₦airaland Forum

Infidel:
Creationists have railed for years against scientific knowledge that seems to contradict their version of events. For example, creationists have fought for years against the theory of evolution, even though it provides some of the strongest evidence IN FAVOR of the existence of God. scientists rely heavily on science and berate creationists as being “unscientific”, “engaging in fantasy” and postulating about answers that are “impossible to prove empirically”. Never mind that their precious science suffers from the EXACT same fatal flaws.

Actually, it (science), generally, doesn't suffer from the same flaws as Creationism.

So let’s take a look at three of the main sources of debate between creationists and scientists, the origin of the universe, the nature of the universe and the origin of life.

You should probably add the origin of species to the list too.

Let’s start with the origin of the universe. The creationists believe that “POOF! God created the universe”. ‘Nuff said. scientists rely on science to explain the origin of the universe. The scientific explanation for the origin of the universe is POOF! the “Big Bang” created the universe.

Not quite. The Big Bang didn't create the Universe per se; the Big Bang describes the expansion of the Universe and the onset of space and time. There probably wasn't a "POOF!" either.

Now, to be clear, the “Big Bang” theory states that all of the matter and energy in the universe was contained within a more or less infinitely dense “singularity”. During this earliest time, 13.7 billion years ago, from between zero to 10-43 seconds, elementary particles did not exist and gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear forces were all unified as a single force. This singularity then began to rapidly expand and cool. In fact, current scientific theories state that this singularity initially expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light. Incidentally, this means that the universe is actually bigger than we can possibly observe. Fun, huh?

So let’s look objectively at both of these theories. The first one forces me to believe in some kind of supernatural “thing” that created the universe. The second forces me to believe in a physically paradoxical “singularity” that essentially breaks every known law known to man and woman. Why is one “better” than the other? I cannot observe either one and they both point to a single, fantastic being or thing; one “God” and the other a “singularity”, that does not follow any of the rules.

One relies on evidence, the other places great stock in faith. The Big Bang is based on scientific and mathematical evidence; it doesn't break every law known to humans; and if, for some reason, it turns out that the theory is wrong, then it will be dropped - science, unlike religion, tries (even if it isn't always successful) to avoid dogmatism.

But there is another problem with the “scientific” version of the creation of the universe. That problem has a name, it is called the “First Law of Thermodynamics”. In layman’s terms, this law states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So, where did the matter and energy that formed this singularity come from? Perhaps there was a bigger bang before the Big Bang? We could call it the “Bigger Bang” theory and could say that this “Bigger Bang” created all of the matter and energy that formed the singularity of the “Big Bang”. Except, we would then have to have an “Even Bigger Bang” theory to create the matter and energy for the “Bigger Bang”. Damn.

No. First, that isn't what the First Law of Themodynamics states - even in layman's terms: matter can be created and destroyed.

Second, if there was a singularity, it would be impossible, at the moment, for anyone to be certain of how energy existed in that singularity. However, if what I understand is right, the energy contained in the singularity is timeless (some theistic scientists ind comfort in that). Having said tht, I should point out that it certainly appears that things can emerge out of nothing.

So on to the nature of the universe. Creationists say that the universe follows “God’s law” and was created with life and, particularly; us humans, in mind. Simple enough. scientists, again, fall back on what science say. Can’t these guys think for themselves?

Um, they are thinking for themselves. However, they aren't going to reinvent the wheel just to be different - you can only do that so many times.

Anyway, prevailing scientific theory is pretty much general disagreement about the nature of the universe. And to scientists, the nature of the universe is explained by one’s interpretation of quantum mechanics. The most popular interpretation is called the “Copenhagen Interpretation”. The next most popular is the “Many-Worlds Interpretation” (MWI) and then there are a whole host of others like “Consistent Histories”, “Transactional Interpretation”, “Consciousness Causes Collapse” and the “Bohm Interpretation”. Essentially, all of these theories suffer from one or more problems. For instance, depending upon which theory you choose, you have to abandon determinism, locality, causality, realism, relativity or some other “ism” or “ity”. Alternatively you can believe that there are an infinite number of unseen and undetectable parallel universes.

None of those necessarily preclude acceptance of the Big bang theory, nor, to be honest, most of the theories and ideas about the nature of the Universe.

So now on to the creation of life. And again, creationists believe that God said “Let there be life!” and there was. Mind you, he didn’t say, “Hmmm, let’s liven this place up.” or “Let there be some life all up’n here!”, he actually stated, out loud and in English no less, “Let there be life!”. Then, and only then, was there any. Atheists yet again fall back on scientists to explain the origin of life. And scientific explanations regarding the origin of life make quantum mechanics interpretations look good by comparison. Basically, to believe in a scientific explanation for the origin of life, one might as well believe in alchemy or “spontaneous combustion”.

