive superclusters of galaxies and vast voids in space. We exist in a very "clumpy" universe.
The present crisis in Big Bang cosmologies began in 1986, when R. Brent Tully, of the University of Hawaii, showed that there were ribbons of superclusters of galaxies 300 million light-years long and 100 million light-years thick, stretching out about a billion light-years, and separated by voids about 300 million light-years across.[1] These structures are much too big for the Big Bang theory to produce. At the speeds at which galaxies are supposed to be moving, it would require 80 billion years to create such a huge complex, but the age of the universe is supposed to be somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years.

"Although the universe can seem in-homogeneous at smaller scales, it is statistically homogeneous on scales larger than 250 million light years. The cosmic microwave background is isotropic, that is to say that its intensity is about the same whichever direction we look at."

Australian study backs major assumption of cosmology

Don't respond just yet; I'm not done.
 
Physics, Science, Reality, Facts.

The problem is that most people stating that the BB couldn't have occured because science and physics says differently tend not to really understand the physics and science they are trying to comment on.
 
Time for editing has expired, so here's part two:

n an attempt to salvage the Big Bang theory, cosmologists have invented hypotheses to explain the failures of their hypotheses. One of these is the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) theory. According to this theory, 90-99% of the matter in the universe cannot be detected. If CDM existed, it would supply sufficient gravitational pull to create large clusters of galaxies. The structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM did exist, it could not account for their formation.

Man, look at all that evidence... that doesn't exist.

Thus , if the background radiation is left over from the Big Bang, it should not be smooth, but should be more intense in certain directions than in others, indicating inhomogeneities at the very start of the universe, immediately following the initial moments of the Big Bang.

WMAP_2010.jpg

..............

Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories.

Evolution and The Big Bang Theory are two totally separate fields.

Eventually, all such theories will fail, for "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1 ). "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1 ).

And of course a bible verse, as he can't back up his claims with any real evidence.
 
Back
Top Bottom