preaching Evolutionism, The Big Bang theory dismantled False!!

[InfiniteBeauty]

Rebuttal to "Ten Problems Against the Big Bang"1
by Rich Deem
#
Claim
Truth

1.
Static-universe models fit the data better than expanding-universe models
This statement is blatantly false. The static universe model is accepted by virtually no cosmologists or astronomers, since it fails to correctly predict what the universe should be like. In particular, it would predict that galaxies would be in all stages of development – forming, young, middle age, and old. However, the universe contains only middle-age galaxies. There are no old galaxies, and the only young galaxies we see are those that are 10-13 billion light years away –at a time that was only 0.5 billion years after the Big Bang event.

2.
The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
Another false statement. The variation in background radiation is independent of stars or galaxy clusters within our universe. It is extremely even – something one would predict from an expansion that began 14 billion years ago. The variation in background radiation is only 0.00001°K – the exact amount predicted by the Hot Big Bang model. This variation represents the large-scale structure of the universe only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.

3.
Element-abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
The overall prediction of element abundance is exactly what would be expected from the Big Bang. Immediately after the quarks and antiquarks combine to annihilate each other, atomic nuclei form (hydrogen) and for 3 minutes, the fireball remained hot enough to support nuclear fusion, which formed the 25% helium that we see in the stars today. In local areas, the abundance of elements is different from that predicted from the Big Bang. It is precisely because God has provided a way for heavier elements to form that we are alive today. The Sun and our Solar System formed late in the history of the universe, and so contain the remnants of heavy elements formed during multiple supernova events within our galaxy.

4.
The universe has too much large-scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
The amount of matter – both baryonic and dark matter – is sufficient to account for the large-scale structure of the universe.

5.
The average luminosity of quasar must decrease in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
Since quasars have a very short lifespan (a few billion years at most), they would all have the same apparent brightness because they would be all roughly the same age. All quasars have large redshift values, since they were all formed over 5 billion years ago.

6.
The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
This appeared to be true a few years ago. However, recent measurements have indicated that the Hubble constant is smaller than originally thought (making the universe older) and the ages of globular clusters younger than previously thought. The results of these studies are shown in the table below from a study published in Science.

7.
The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
The motions of the galaxies are exactly what are predicted from the Big Bang. The farther galaxies are receding at a higher rate than those that are nearer. The relationship is extremely linear (very little deviation).

8.
Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
At least four different scientific techniques have confirmed the presence of large amounts of cold dark matter in the universe. For a detailed description of these studies, see Dr. Ross’ book, The Creator and the Cosmos.

9.
The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
Recent pictures from the Hubble Deep Field have revealed galaxies when they were forming – over 14 billion years ago. The light that is reaching us now is 14 billion years old, and, as such, shows no evidence of evolution, since we are looking back in time, and can see even before true galaxies were formed. Quasars are formed when two galaxies collide and their combined gases ignite at the center of one of the galaxies. Since galaxy collisions were much more common at the beginning of the universe, most quasars were formed then. Since they burn so intensely, they do not burn for long. When we look at the universe we see quasars only at distances equivalent to less than 50% of the age of the universe, back to about 10% of the age of the universe. We don’t see quasars older than 50% of the age of the universe, because after that time, they ceased to exist (we only see them now because of the time it took the light to reach us). Likewise, we don’t see quasars earlier than 10% of the current age of the universe, because galaxies had not completely formed before that time. Therefore, we would expect to see protogalaxies and newly formed galaxies with redshifts greater than those of quasars. The result is not inconsistent with Big Bang cosmology, but is, in fact, predicted by it.

10.
If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just one part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.
This is true, and a subject of concern for atheists. The extreme fine-tuning of the laws of physics and the exact size of the universe is such that it is virtually impossible for the universe to have formed by chance. Rather than disprove the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of the universe strongly suggests a level of design not possible by chance. Many atheists reject the Big Bang because the level of design suggests the intervention of a Divine Creator.

 

[del]

have you considered philately?