Only dumb Americans (in my experience) and naive kids think that the Creation account in Genesis was originally written in English and that YHVH spoke in that language.

Also, no theories and hypotheses that deal with Abiogenesis are relatively mild compared to quantum physics - at least you can understand them even if they are vague.

Other than the obvious host of assumptions that you have to wade through to make that little trip I have always had one big problem with scientific explanations for the origin of life. And that big problem is the apparent uniqueness of the event. Why, if the Earth is apparently the greatest vehicle ever created to host life (4 billion year track record and still going strong) and if the creation of life can just occur “spontaneously” through basic chemical and other physical processes, then why isn’t life being created all the time? I mean, what was unique about the Earth in the past that is different than today? Why would life be able to exist on the Earth today but not be conducive to the formation of new life? If life was spontaneously created on the Earth through chemical and physical processes in the past, then it should still be being created today by those same chemical and physical processes.

I'll try to address your concerns and questions.

Firstly, the assumptions made are relatively minor and genrally no different from the ones all scientists engaged in any field must make.

Secondly, abiogenesis isn't - or wasn't, as the case may be - necessarily a unique event. There's a good chance that life may have originated more than once in the past, but only one or a few population sets made it by poducing viable offsprings. We can only speculate, though, based on the different plausible ways life may have arisen in the early Earth. In any case, apart from the fact that it would be bordering on the impossible for anyone to find and dentify new life if one did arise, there's a high probability that life is arising somwhere in the Universe.

Finally, the current Earth's atmosphere is incredibly harsh to new life (as we imagine they would be like if the process of abiogenesis occurs), especially with the numerous potential predators that abound and the rise of oxygen.

drrionelli:
It is undeniably evident that the egg came first. Long before there were chickens, many animals laid eggs.

QFT

Near death experiences as evidence for the Christian God? My, times have changed.

mrpataki:
There had been warnings about it.

There had? Quelle Horreur! What kind of warnings?

Chiori:
HIV/AIDS may be that. I will give the bible reference to it in my next post on this thread.

Cool.

Horus:
Nigerian officials became aware of internet reports suggesting the WHO vaccine might be contaminated with HIV (the AIDS virus) and other cancer-causing viruses.

Source: http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Cancer_Causing_Vaccines.html

WHO is God?


[size=4pt]See what i did there?[/size]

stevano:
Guys,

300 students stayed and listened as he told of God's love for them and of His power through Jesus.

Did they later become Spartans? If so then I hear the story really picks up when they go against Persians or something.

Kuns:
Jesus and Zeus are one and the same, both creations of the Greek mind of mythology.

Except there is a good chance that one of the two existed as a real person, even if details of his life have been greatly exaggerated.

I'll take that as a yes.

k0be:
What Makes You Think The Bible Contradicts Itself

The fact that there are contradictions contained within the Bible.

People quote scriptures out of context and then boast that the bible contradicts itself, I don't see the contradiction.

Then you haven't looked or you've deluded yourself. I'll do you a solid; rather than quote sections that contradict from the Bible, I'll just point you in the direction of "Dan Barker's Easter Challenge" (see: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-47997.0.html). At the very least, that should eliminate any accusations of "scripture taken out of context".

Those who learn very well in school have been taught how to correctly interpret the things they read.

Indeed. However, when reason is derided as a "great LovePeddler" and deception is used to twist the words out of shape so as to make them seem inerrant, the learning will have little bearing.

That's barely a News report - more of a stub. In any case, if I understood correctly, they should be allowed to practise their religion provided it's more like Wicca and not the "sacrifice a virgin at the altar" kind.

k0be:
what is KAG pouting about

No pouting, just asking.

Since you ask

morayo15:
Why do we sleep in church,
But stay awake through a 2 hour movie?

Capturing Interest. Movies - the good ones - are designed to captivate us with engaging storylines, moving plots and shiny things. Churches on the other hand - usually on Sunday mornings, too - rely, mostly, on someone speaking monotonously for a good while.

Why is it so hard to talk about God,
but so easy to talk about sex?

I don't know about it being easy to talk about sex, but I'd guess that those who find it easy do so because the joy of sex is more strengthening that the joy of the unseen.

Why are we so bored when we look at a Christian magazine,
but find it easy to read Playboy?

Instinct. A good deal of our instincts are geared towards sexual arousal.

P.S. Did you say READ playboy?

Why is it so easy to ignore a Godly myspace message,
Yet we repost the nasty ones?

The latter is more interesting and less sanctimonious.

