NEWEST "science" says big bang theory all wrong=Bunk!!

[Steven_R]

So you think some big naked guy is responsible?

It doesn't matter what anybody "thinks". Atheists are the ones who insist on scientific proof from those who believe in God, so let them give us scientific proof of the "Big Bang". If they can't live up to their own standards, how can we take them seriously and how can they claim to have any credibility?

Do you have the mathematical and scientific background to actually examine the evidence and make that determination? If you don't have the knowledge base required to have that conversation then all the physicists can do is say "yeah, we know it happened, trust us" because you simply don't know enough about the subject to have that conversation.

 

[S.J.]

So you think some big naked guy is responsible?

It doesn't matter what anybody "thinks". Atheists are the ones who insist on scientific proof from those who believe in God, so let them give us scientific proof of the "Big Bang". If they can't live up to their own standards, how can we take them seriously and how can they claim to have any credibility?

Do you have the mathematical and scientific background to actually examine the evidence and make that determination? If you don't have the knowledge base required to have that conversation then all the physicists can do is say "yeah, we know it happened, trust us" because you simply don't know enough about the subject to have that conversation.

I had a feeling I would hear that from somebody. That's always the answer one gets when one challenges any of their "theories".

 

[Steven_R]

So challenge it. If you have the ability and background, write papers in the journals and give presentations at conferences. Otherwise, you're just going to have to come to terms with the fact that science is a highly technical field that can't always be dumbed down (for lack of a better term) to laymen's terms.

 

[S.J.]

So challenge it. If you have the ability and background, write papers in the journals and give presentations at conferences. Otherwise, you're just going to have to come to terms with the fact that science is a highly technical field that can't always be dumbed down (for lack of a better term) to laymen's terms.

Yeah, I know how it works. If I can't prove otherwise, I just have to accept whatever you say as fact. Next comes the name calling and personal attacks.

 

[Steven_R]

Crack open any physics journal in the world. Can you understand the material in the journal well enough to have a professional conversation on point with a physicist? If not, maybe, just maybe, you don't have the mathematic and scientific background and knowledge to be able decide just what scientists really do or don't know.

Fortunately, there are many fine resources like libraries and khanacadamy.org and universities so that you can learn so that you can get to the point where you can discuss the technical merits of cosmology with professionals. It'll take years upon years of strenuous study, but it's out there if you really want to go down that road.

Or you can just pretend that you know what scientists do and don't know.

 

[S.J.]

Crack open any physics journal in the world. Can you understand the material in the journal well enough to have a professional conversation on point with a physicist? If not, maybe, just maybe, you don't have the mathematic and scientific background and knowledge to be able decide just what scientists really do or don't know.

Fortunately, there are many fine resources like libraries and khanacadamy.org and universities so that you can learn so that you can get to the point where you can discuss the technical merits of cosmology with professionals. It'll take years upon years of strenuous study, but it's out there if you really want to go down that road.

Or you can just pretend that you know what scientists do and don't know.

I know they don't know enough to generate life from non-living elements, like they claim happened. Reproduce it in a lab and get back to me, ok?

 

[Steven_R]

Which has nothing to do with cosmology.

 

[S.J.]

Which has nothing to do with cosmology.

Ok.

 

[Derideo_Te]

NEWEST "science" says big bang theory all wrong=Bunk!!

Big Bang scientists extrapolate a hypothetical scenario from a few facts. Yes, some galaxies are expanding, moving further away, but this is not the case with the entire universe. There are galaxies in the universe running perpendicular to the rest of the galaxies. That’s contrary to Big Bang. If Big Bang really occurred, there should be a uniform distribution of gasses.

This uniform distribution of the gasses would have made sure that the gasses would not have coalesced, due to gravitational attraction, into planets and stars. The hypothesis of dark matter providing enough gravitational force has been recently discredited.

“The (galactic) structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM (Cold Dark Matter) did exist, it could not account for their formation” (Dr. Duane T. Gish, “The Big Bang Theory Collapses”). Furthermore, an explosion cannot explain the precise orbits and courses of thousands of billions of stars in thousands of billions of galaxies.
THE BIG BANG THEORY IS WRONG | Weekly World News

The author has a discredited creationist agenda!

Read the author’s recent collage of creationist evidences: The Science Supporting Creation

 

[Steven_R]

Which has nothing to do with cosmology.

Ok.

You: The physics of the Big Bang don't work.
Me: You don't know enough physics to make that judgment.
You: But biochemistry!

 

[S.J.]

Which has nothing to do with cosmology.

Ok.

You: The physics of the Big Bang don't work.
Me: You don't know enough physics to make that judgment.
You: But biochemistry!

The people who push the big bang theory are the same ones who claim life originated from non-living organisms. My point is that you can't prove ANY of your claims. I don't have to be a scientist to understand that the scientific community cannot explain either the origins of the universe OR the origins of life. They claim that everything started with the "big bang". That was my point, but of course, since you have no proof of any kind you focus on technicalities and word definitions instead of the overall claims you make.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I thought religious people liked the big bang theory, being it gave a moment of creation.