 

[rayboyusmc]

God thought up evolution. Figured it would become a good point of contention between certain human groups. Funny sense of humor.

Scientists only discovered it and religoulous folks just deny it.

 

[KittenKoder]

God thought up evolution. Figured it would become a good point of contention between certain human groups. Funny sense of humor.

Scientists only discovered it and religoulous folks just deny it.

The best answer I have heard in response. The fact is, none of this goes against any religious ideals, it just adds some detail and flavor. So why fight against something that isn't even against your beliefs is beyond me.

As for the original post, whoever came up with that garbage is a complete moron. We already know that the star positions are NOT static, we know they are spreading a little bit, and this is where the whole theory of the "big bang" came from. But even then scientists still say it's a "theory". As for evolution, that's fact, just because you don't want to admit we have the same biological links as other animals doesn't make it false. Virus' evolve the fastest and we see it most commonly in the Flu, so we KNOW evolution is fact and can only be taught as such. As for which animal we evolved from or if there was some strange mutation that created us, who knows for certain, most scientists don't know for certain yet and they still don't claim it as fact yet. But regardless, why not obey your religious laws and stop pretending to know how your god did it, just leave science alone. If you are right it will make a great basis to judge believers and non-believers in your gods eyes anyway, otherwise you will most likely have a lot of us non-believers in your heaven anyway.

 

[Abelian Sea]

That's a confusing thread title and dense post. Let me see if I've got the gist of it:

The Big Bang theory is true (and this suggests a Designer).

Right?


Oh, and you must link to your source when you post an article like this.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, if you get a chance, you ought to watch The Universe on Tuesdays on the History Channel, as there are lots of things being discovered daily in the fields of astronomy.

Personally, I think God uses evolution as a way to further creation, as well as to weed out the undesirable things (extinction anyone?). However, it is also my belief that whoever tells you that God works in mysterious ways, well.....that's only because they don't understand the science involved (yet). Need a good example? If you were to take a laser pointer (you know, the one for 5 bucks), back in time to say....1970, not only would all sorts of people want to know how you got something like that, but you'd also have the military and government breathing down your neck. Want to go back even farther? Try taking a Bic lighter back to the time of the Salem witch trials.

If you would have used either of those items, you would be considered to be in possession of devilish magic, but today, we take it as a matter of course that those things are in our lives.

Besides, God has a sense of humor too, and likes to mess with our minds.

Ever hear of the platypus?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

There are no facts, science, logic, or even common sense that supports "GOD."

God is faith .. a belief in something you do not know to be true.

The "designers" are simply trying to find any science that supports their belief in the ridiculous.

 

[auditor0007]

There are no facts, science, logic, or even common sense that supports "GOD."

God is faith .. a belief in something you do not know to be true.

The "designers" are simply trying to find any science that supports their belief in the ridiculous.

What is so ridiculous in believing someone or something had a hand in our creation? Is it ridiculous to believe that we might have a greater purpose than just our existence here on Earth?

There is a possibility that our being here is just a coincidence and everything happened by chance. However, I have seen and experienced things in my life that suggest otherwise. Therefore, I will stick with my beliefs.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

What is so ridiculous in believing someone or something had a hand in our creation? Is it ridiculous to believe that we might have a greater purpose than just our existence here on Earth?

There is a possibility that our being here is just a coincidence and everything happened by chance. However, I have seen and experienced things in my life that suggest otherwise. Therefore, I will stick with my beliefs.

By all means stick to your beliefs. There is nothing in what I said that requests or suggests that you do otherwise .. but truth and science are not changed or determined by belief.

I'm betting you don't believe in Santa Claus, but that's more believeable than a belief than some human-like figure who gets angry and jealous, created humans who have only existed for a minute in time.

Most people I encounter who express an undying love of God and the bible don't even know it's history. Often, don't even know what's in it. I beat up christians with the bible all the time .. because they don't know what's in it, don't have a clue of it's history.

My favorite targets are religious homophobes who declare God doesn't like homosexuals. I've even got to bash one who was holding a King James bible while he was trying to lecture some high school students about the evil of being gay. .. Sweet.