Why are churches getting smaller,
But bars and clubs are growing?

I don't think that's necessarily true, but if we assume it is, then I'd say, perhaps people are coming to their senses?

Think about it, are you going to repost this?
Are you going to ignore it, cause you think you'll get laughed at?

Am I gonna repost it? Good grief, no. Heaven knows I should have ignored it.

Repost this as ".Don't read if you're under 13, seriously"

So you mislead us with the thread title? Think of the over thirteens, less sixteens, that are missing out now. Boo!

80 % of you wont repost this.

The Lord said:
"If you deny me in front of men,
I will deny you in front of my father"

Yeah, but since God is omniscient, it won't matter anyway.

obanikoro2:
@KAG

thanks but didnt see your response

Oops! What I meant was, I'd post something like, "hey guys, the world is ending tomorrow." Then I'd sit back and read the comments.

Are non-Christians, blasphemous heathens (to borrow a rather bemusing phrase used by some Crhistian on some other forum), and sceptics allowed to comment?

Riff-Raff:
Do u believe in Aliens?

No. However, I do accept that there is a good chance of other creatures existing on some other part of the Universe.

Kuns:
When anyone calls themself an Atheist, what are they really saying?

A-theist = A theoist

Theo = means God, for you to call yourself atheist you must of heard of a god, so you will be lying if you say you are atheist and there is no god.

Hearing of something doesn't bring the aforementioned something into existence. Would I be lying if I said there is no Santa Claus? By the way, there's a five headed creature with purple smoke blowing out of its ears behind you.

The word christ is from the greek word Kristos which was derived from the Hindus/Asia (hindus' = father of the Cau-asian race) religion Krishna. So therefore Krishna = Kristos = Cist (old english) = Christ (new english).

Also theo is the greek god of sarcasm, pain which is what Jesus/Zeus protrayed.

Could you reference that etymology with something reliable?

k0be:
you're still here rapping dust with these things.

Because we disagree on many points, we are things? That's a shame.

I already showed them the many faults inside the debauchery of a theory they worship, yet they're here sperming over christianity, na wa o.

First, you didn't do anything of the sort. You copy/pasted several long articles and links - understandably, several disagreed with each other, and couldn't - because of ignorance and stubborness - engage in conversation on them. If you and your actions were taken as the poster-person for Christianity, then it's safe to conclude that you did more harm than good.

Second, as I've mentioned several times, theories aren't worshipped - the worship of ideas are best left to theism.

Finally, it's the "come unto me" that did it.

mazaje:
Religion is a sham, there are about a billion catholics in the world who believe they are the only true path and there are the other denominations who believe that the catholics are brain washed and are being led astray, so who is right and who is wrong here why is every body confused and without direction?

One of the most amusing things in life is observing not just diverse, opposing religions claiming that theirs is the only way to paradise, but also sects within religions stating that the other sects lead only to perdition.

gbade. x:
lol, i love it when you peeps self-service over Christianity, it's so hysterical

It's probably due to taking the beginning of Matthew 11:28 out of context.

honeric01:
Before you came to this earth, someone else already said what you are saying now, and in the end, they come to realized the truth, so i don't have to prove to you that i know the way since right from your mindset, you have already concluded, so the only thing that will prove me right is when revelation completes itself, already in progress, approaching completion.

I agree, most ideas aren't entirely unique; however, how do you know "they" have come to realise the truth? I'm not asking for proof, I'm just asking for something tangible.

If you don't believe Rapture will occur, that's your own problem not mine, at least you have heard the truth and the truth is the only thing that's going to set you free, you believe you will survive good, that's what the people before you said, how i wished you would be given the chance by God to see where they are now, ! but unfortunately God does not deal with doubters and blasphemers.

Yes, the truth can be liberating - perhaps I've been liberated? I don't know if I'd survive if something like the rapture occurs, but I will try. I've heard God - the Christian God - does deal with doubters and blasphemers.

honeric01:
well only time will tell, when rapture comes calling,

What will the rapture tell?

if eventually it comes to past, what would you be doing or saying then?

It's highly unlikely that anything of the sort will occur; if, however, it does, I'll do my best to to survive.

k0be:
I got bored reading your posts, they made me doze off otherwise I would have made an effort to quote your lines one by one and respond to you.
But that can continue for a lengthy period and I have no such time to spare on ignorant minds.

Of course, as that would detract from incessant copy/pasting.

I should have stopped responding to you two hollow individuals a few posts ago. I've come to realize we don't need a theory to propose how our universe works, or what-not about its existence.

