|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 343 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined:
|
Hi ringo,
ringo writes: You claimed that the Big Bang was proven false. Message 522Questions do no prove it false. If you are going to quote me get the quote right.
Message 522 ICANT writes:
If inflation does not exist those nine problems do not match what is observed. Which one of the nine problems that proves the BBT is false would satisfy you that the BBT is false? You can find an open letter to the Scientific community at the web site below.An Open Letter to the Scientific Community | Plasma-Universe.com There were 31 scientists that signed the above letter. After it was reproduced at cosmologystatement.org, another 200 scientist and engineers signed the letter as well as 250 independent researchers.You can find the original document at: cosmologystatement.org They point out that if inflation, dark matter and dark energy which has never been observed, does not exist, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the BBT. They state: "the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors." Now if you have any evidence for the existence of inflation, dark matter, and dark energy please share it. Just because they are required for the BB to be a theory does not make any one of them exist. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
They point out that if inflation, dark matter and dark energy which has never been observed, does not exist, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the BBT. They state: "the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors." I can imagine some folks signing this document while still accepting the evidence for the BBT, dark matter, dark energy, and inflation. So what should I make of the number of folks who signed the paper? Exactly what are their opinions? I do recognize some fairly famous names on the list, and no I am not claiming that everyone on the list accepts the same science. But telling me that the list has a couple hundred people on it when most of them are not even cosmologists, and when signing the list means something different for some folks than for others, is not all that persuasive. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 343 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi ringo,
ringo writes: No. It only means that the universe was once smaller than it is now. A series of contractions and expansions would produce the same observations. That would mean the universe was infinite, eternal, if that took place. But is ruled out because it would have already run out of energy without an endless supply of energy.
ringo writes:
But it doesn't agree. The Bible doesn't mention expansion at all. quote: I hear a lot of chatter about stretching and fabric when the universe is being talked about. Stretching out the heavens would look a lot more like the pictures of the proposed universe, than what would be produced by a scaler field (which has never been seen but happened once to produce the universe) would. If the universe started as a hot, dense, ball of energy and the space between each of the quarks and leptons began to expand that would produce a universe that would be a sphere. But if the space between all quarks and leptons expanded exponentially there would have never been any two able to combine and produce anything. Much less there would be no chance of a collision of galaxies as they would not exist. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 343 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined:
|
Hi Astrophile and welcome,
Astrophile writes: First, even if the universe had a beginning, that doesn't necessarily mean that God created it. It could have come from nothing, as Lawrence Krauss says, or it may have come from something in an earlier universe. I don't know if you can understand what non-existence is. But if you can you know that non-existence can not produce existence. If you think so give me your explanation of what would make it possible. Now if the universe came from a big bounce (big crunch of a universe beginning to expand into a new universe). That would make it eternal in existence. Tell me what would be the mechanism that would cause the crunch to compress all that is in the old universe into the small little pea sized universe. Then what would be the mechanism that would cause it to begin to expand. After a few eons there would be no energy left without an external eternal power source.
Astrophile writes: I hope that this attempt at an answer helps you to understand that your question, as you phrased it, over-simplifies a very complex matter, and that there is no simple answer to it. It has a simple answer. Either it had a beginning to exist.OR It has existed infinitely in the past. I can find no other possible solution. Of the two solutions you proposed one is not possible, the other is a infinite universe. Care to try again? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
No. It only means that the universe was once smaller than it is now. A series of contractions and expansions would produce the same observations. That would mean the universe was infinite, eternal, if that took place. But is ruled out because it would have already run out of energy without an endless supply of energy. This exchange shows exactly why you should stick to being wrong about how to diagram a sentence, and why you should leave science to the serious scientists and to the amateurs who at least make try to read up on the matter. If the universe has expanded from a smaller size, why would that make the universe eternal or infinite? Ringo's statement says nothing about the initial state of the universe at all, nor does it say anything about infinite expansion or the state of the universe today beyond it being bigger than at some other time.
But is ruled out because it would have already run out of energy without an endless supply of energy. Can I see those computations, ICANT? At least this time your statement is wrong. That's an improvement over past answers you've given that would cause a poor teaching assistant set your paper on fire. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
I did. I copied and pasted it directly from your post.
If you are going to quote me get the quote right. ICANT writes:
A shortage of evidence is not "proof" that the Big Bang is false. Now if you have any evidence for the existence of inflation, dark matter, and dark energy please share it.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
quote:Spreading doesn't mean expansion. When you spread butter you have the same volume. Only the shape changes. quote:Same as above. Curtains don't expand. quote:Here you have the earth spreading. Science does not claim that the earth is expanding. An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18706 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
If at one point in time,even at the beginning of known time there was a singularity, that singularity would have the exact same weight and mass as the universe does now.
Belief is simply that God created the singularity rather than how it necessarily came to be. The BB theory may simply be a matter of observing Gods creation. It makes more sense to ask "What came first? God or dirt" rather than to speculate that dirt has eternally existed. Critics say that one major reason that many people prefer the eternal dirt hypothesis is that dirt (matter) does not hold one accountable.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 154 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: Critics say that one major reason that many people prefer the eternal dirt hypothesis is that dirt (matter) does not hold one accountable. No, conmen say that. The reality is that there is evidence that dirt does exist.
Phat writes: If at one point in time,even at the beginning of known time there was a singularity, that singularity would have the exact same weight and mass as the universe does now. And the evidence to support that statement is...?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18706 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Because the singularity contains everything that is now out there...according to theory. Why would the mass change?
Or perhaps I am confusing mass with weight or volume. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 154 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: Because the singularity contains everything that is now out there...according to theory. The singularity is not a thing, it is the point where all our understanding breaks down. It's equally likely that it had no mass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1340 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
There appear to be only two possibilities: that the age of the universe is infinite, i.e. that the universe is eternal; or that the age of the universe is finite. The fact that the Bible picked the correct one doesn't prove that it was inspired by a god, any more than predicting that a die will give a number between 1 and 3 and then getting the number 2 proves that one is supernaturally inspired. In fairness to ICANT, I don't think the universe having a beginning was supposed to prove that God exists. He was working through verse by verse to show that none of them were false. But we got stuck on verse 1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1340 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
It has a simple answer. Either it had a beginning to exist.OR It has existed infinitely in the past. Both those explanations are prima facie absurd. The universe is everything - there can not be anything before it or outside it that caused it to exist. Equally, it couldn't have come to exist from nothing; since nothing could have caused it to begin. Equally, the universe cannot have always been here, since how then could we have got to here? An infinite amount of time would have to have passed to reach this point, and no matter how long time has been going for it cannot have reached the point of infinity. If those of the only two explanations, then clearly no simple answer exists. Whatever the answer is it's necessarily something which does not make sense in terms of the simple everyday concepts you're using.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 343 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi ringo,
ringo writes: Here you have the earth spreading. Science does not claim that the earth is expanding. Are you sure the earth did not expand from a small nucleus to what it is today. According to science the Milky Way is not expanding. Although it had to at one time. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 343 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi ringo,
ringo writes: A shortage of evidence is not "proof" that the Big Bang is false. A lack of those three things means the BB did not take place as has been presented here. Why do you think cavediver made the statement that a new theory was needed. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025