My point is, believe whatever you want to believe .. but religion is philosophy, not science .. and ne'er the two shall meet.

 

[auditor0007]

By all means stick to your beliefs. There is nothing in what I said that requests or suggests that you do otherwise .. but truth and science are not changed or determined by belief.

I'm betting you don't believe in Santa Claus, but that's more believeable than a belief than some human-like figure who gets angry and jealous, created humans who have only existed for a minute in time.

Most people I encounter who express an undying love of God and the bible don't even know it's history. Often, don't even know what's in it. I beat up christians with the bible all the time .. because they don't know what's in it, don't have a clue of it's history.

My favorite targets are religious homophobes who declare God doesn't like homosexuals. I've even got to bash one who was holding a King James bible while he was trying to lecture some high school students about the evil of being gay. .. Sweet.

My point is, believe whatever you want to believe .. but religion is philosophy, not science .. and ne'er the two shall meet.

You are trying to win a point by using the Bible against me. Unfortunately, I don't take the Bible word for word. For those who choose to do so, they have that right, but in the end, I think they are missing the point. I am also not a religious homophobe. The main tenets of all religions are love and respect of others. That overrules any contradictions that may have come about over years of interpretation by men who had their own agenda in the writing and interpretations of the texts and stories that were later written. As for homosexual relationships, they are wrong if they are unnatural. That only makes sense. However, if someone is born gay, then being homosexual is not unnatural, so how can their act be considered a sin? At the same time, for someone who is born as a heterosexual, a homosexual act would be unnatural and may well be a sin. I guess I don't fit the stereotype for the religious zealot.

You state that science and religion cannot be reconciled. Why is that? Is it not possible that while God created the universe, it was done through natural evolution? Are we so naive to believe that a greater being may not exist that could be responsible for all that we know?

I do not deny evolution or science. But I do believe it is all a part of some form of design. I also have had enough experiences to realize that science cannot explain everything.

Have you ever had an out of body experience? If you ever do, it is one of the things that will make you question everything you may believe. Have you ever had contact from the deceased? If you ever do, again, it will make you question everything you have ever believed.

I may be wrong; I admit that. Maybe when we die, that is it. If it is, we will never know the difference. However, I have more evidence that science cannot explain everything than I do that it can. That in itself is proof to me that there is more to our existence than just a chance happening. And for our existence to be more than just a chance happening, someone or something had to play a role in our being.

 

[Shogun]

You state that science and religion cannot be reconciled. Why is that?


One relies on faith alone and the other relies on evidence. You can go ahead and come to a point where you HAVE to fit evolution into your schema, much like your predecessors had to do with heliocentrism, but it's not science that gets clarification from dogma. Indeed, it's the exact opposite.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

You are trying to win a point by using the Bible against me. Unfortunately, I don't take the Bible word for word. For those who choose to do so, they have that right, but in the end, I think they are missing the point. I am also not a religious homophobe. The main tenets of all religions are love and respect of others. That overrules any contradictions that may have come about over years of interpretation by men who had their own agenda in the writing and interpretations of the texts and stories that were later written. As for homosexual relationships, they are wrong if they are unnatural. That only makes sense. However, if someone is born gay, then being homosexual is not unnatural, so how can their act be considered a sin? At the same time, for someone who is born as a heterosexual, a homosexual act would be unnatural and may well be a sin. I guess I don't fit the stereotype for the religious zealot.

You state that science and religion cannot be reconciled. Why is that? Is it not possible that while God created the universe, it was done through natural evolution? Are we so naive to believe that a greater being may not exist that could be responsible for all that we know?

I do not deny evolution or science. But I do believe it is all a part of some form of design. I also have had enough experiences to realize that science cannot explain everything.

Have you ever had an out of body experience? If you ever do, it is one of the things that will make you question everything you may believe. Have you ever had contact from the deceased? If you ever do, again, it will make you question everything you have ever believed.