Why? Apart from the fact we humans are naturally curious animals, understanding our Universe could perhaps help us - someday - control our (and perhaps that of other beings too) fate. Besides, if otehr human had taken your stance, you probably won't be here typing and encouraging ignorance (a small price to pay).

I would not waste my time glorifying a mere buggy theory such as this bad bang.

You did just that with your last copy/paste.

We already have enough theories that attempt to explain how our universe works.

No we don't.

Scientists are so funny, any time they try to propse a theory and they realize it doesn't work they will try to propose another theory and it continues like a chain until they find something that works for a while
and not until someone raises some questions to destroy that theory will they begin to devise another theory.

You'd rather scientists were dogmatic and tread theories like religions? Evidence is collected and observations and calculations are made; theories are then proposed based on those. If new evidence (not assertions, mere utterances, and pseudo-science) falsifies the theory, then the theory is left for a new one that incorporates the evidence - that's what happened with the steady state theory when evidence for the Big Bang came along; it's a pity you haven't been able to leave it.

Keep drooling over the Big Bang theory like it is some kind of divine truth. It's only a theory, try and find something else that better fits the data.

No one - perhaps, except misinformed Christians, like you - considers it to be divine truth. The theory coupled with inflation is what fits the data. If you had bothered to read up on it, you'd have realised that.

p.s.: stop crying mami-water over copy paste, I don't recall saying anywhere that I'm taking credits for the questions raised concerning the big bang, I provided links where needed and I keep mentioning that these are scientists who used legible source in combating the big bang theory. so please spare me your plagiarism story isiewu.
more faults with big bang coming soon by the way. this is so much fun I can get used to this.

You don't get it, do you?

With love.

Esss:
The bible is in no way complete o! They even exageratted some of the stories (noahs story, samsons story, davids story, e.t.c).

Myths.

Jesus had twelve disciples but only four (matt, marky mark, luke, and johnny) wrote books? Hmm! what about the rest?

None of those four were disciples of Jesus.

obanikoro2:
Nairalanders, What would be your actions and thoughts if u come to find out that the whole world will come to an end in the next 24 hours?

Itemize those things u will do in the order of priority, and please be honest (as u have always been). Much love

Post it on Nairaland and other forums, and read the responses

k0be:
Big Bang Flaw No. 2 - The Red Light Shift Theory

The "Red Light Shift Theory" is in big trouble. Perhaps this should be listed as Big Bang Flaw No. 1 because it gave birth to the Big Bang Theory. The red light shift theory is the very foundation for the Big Bang Theory. The theory was first formulated by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason in 1929 and became known as the Hubble Redshift Theory. The concept of a universe expanding from a single source at a real point of time in the past was developed because Dr. Hubble discovered the red light shift. Dr. Hubble found that very distant galaxy clusters were emitting light with a red shift. The thought was that a distant body was moving away from us because the light emitted had a shift to a longer wave length caused by the velocity. This is called the Doppler effect in sound waves. White light emitted from an object that is moving away at a high speed appears in the red spectrum. The light appears in the violet or blue spectrum when the object is moving toward the viewer. The concept is simple, perhaps too simple. The Redshift Theory has our little planet at the center of the universe because nearly all galaxies are moving away from us. This is ridiculous. It seems the myth that the Earth is the center of the universe will never die.


,way.com/bigbang.html

Last sentence first. No, the idea isn't that the Earth is the center of the Universe - that's a total misunderstanding. First, there is no "centre" in Universe (mostly due to the fact that there is no outside of the Universe). Second, the reason the Earth is generally used as point of reference is simply because we are on Earth. If we were on some other planet, solar system or galaxy, we would use that as a reference - the other distant bodies will still be receding relative to us, and the findings of redshift would still apply. One of the best analogies I've come across to help explain the point is the expansion of a balloon. Draw a point or certain points on or in a balloon. As the balloon expands, irrespective of where the point is situated (as long as it's on the body of the balloon), the effect observed should be more or less similar to that which we observe with the expansion of Space.

The idea that the speed of light is a constant is nebulous at best (a little humor there). In our small little world the speed of light appears to be constant only because we cannot measure the change over a large distance. This problem is analogous to saying the speed of a bullet fired from a gun is constant. It appears to be constant if you measure the bullet velocity one meter from the end of the barrel and measure it again two meters from the barrel. However, the truth is revealed if you measure the velocity 1000 meters from the barrel. The air and gravity slow the bullet as predicted by the laws of science.

No, the speed of light is constant in a vacuum. To claim otherwise is, at this point, to not only contradict everything else you've posted (that has happened a few times, but I suspect that's what happens when you copy/post en masse, without bothering to read or understand what they say), but also to claim something so extraordinary that would need extraordinary evidence.