Oh wait, I guess the extreme kooks still demand a 6,000 year old universe.

GOD SPOKE THE UNIVERSE INTO BEING AND IT WAS GOOD(PERFECT) WHAT EXPLOSION RESULTS IN ANYTHING PERFECT????? TRY TO THINK!!! 2For by it(FAITH) the men of old gained approval. 3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. Hebrews 11:3

Who was your God speaking to? Since there was no one else he must have been speaking to himself, right? Now if there was a Mrs God around to hear him do you believe that she would have said that he was wrong?

 

[Steven_R]

Ok.

You: The physics of the Big Bang don't work.
Me: You don't know enough physics to make that judgment.
You: But biochemistry!

The people who push the big bang theory are the same ones who claim life originated from non-living organisms. My point is that you can't prove ANY of your claims. I don't have to be a scientist to understand that the scientific community cannot explain either the origins of the universe OR the origins of life. They claim that everything started with the "big bang". That was my point, but of course, since you have no proof of any kind you focus on technicalities and word definitions instead of the overall claims you make.

Do you have enough of a background in biology and/or chemistry to understand on a technical level just why abiogenesis is the prevailing hypothesis?

 

[Nosmo King]

Who ya gonna trust? A Bronze Age philosopher or a 21st century scientist? They used the Genesis myth to hold that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us. They use the myth to hold that mankind was placed on this planet fully formed like potted geranium. They want to impose mythology in science classes.

So I ask again: who ya gonna trust?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Who ya gonna trust? A Bronze Age philosopher or a 21st century scientist? They used the Genesis myth to hold that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us. They use the myth to hold that mankind was placed on this planet fully formed like spotted geranium. They want to impose mythology in science classes.

So I ask again: who ya gonna trust?

Not a matter of trust. If the facts withstand scientific scrutiny then they are facts that must be accepted. Trying to ignore them, pretend that they don't exist, throw up smoke because there are still gaps in our scientific knowledge is the sign of someone who is scared of what they don't understand.

So the question is not who are you going to trust?

Instead the question is are you going to go through life afraid of the unknown or are you willing to explore and find out for yourself what lies beyond the horizons of our knowledge?

 

[Nosmo King]

Who ya gonna trust? A Bronze Age philosopher or a 21st century scientist? They used the Genesis myth to hold that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us. They use the myth to hold that mankind was placed on this planet fully formed like spotted geranium. They want to impose mythology in science classes.

So I ask again: who ya gonna trust?

Not a matter of trust. If the facts withstand scientific scrutiny then they are facts that must be accepted. Trying to ignore them, pretend that they don't exist, throw up smoke because there are still gaps in our scientific knowledge is the sign of someone who is scared of what they don't understand.

So the question is not who are you going to trust?

Instead the question is are you going to go through life afraid of the unknown or are you willing to explore and find out for yourself what lies beyond the horizons of our knowledge?

Enlightenment trumps superstition.

Why were the Dark Ages dark? Superstition ruled. How was that era ended? A Renaissance. A re-birth. And armed with mathematics, physics, biology and astronomy, society progressed into an Age of Enlightenment.

The Bible is a book of great spirituality, beautiful poetry, moral lessons and parables, sex, violence and humor. What the Bible is not is a science textbook.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Who ya gonna trust? A Bronze Age philosopher or a 21st century scientist? They used the Genesis myth to hold that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us. They use the myth to hold that mankind was placed on this planet fully formed like spotted geranium. They want to impose mythology in science classes.

So I ask again: who ya gonna trust?

Not a matter of trust. If the facts withstand scientific scrutiny then they are facts that must be accepted. Trying to ignore them, pretend that they don't exist, throw up smoke because there are still gaps in our scientific knowledge is the sign of someone who is scared of what they don't understand.

So the question is not who are you going to trust?

Instead the question is are you going to go through life afraid of the unknown or are you willing to explore and find out for yourself what lies beyond the horizons of our knowledge?

Enlightenment trumps superstition.

Why were the Dark Ages dark? Superstition ruled. How was that era ended? A Renaissance. A re-birth. And armed with mathematics, physics, biology and astronomy, society progressed into an Age of Enlightenment.

The Bible is a book of great spirituality, beautiful poetry, moral lessons and parables, sex, violence and humor. What the Bible is not is a science textbook.

I agree with your description of the Bible. In and of itself it is just fine. It is only when some choose to use it as a blunt object that problems arise. Would that they read it and took heed instead.

 

[S.J.]

You: The physics of the Big Bang don't work.
Me: You don't know enough physics to make that judgment.
You: But biochemistry!

The people who push the big bang theory are the same ones who claim life originated from non-living organisms. My point is that you can't prove ANY of your claims. I don't have to be a scientist to understand that the scientific community cannot explain either the origins of the universe OR the origins of life. They claim that everything started with the "big bang". That was my point, but of course, since you have no proof of any kind you focus on technicalities and word definitions instead of the overall claims you make.

Do you have enough of a background in biology and/or chemistry to understand on a technical level just why abiogenesis is the prevailing hypothesis?

You can have all the hypotheses you want, when you have some proof, let us know.