I may be wrong; I admit that. Maybe when we die, that is it. If it is, we will never know the difference. However, I have more evidence that science cannot explain everything than I do that it can. That in itself is proof to me that there is more to our existence than just a chance happening. And for our existence to be more than just a chance happening, someone or something had to play a role in our being.

Don't get it twisted .. I'm not trying to win a point, nor am I against you. I'm simply offering my perspective.

March 19, 2007 my dog woke my wife and daughter up early in the morning and when they got up to find out what's wrong they found me on the kitchen floor essentially dead. No heartbeat, not breathing. I'd had a stroke and a hemorragic seizure. Spent 4 weeks in the hospital but I didn't regain conciousness for 4 days. On the 5th morning, I just woke up.

I imagine dead is about as "out of body" as you can get. All I remember is a horrifying dream. It seemed as if I was in Hell .. running from sub-human things. I think it's what woke me up. One might interpret that dream in many ways, including that I escaped from Hell. But, I don't believe in Hell, and I realize that most likely, it was the drugs they were pumping into me.

I also realize that one day I will be dead again. It is the natural cycle of life .. but I believe in oneness .. thus when I die .. again .. I'll just return from whince I came, Nature. They could leave my body in an open field and let Nature take its course.

I see Nature where you may see God. The difference is there are no divisions in Nature, and its bible is science.

I respect what you believe .. I only toy with pushy and bigoted christians.

 

[ABikerSailor]

By all means stick to your beliefs. There is nothing in what I said that requests or suggests that you do otherwise .. but truth and science are not changed or determined by belief.

I'm betting you don't believe in Santa Claus, but that's more believeable than a belief than some human-like figure who gets angry and jealous, created humans who have only existed for a minute in time.

Most people I encounter who express an undying love of God and the bible don't even know it's history. Often, don't even know what's in it. I beat up christians with the bible all the time .. because they don't know what's in it, don't have a clue of it's history.

My favorite targets are religious homophobes who declare God doesn't like homosexuals. I've even got to bash one who was holding a King James bible while he was trying to lecture some high school students about the evil of being gay. .. Sweet.

My point is, believe whatever you want to believe .. but religion is philosophy, not science .. and ne'er the two shall meet.

Truth and science aren't determined by belief? You've gotta be kidding......if you expect to find something while exploring theories, you're believing that you'll find it. If you believe that there is nothing there, you won't even bother to look.

Actually, God isn't jealous, that is something that got messed up in the translation. Ya wanna know the REAL jealous one, it's the SaTan. Study the Torah sometime dude.....ya may learn something. And.....by the way, as we measure time, out at the edge, it's been 15,000,000 years, but, at the center of the Universe, where the Big Bang is said to have happened, by measuring the time dilations, it was only 7 days ago.

You say that you know what is in the Bible? Well....ya should also remember that the first 5 books are the Torah, and, they were written in Hebrew. Not only that, but the lessons are very interesting, as well as current. Look into the Torah codes, as well as the WebBot crawlers.

No.....God doesn't hate homosexuals. We were told to love one another, and gender wasn't specified. We were just told not to have anal sex, because it's dangerous (lots of diseases hang out there), and, because we didn't have condoms then, as well as the fact that the human race was just starting, doesn't it make sense to tell your people not to do something because it will kill you?

As far as your assertion that science and theology don't meet? Might wanna check with Einstein on that one......he said "Science without Theology is blind, and Theology without Science is crippled". Besides, it sounds more logical to me that we use science as a way to light the path of theology, because those who say that God works in mysterious ways, simply doesn't understand the science involved when He does things. Good marker for that one is E=MC2.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Truth and science aren't determined by belief? You've gotta be kidding......if you expect to find something while exploring theories, you're believing that you'll find it. If you believe that there is nothing there, you won't even bother to look.

Actually, God isn't jealous, that is something that got messed up in the translation. Ya wanna know the REAL jealous one, it's the SaTan. Study the Torah sometime dude.....ya may learn something. And.....by the way, as we measure time, out at the edge, it's been 15,000,000 years, but, at the center of the Universe, where the Big Bang is said to have happened, by measuring the time dilations, it was only 7 days ago.