What about light? Light has mass and the bullet has mass. The fact that light has mass was proven and measured many years ago. Light is affected by gravity that is produced by other masses. Light bends as it travels past distant planets, stars and galaxies. Certainly the numerous masses in the universe can slow or accelerate the light by gravitational attraction. White light emitted by a stationary object will appear as redshift light if the velocity is slowed for any reason. So what made Dr. Hubble think that the light speed was not affected by gravitational fields in the universe? I suppose he didn't stop to consider all of the alternatives.

Because, maybe, he wasn't an idiot?

In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.


The Bible correctly describes the decrepit state of the supporters of the Big Bang Theory.

Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none who does good.

ROMANS 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.



The Cosmos is a Steady-State but Dynamic Universe Giving Birth to New Galaxies

I would like to point out that it makes little sense to claim that those who accept the Big Bang theory are all God hating schmoes. The truth is, the majority are theists and a great deal of those are Christians. In fact, the pioneer of the theory was a priest.

Also, it's interesting to see that you claim the Universe is a steady state, etc. That, incidentally, was the main argument that many non-religious used to support the idea that the Universe had to be unchanging and eternal (in the sense that there was no start of time). Some what Ironic, no?

By the way, you do know that the first Bible verse contradicts steady state, yes?

k0be:
Rather than argue with you over the things "you" said, I'll provide even more faults with cosmology.

Once again, if you're not interested in discussion, then stop trolling this thread - start a new one. Why is "you" in quotation marks? Also, cosmology does have faults. No one has claimed the subject doesn't.

While you're over there throwing your words, know that these are scientists that spent a great deal of their time racking up evidence to combat cosmology.

Scientistists racking up evidence to combat cosmology? Sounds like a paradox. In any case, could you tell me what's wrong with the words I was "throwing"?

If you followed most of the links you would find more extensive lists of the sources they used.

The relative few I looked up were hopelessly outdated and usually well over two decades old.


Once again, stop spamming this thread. If you are not going to engage in discussion with your own words, you might as well just give the google link - that would, at the very least, stop the clutter.

k0be:
About the age of stars that you asked for.

Oh great, another copy/paste.

The Big Bang theory of the universe is wrong because the cosmological red shift is due to the Compton effect rather than the Doppler effect. See The Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe and A Timeless, Boundless Equilibrium Universe by Grote Reber and Hubble's Constant in Terms of the Compton Effect by John Kierein.

What do you mean? How can it be due to the Compton effect? Why should we ignore the more parsimonious Dopler effect?

Measurements of the uranium content of stars has produced a minimum age of the universe of at least 12 billion years, whereas the best measurements of Hubble's constant produce an age of 10 billion years. The iron content of quasars is much too great for their age.
HAHAHAHAHAa lol.

http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/
[quote][/quote]I'm guessing this is the important bit. If so, you'd pleased to know that the lower limit of the proposed age of the Universe based on observations and calculations, is well over 13 billion years.

All the forums are dead and I'm bored, so why not. Only the copy/pastes, though.

k0be:
"In cosmology, the Big Bang theory is the scientific theory of the early development and shape of the universe. The central idea is that the theory of general relativity can be combined with the observations on the largest scales of galaxies receding from each other to extrapolate the conditions of the universe back or forward in time. A natural consequence of the Big Bang is that in the past the universe had a higher temperature and a higher density. The term "Big Bang" is used both in a narrow sense to refer to a point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble's law) began, and in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the origin and evolution of the universe."

"The term "Big Bang" was coined in 1949 by Fred Hoyle during a BBC radio program, The Nature of Things; the text was published in 1950. Hoyle did not subscribe to the theory and intended to mock the concept."

Not bad so far.

The Big Bang and Redshift Theories are not scientific laws or laws of physics. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong.

That's not right. Yes, the Big Bang theoryand theories dealing with Redshift are theories (science theories - which means they are based on evidence and open to falsification); however that doesn't mean they have to be laws to be right. Besides, Law is an archaic term that more or less contained within the explanations of theories.

Moreover, several Laws aren't 100% "correct" and have failed to meet several challenges. That doesn't mean the Laws are [completely] wrong, just that they may not apply to or work in certain occasions. For instance, Newton's Laws, which was superceded by Einstein's theory of relativity. Another example is the second law of thermodynamics. The law breaks down on a micro scale.

This web page will prove that the Big Bang and Redshift Theories fail many challenges, not simply one. The Big Bang Theory will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. The Redshift theory is not proven and also fails. This is why they are called a theories instead of laws. The Big Bang and Redshift Theories are "politically correct" concepts that are perpetuated by brainwashing of the general public, especially school students.