You say that you know what is in the Bible? Well....ya should also remember that the first 5 books are the Torah, and, they were written in Hebrew. Not only that, but the lessons are very interesting, as well as current. Look into the Torah codes, as well as the WebBot crawlers.

No.....God doesn't hate homosexuals. We were told to love one another, and gender wasn't specified. We were just told not to have anal sex, because it's dangerous (lots of diseases hang out there), and, because we didn't have condoms then, as well as the fact that the human race was just starting, doesn't it make sense to tell your people not to do something because it will kill you?

As far as your assertion that science and theology don't meet? Might wanna check with Einstein on that one......he said "Science without Theology is blind, and Theology without Science is crippled". Besides, it sounds more logical to me that we use science as a way to light the path of theology, because those who say that God works in mysterious ways, simply doesn't understand the science involved when He does things. Good marker for that one is E=MC2.

Sorry .. I'm not even slightly interested in reading the Torah.

Belief does not determine truth, nor does it cause one to seek truth. Most people believe what their parents believed, not because they sought truth, but because they put it on like an old pair of shoes. Are you of the same faith your parents are/were?

I'm not christian, yet I studied christian history because I sought truth, not validation. You can believe whatever you want, but if facts don't support it, it isn't truth.

I'm not too sure I'd be quoting Einstein to support the concept of religion if I were you ..

About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.

The "God" he's speaking of is Nature (Natural Law).

The sense of the religious, which is released through the experience of potentially nearing a logical grasp of these deep-lying world relations, is … a feeling of awe and reverence for the manifest Reason which appears in reality. It does not lead to the assumption of a divine personality—a person who makes demands of us and takes an interest in our individual being. In this there is no Will, nor Aim, nor an Ought, but only Being.

You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man.

" .. the naive man" .. the religion he spoke of was not the religion of doctrine.

For the latter (naive man) God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.

But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.

As long as you pray to God and ask him for some benefit, you are not a religious man.

Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.

Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while most people readily agree on what is meant by "science," they are likely to differ on the meaning of "religion."

As to science, we may well define it for our purpose as "methodical thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our sensual experiences." Science, in the immediate, produces knowledge and, indirectly, means of action. It leads to methodical action if definite goals are set up in advance. For the function of setting up goals and passing statements of value transcends its domain. While it is true that science, to the extent of its grasp of causative connections, may reach important conclusions as to the compatibility and incompatibility of goals and evaluations, the independent and fundamental definitions regarding goals and values remain beyond science's reach.


As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that it deals with goals andevaluations and, in general, with the emotional foundation of human thinking and acting, as far as these are not predetermined by the inalterable hereditary disposition of the human species. Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship. These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of the accepted ideals.

It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science. Thus, it is of vital importance for the preservation of true religion that such conflicts be avoided when they arise from subjects which, in fact, are not really essential for the pursuance of the religious aims.

I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.

Everything boldened are the words of Einstein.

Einstein often spoke of God .. but the God he envisioned was not the God of imagination. In fact, it was my early readings of Einstein and Krishnamurti that brought me to the understand of Oneness, the God of Nature, and the rejection of doctrine. It's why I still quote him to this day.

There is no mystery .. religion is not science, and there are few things more clear.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know dude.......this quote right here:

Sorry .. I'm not even slightly interested in reading the Torah.

Coupled with this previous one.........

Most people I encounter who express an undying love of God and the bible don't even know it's history. Often, don't even know what's in it. I beat up christians with the bible all the time .. because they don't know what's in it, don't have a clue of it's history.

As well as the fact that you say I shouldn't be quoting Einstein, well......

That not only makes you an idiot, but a liar as well, because if you don't understand what is in the Torah, as well as the Hebrew understanding of the OT, then what the fuck makes you think that you're qualified to speak out about the Bible?

You're just a close minded idiot who is happy in the folly of their own beliefs, flawed as they may be.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

You know dude.......this quote right here:

Coupled with this previous one.........

As well as the fact that you say I shouldn't be quoting Einstein, well......

That not only makes you an idiot, but a liar as well, because if you don't understand what is in the Torah, as well as the Hebrew understanding of the OT, then what the fuck makes you think that you're qualified to speak out about the Bible?

You're just a close minded idiot who is happy in the folly of their own beliefs, flawed as they may be.

Your use of words like "idiot" and "liar" validates why religion is bullshit.

I've voiced my perspective respectfully without denigrating you or anyone else .. yet here you are .. the so-called religious, spouting off like a schoolgirl.

Where in the fuck did I claim to read, know, or want to know the fucking Torah? I said I studied the bible, not the fucking Torah.

I don't need to study Hebrew anything to know the concept of God is based purely on faith, not fact, not science, not common fucking sense.

As far as your use of Einstein to support religion .. his own words validate you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

You are typical of religious bozos when they get smacked with reality.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Your use of words like "idiot" and "liar" validates why religion is bullshit.

I've voiced my perspective respectfully without denigrating you or anyone else .. yet here you are .. the so-called religious, spouting off like a schoolgirl.

Where in the fuck did I claim to read, know, or want to know the fucking Torah? I said I studied the bible, not the fucking Torah.

I don't need to study Hebrew anything to know the concept of God is based purely on faith, not fact, not science, not common fucking sense.

As far as your use of Einstein to support religion .. his own words validate you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

You are typical of religious bozos when they get smacked with reality.

Listen you lobotomized moron, you DO realize that the Torah is the beginning of the Bible, right? And......if you don't understand the first part of the book, you've got absolutely zero chance of interpreting the following parts correctly. For someone who claims to be so knowledgeable, you sure are acting like a person getting a lobotomy in installments.

Not only that, you're not just stupid, but blind as well. Einstein DID believe in an aspect or two of God. WTF do you think he came up with E=MC2?

As far as smacking anyone? Kinda looks like you're the one getting bitch slapped.

I bet you're a whiny assed pussy in real life too, ain't 'cha?

 

[Andrew2382]

Isn't the Torah the first 5 books of the old testament?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Isn't the Torah the first 5 books of the old testament?

Uhhhh.......yeah. Black Ass Tool doesn't know that apparently.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Listen you lobotomized moron, you DO realize that the Torah is the beginning of the Bible, right? And......if you don't understand the first part of the book, you've got absolutely zero chance of interpreting the following parts correctly. For someone who claims to be so knowledgeable, you sure are acting like a person getting a lobotomy in installments.

Not only that, you're not just stupid, but blind as well. Einstein DID believe in an aspect or two of God. WTF do you think he came up with E=MC2?

As far as smacking anyone? Kinda looks like you're the one getting bitch slapped.

I bet you're a whiny assed pussy in real life too, ain't 'cha?

Hey, if you're ever in Atlanta .. stop by and see if I'm a "whiny ass pussy"

I welcome it.

I just love playing with really dumb motherfuckers like you. Einstein did not believe in the bullshit personal God of imagination that you do. You are the "naive man" he was talking about.

“I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist [one who believes the existing universe is God; or one who believes in the worship of all gods]”.

Throughout his life, Einstein was constantly asked if he was an atheist .. because he did not believe in the God you claim he did .. you stupid fuck.

"WTF do you think he came up with E=MC2?"

Goddamn you're stupid ...

"How EINSTEIN Arrived at E=MC2"

Most people think Einstein was a genius. Even though he did poorly in school, it is generally assumed that Einstein became a genius later on. It's also widely believed that he used superior intellect and complex mathematical reasoning to finally arrive at E=MC2.

The truth about Einstein is altogether different. Even though he was pretty smart, his accomplishments didn't come from a wildly superior intellect. He didn't arrive at his famous equation by complex mathematical reasoning. In fact, he didn't use mathematical or scientific reasoning at all!

If Einstein didn't arrive at E=MC2 by mathematical or scientific reasoning, how did he get there? The answer is very simple...

He made it up!