No, that is not why they are called theories. They aren't politically correct either (whatever that means) - it took a great deal of evidence foe the Big Bang theory to get accepted. If it's falsified, then a new theory incorporating the evidence will be adopted.

Universities are centers of higher brainwashing

No, they aren't.

A good example of "politically correctness" and brainwashing is the Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia prides itself in allowing visitors to revise the web page in most cases. However, they do not allow a reference and link to this website because we refute UFOs, Aliens, Bigfoot, Loch Ness, Roswell, Area 51, Crop Circles, Antigravity, Bermuda Triangle, evolution, Big Bang Theory and Red Shift Light Theory. Wikipedia is a good example of the media perpetuating myths.

Brainwashing and Other Mental and Personality Disorders.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because yours is an obsure, quack and hare-brained site.

Big Bang Flaw No. 1 - The Expanding Universe Theory

The Big Bang Theory violates the basic foundation of science that is Dr. Albert Einstein's "Theory of Special Relativity."

E = M * C2

Dr. Albert Einstein developed this formula that gives the relationship between energy (E), mass (M) and the speed of light (C). The theory has been proven in numerous ways. It is the theory behind the atomic bombs for both fusion and fission reactions. Dr. Einstein conducted experiments to prove his theory. It stands without a challenge.

The Big Bang Theory states that the universe was once a dense, hot body of matter that exploded

That's not right. Matter came after space and time began. Basically, matter didn't explode and wasn't present until after the expansion of the Universe.

The Big Bang Theory is based on energy being turned into matter. Scientists are using particle accelerators in an attempt to prove this theory. The success has been very limited. Scientists have been unable to create even one atom of hydrogen. The atomic bomb turns matter into energy, but this process is highly irreversible. The claim that all of the matter in the cosmos was created from energy is a myth.

/bigbang.htm

Actually, no. First, the successes of particle accelerators hasn't been limited per se. Particles - sub-atomic particles - have been created from energy. OF course no hydrogen atom has been created, it would require great amounts of energy, heat, and resources to create an atom.

k0be:
It's extremely difficult to sum up the many problems with the big BAD theory, it's too faulty dear.

I doubt you actually know that. In any case, why don't you pick a couple, sum them up, and we'll take it from there.

All the scientists I've provided aren't credible but your wikipedia is? . you make me roll on the floor.

So far, although I haven't read all your links and copy/paste, the only scientist or credible person has been Arp - I've responded to that. The wiki article is credible because it not only gives external sources that can be checked it was also written by experts on the subject.

I am interested, I'm doing exactly what was asked of me aren't I.

It's nigh on impossible to have a discussion with a plethora of links and copy/pastes. And I doubt anyone asked you to go on a copy/paste binge - even Horus isn't this bad.

You've come to realize your worst nightmare.
I will devote more time to burying your nitwitted glorification of cosmology.

Hmm, there I was thinking my worst nightmare involved the death of a loved one, but thank goodness you're heer to tell me what my worst nightmare is.

By the way, you are burying the purpose of my thread, not cosmology.

Accepted does not mean it is error-free. Accepted and correct are two disparate terms.

No one has claimed accepted means error free. The Big Bang theory is the sum of what the evidence has shown.

Honesty says ye .

Yes.

I wasn't required to understand the theory, I asked asked to find problems and concerns as related to the theory which is exactly what I'm doing.

I believe this was Nferyn's request: "Can you then begin to explain why the theories of modern cosmology are shaky and why you have a more parsimonious explanation?"

That would, at least to me, be an indication that some understanding is paramount. I wonder if you're going to go down the route of indiscriminately copy/pasting when it comes to both evolution and abiogenesis, too.

[Quote]

Theorists can, however, find no way of switching off this explosion, called "inflation". So the theory then predicts that galaxies should still be accelerating away from one another at rates 10120 (a one with 120 noughts after it) higher than astronomical observations can allow. (Some error!) This was the figure given by Greene (2) in 1999 when writing about this problem, known as the "cosmological constant".

There deals with the problem about the "cosmological constant" - can't you read?
You have to do better than these one-liners.

You're right, you can read, you just cannot interpret.
Error as related to the [b]"cosmological constant" - in the article I provided much earlier the cosmologists claimed it was zero, which of course isn't possible as disclosed in that same article.[/quote]I asked because it would seem there's been a misunderstanding on both your part and the author of the copy/paste. The cosmological constant was introduced as zero by Einstein to support a static Universe. The Universe isn't static (one of the first aspects that began the formulation of the Big Bang theory). The cosmological constant as it is now is a different constant and, although the terms are the same, represents a different concept.

it does not answer many questions. It theorizes as a way to respond to many questions. Big difference.

Actually, it answers many questions - from positing a reason of black holes to giving tangibility to gravity. Theories are based on findings.



[Quote]
A second difficulty met with in big-bang theory is that some stars seem older than the universe, whose age cosmologists set at about 12 billion years.

Since you don't know of any, go on google you'll find 'some'. Lol hahahaaaa it is my misunderstanding, or you mean another cosmological error caught red-handedly.

you are too funny.You asked for it, Now I'll provide you with an in-depth article in my next post that talks about cosmology as related to the age of the universe and stars. [/quote]Rather than giving me another copy/paste why don't you just tell me which stars are older than the Universe.

Quote
I'm afraid I can't do that.Que sera sera. I ask you, do you understand the basics of christianity.

I do.

Quote
You lads failed to induce the same respect when it comes to christianity. You quickly turned a blind eye.or so

you claim. I will also claim that I understand many aspects of cosmology and the big bang theory.

Excellent, then you shouldn't have any problems in setting out, in your own words, a couple of the things that you feel have or should falsify the Big Bang theory and inflation.

The problem is, I couldn't savor it after realizing it was faulty to an unerasable core.

You didn't realise anything of the sort.

Quote
Mind you I provided the links to them.No, I provided links to analytical studies with convincing backings. You're just a tad toppled that you can't show they're wrong.

In space of a few posts you've either copy/pasted or given links to about 6 or so long writings - do the maths.

Thanks, and I will continue. With more factual evidence.

Again, I'd rather you didn't troll in my thread. If copy/pasting is what you're interested in, start a new thread.



[Quote]
If you don't think cosmology is ideal, fact is it isn't, then why are you and nferyn here expecting perfection from every other religion sect.

It just seems you do. If you don't, why expect to remove the speck chaff in another man's religion when you've failed to remove the beam in your cosmology.[/quote]How does it seem I expect perfection from any sect? Where have I stated that?

k0be:
why should I sum up my arguments against the big bang theory when credible, prestigious, well known scientists have devoted their time to whip up a compelling reason why you & nferyn's "holier than life" cosmology is in shackles.

You should sum it up because it's remarkably difficult to try to rebutt so many copy/pastes and links and point out the errors. Also, most of the scientists and laymen (like, for example, your first copy/paste) aren't credible.

It's all left to you now to go through that link and try to find a way to offer a rebuttal to that sizable chunk of defects with the cosmology you've endeared and pampered so much. Face it, all it is - is theories.

If you're not interested in discussion then I'll have to respectully ask you to stop ruining my thread.

k0be:
When I saw wikipedia I didn't bother clicking, call me shallow.
Besides, I found the answer to those questions. They provided me with more than enough reasons why cosmology is a junk of zilch.

It's your prerogative, but the link does tell you (or the author of the piece) why the Big Bang theory is accepted.

Lol sure honorable KAG I'll take your word for it? Your words are as good as gold, LMAO.

Well, considering I do my best to answer questions and posts honestly, you could take my word for it. On the other hand, you could look it up - and no, googling "problems with the Big Bang" isn't the way to understand the theory.

Theorists can, however, find no way of switching off this explosion, called "inflation". So the theory then [b]predicts that galaxies should still be accelerating away from one another at rates 10120 (a one with 120 noughts after it) higher than astronomical observations can allow. (Some error!) This was the figure given by Greene (2) in 1999 when writing about this problem, known as the "cosmological constant".

There deals with the problem about the "cosmological constant" - can't you read?
You have to do better than these one-liners.

I can obviously read. Again, what's the error?

"Is string theory right? We just don't know."We may know, that doesn't refute the statement about us not knowing now does it?
Come next year if it doesn't happen you'll be here giving us some other intanginble reasons why we should wait another year.

Well, it answeres many questions. I would rather you didn't pretend to know my intentions.

A second difficulty met with in big-bang theory is that some stars seem older than the universe, whose age cosmologists set at about 12 billion years.

Since you don't know of any, go on google you'll find 'some'. Lol hahahaaaa it is my misunderstanding, or you mean another cosmological error caught red-handedly. you are too funny.

No, it's your claim, you support it. What stars are older than the Universe?

I'm afraid I can't do that.

I find that puzzling. It's the height of stupidity to criticise a theory you don't understand even the basics

You lads failed to induce the same respect when it comes to christianity. You quickly turned a blind eye.

I understand many aspects of Christianity and its books.

Mind you I provided the links to them.

No, you provided links and a copy/paste to things you don't understand and from misunderstandings.

What better ways to shatter your discourse than to provide factual evidence from the likes of those you adore, aka Scientists.