That's right. He took a wild stab. He guessed. He made it all up! Without any proof, evidence, or scientific reasoning, he just woke up one day and said "It's got to be so." Then, in 1905, he published his "discovery" in a three-paged article in an obscure scientific journal and...well, the rest is history.

Here's what really happened.

Einstein wasn't as big a genius as most people think. He did have a curious mind, however, and he wasn't afraid to think differently than other people around him believed.

Around the time Einstein became interested in physics (1895), electricity, magnetism, and the phenomenon of light were all under intensive study. A number of scientific theories and mathematical equations had already been worked out. There was even a type of relativity theory in existence, called the relativity principle, which had been formulated centuries earlier by the astronomer Galileo.

Most scientists at the time were completely satisfied with these prevailing theories. There were a few situations these theories couldn't satisfactorily explain, but these exceptions were considered insignificant and no one really paid much attention to them.

No one, except Einstein, that is.

Einstein was intrigued by these "holes" in the prevailing theories. In fact, he enjoyed posing "mind riddles" to himself, just to see if present theories could satisfactorily explain them.

One such riddle he posed to himself was this: If a person was flying in space at the speed of light (ala Superman) with his/her arm fully outstretched holding a facial mirror, what would they "see" in the mirror? Would they see their face? Would it be bigger or smaller than if they were stationary? Would it be distorted in any way? Would light waves have time to bounce off their face, hit the mirror, and bounce back to their retina which was also moving at the speed of light? And what if an observer was watching all this from the ground. What would he or she see?

This was the riddle that eventually led Einstein to E=MC2. As you can see, it's nothing exceptional. You or I could have easily wondered the same thing.

What made Einstein different, however, is that he refused to give up until he solved the riddle. He didn't stay with this riddle for just a week or two, as you or I might have done. He didn't give up after a month went by without an answer. He didn't even quit after a year or two of racking his brain.

He stuck with the riddle until he figured it out. He stuck with this riddle for...

Ten full years!

That's right...ten years, from 1895-1905! He pondered this riddle almost every day. He discussed it with his friends. He explored it with his colleagues. He even discussed it with the greatest scientific minds of his time. No one could come up with the answer.

But the great thing about Einstein was that he didn't give in like most people would have done. He didn't say "that's enough time spent on that one...let me go on to bigger and better things." No, he stayed with the question he originally posed. He resisted the temptation to accept an incomplete answer...any answer...just to bring the process to a close. He maintained his integrity and curiosity throughout. And when the answer finally came, he knew it was correct.

How did Einstein finally solve this riddle? Well, as I've already mentioned, he took a wild guess. After years and years of struggling with this problem, he finally had an insight that changed the course of modern civilization. What was this insight? Actually, it wasn't all that complex. And it didn't take a genius to think of it.

All Einstein did was to assume that the speed of light was constant! He assumed that nothing could go faster than the speed of light, and that all light traveled at the same basic speed, regardless of the observer.

Up to this time, it had not been established that the speed of light was constant. Everyone thought that time and distance were constants, but that the speed of light, like the speed of everything else in the universe, was variable. But Einstein was willing to consider that what everyone believed about light, time, and distance might actually be wrong!

So he took this assumption--that the speed of light was a constant--and he returned to the mathematical and electromagnetic equations that were worked out years before. He then plugged in the letter "C" (a constant) to represent the fixed speed of light (whatever it might be) and low and behold...

Out Popped E=MC2 !!

Einstein was astounded! If the speed of light was truly a constant--as he had intuitively guessed--then energy and matter must be one and the same (energy equals matter times the speed of light squared). Not only must energy and matter be the same, but the amount of energy in even the tiniest piece of matter, like the head of a pencil, is phenomenal--far exceeding any conventional bomb or explosive!

Not only that! If the speed of light were constant, Einstein also reasoned that time and distance must therefore be relative! But this was totally contrary to what everyone, including the world's leading scientists, believed.
How Einstein Arrived at E=MC Squared

I've demonstrated repeatedly with Einstein's own words that he did not believe the bullshit you pretend to believe mr. bikersailorboy.