You're certainly shattering any attempts at discussion - although not with factual evidence.

If you don't think cosmology is ideal, fact is it isn't, then why are you and nferyn here expecting perfection from every other religion sect.

Where and when did I assert that I expect perfection from religious sects or religion?

Next time your friend Nferyn will learn to distinguish from those who dance around the hot potato and those who stick to their words.
You wanted faults and shakiness? you got it. Think I'm done? ha lol, not even.

That's wonderful.

[quote author=k0be link=topic=9356.msg1292271#msg1292271 date=1184463150]http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/halton-arp-seeing-red-errors-big-bang.htm[/QUOTE]

To quote Lucretius:

"Halton Arp's view is not accepted by almost no one in cosmology. His assumption (that's right, it isn't based on observational facts, just what was, at the time, another possible explanation as to what quasars were. His assumption was based on his view that the Big Bang is wrong) was that quasars were emissions from the centers of galaxies.

However, we know that quasars are just high-redshifted objects in distant galaxies because when we take their spectrum in X-ray and radio waves, and correct for the redshift, they MATCH closer galaxies. To ask Halton Arp; why would objects emitted from galactic nuclei have the same spectrum as galaxies themselves? It is much more sensible to say that the redshift interpretation IS correct and that they really ARE distant galaxies, than to assume that the Big Bang is wrong and work from there, ignoring observational evidence along the way.

http://heritage.stsci.edu/2002/23/supplemental.html"

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/lerner-big-bang-never-happened.htm

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/mitchell-big-bang-theory-under-fire.htm
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

It would help greatly if you just summed up your argument(s) against the Big Bang theory and Inflation, in one sizable chunk. It would take far too long to start offering a rebuttal to all of that.

k0be:
PROBLEMS WITH COSMOLOGY

I need a qualified physicist (who supports the status quo) to explain to a layman like me why 'Big Bang theory' and relativity theories are correct and also show any genuine flaws with the new theory.

Here are a few: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

"Associated Cosmological Problems in Need of Solution
Other difficulties the new approach appears to resolve arose from a revision of the "big bang" which, cosmologists freely admit, still contains unacceptable false predictions. It assumes all the energy, ultimately to become the universe, was created in a massive explosion--all over in a split second.

Actually, no, it doesn't.

Theorists can, however, find no way of switching off this explosion, called "inflation". So the theory then [b]predicts that galaxies should still be accelerating away from one another at rates 10120 (a one with 120 noughts after it) higher than astronomical observations can allow. (Some error!) This was the figure given by Greene (2) in 1999 when writing about this problem, known as the "cosmological constant".

What error?

"Is string theory right? We just don't know."

However, we may know very soon. The Laarge Haldron Collider (LHC) should, by the next year, be givng data that should collaborate aspects of String theory. Also, the gravitational effects of the other proposed branes may soon be testable.

A second difficulty met with in big-bang theory is that some stars seem older than the universe, whose age cosmologists set at about 12 billion years.

I don't know of any stars that are older than the Universe - I suspect the problem comes from your misunderstanding. By the way, I think the lower limit set for the age of the observed Universe is well over 13 billion years.

Thirdly, in 1998 observations of remote supernovae were claimed by Schwarzschild (3) which show that the expansion of the universe is speeding up instead of slowing down as they had supposed. Puzzled cosmologists are saying that some new mysterious repulsive force must be acting and two invoke "quintessence" having strange anti-gravity effects.

The acceleration of the expansion of the Universe is not a problem for the Big Bang theory.

[b]The major problem, however, interrelated with all these, is that Einstein's relativity theories, which describe large scale mechanics of the cosmos, do not match up with quantum theory. [/b]The latter covers the dynamics of small things like atoms and their "sub-atomic particles". It is indeed this problem which Greene (2) shows string theory is set up to solve."

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/bigbang/messages/842.shtml

Yes quantum theories and the theory of relativity deal with two seperate, unique aspects of physics and cosmology, and, yes it's difficult to reconcile them, but String theory, if shown to be correct experimentally (as opposed to mathematically) can do that. Anyway, can you explain why that's a problem for the Big Bang theory?
-----------------------------------------------------------

So is this what I'm supposed to suck up to? Your big bad assumption-filled, prediction-filled, erroneous cosmological theories. looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool.

No one wants you to suck up to any science theories - you're expected to, at least, learn and understand them before disingenuously typing silly things about them.

I just haven't had adequate time, I'll find even more problems with your ideal cosmology.

LoL, I don't think anyone has stated cosmology is ideal - it's certainly better than fantasy, though. Also, you aren't really finding any problems with cosmology, you're just copy/pasting the words of others.