Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Big Bang Proven False?

130 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

What kind of evidence would you need to believe that theory of the big bang doesn't cut it?  What if a discovery has been made that will require us to change our entire view on the creation of the universe? 

 

Such a discovery has been made. 

 

A quasar with an enormous redshift has been found embedded in a nearby spiral galaxy with much lower redshift. This changes the whole view of the universe—big bang astronomy will never be the same.

 

http://creation.com/bye-bye-big-bang

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There are several causes of non-velocity redshifting.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Like?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The Big Bang doesn't need to be proven false.  It has hasn't been proven to be true.  You don't have to disprove what hasn't been proven in the first place.

 

 

They have no more proof for the Big Bang than I have for God's existence.  Both are accepted by faith in what evidence is available.   The problem is that the scientific community sees the rest of us as sheep and we supposed to simply accept the Big Bang as proven on their word alone, no questions asked.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The Big Bang doesn't need to be proven false.  It has hasn't been proven to be true.  You don't have to disprove what hasn't been proven in the first place.

 

 

They have no more proof for the Big Bang than I have for God's existence.  Both are accepted by faith in what evidence is available.   The problem is that the scientific community sees the rest of us as sheep and we supposed to simply accept the Big Bang as proven on their word alone, no questions asked.

Proof is only available in Math.  Scientific theories can only be falsified.  Science lets the evidence lead to conclusions, religion pounds the evidence to fit into a story.  I always find it laughable (on many levels) when creationists tend to impugn science by saying it's faith based...

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

The Big Bang doesn't need to be proven false.  It has hasn't been proven to be true.  You don't have to disprove what hasn't been proven in the first place.

 

 

They have no more proof for the Big Bang than I have for God's existence.  Both are accepted by faith in what evidence is available.   The problem is that the scientific community sees the rest of us as sheep and we supposed to simply accept the Big Bang as proven on their word alone, no questions asked.

Proof is only available in Math.  Scientific theories can only be falsified.  Science lets the evidence lead to conclusions, religion pounds the evidence to fit into a story.  I always find it laughable (on many levels) when creationists tend to impugn science by saying it's faith based...

 

The Big Bang was never observed and has never been replicated.  All you have his faith and evidence.  There is no proof for it, not a shred.  It is as faith based as the religion of evolution.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

The Big Bang doesn't need to be proven false.  It has hasn't been proven to be true.  You don't have to disprove what hasn't been proven in the first place.

 

 

They have no more proof for the Big Bang than I have for God's existence.  Both are accepted by faith in what evidence is available.   The problem is that the scientific community sees the rest of us as sheep and we supposed to simply accept the Big Bang as proven on their word alone, no questions asked.

Proof is only available in Math.  Scientific theories can only be falsified.  Science lets the evidence lead to conclusions, religion pounds the evidence to fit into a story.  I always find it laughable (on many levels) when creationists tend to impugn science by saying it's faith based...

 

The Big Bang was never observed and has never been replicated.  All you have his faith and evidence.  There is no proof for it, not a shred.  It is as faith based as the religion of evolution.

 

You continue to make the mistake of saying we cannot understand things if we do not directily observe them happening.  Your are misunderstanding the words "observe" and "experient" with regards to science.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

The Big Bang doesn't need to be proven false.  It has hasn't been proven to be true.  You don't have to disprove what hasn't been proven in the first place.

 

 

They have no more proof for the Big Bang than I have for God's existence.  Both are accepted by faith in what evidence is available.   The problem is that the scientific community sees the rest of us as sheep and we supposed to simply accept the Big Bang as proven on their word alone, no questions asked.

Proof is only available in Math.  Scientific theories can only be falsified.  Science lets the evidence lead to conclusions, religion pounds the evidence to fit into a story.  I always find it laughable (on many levels) when creationists tend to impugn science by saying it's faith based...

 

The Big Bang was never observed and has never been replicated.  All you have his faith and evidence.  There is no proof for it, not a shred.  It is as faith based as the religion of evolution.

 

You continue to make the mistake of saying we cannot understand things if we do not directily observe them happening.  Your are misunderstanding the words "observe" and "experient" with regards to science.

 

  Observation is the main tool of science.   Observation, replication are the heart of experimentation.

 

And yes, you cannot know as proven fact, in the world of science, what you can't observe directly. 

 

All you can do is provide evidence of that you think supports the big bang.  You cannot prove it empirically.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Exactly.  There is a ton of scientific theory that's being taught as absolute fact and there's no observation of it whatsoever.  The big band is only a theory.  It has not been witnessed, so the best the big bang theory can accomplish is no more than what you 'laugh' at us Christians for having.  You have faith that the scientists are right and the big bang happened.  And here's proof that it's not that easy...that there's major issues to the theory and it will have to be rewritten.  And rewritten.  And rewritten. 

 

How many theories have popped up that science said, "oh, that shouldn't be possible!"  Like how dense Mercury is.  It was considered impossible, yet it shocked the whole scientific community and they had to go back to the drawing board. 

 

So how can you say science has no faith backing it?  If it's not based on faith on what they 'think' happened, there should be no revisions, no changes, no edits...it would be perfect as is.  But it's not.  So you have faith, plain and simple.  So that makes you a hypocrite for laughing at us when you're no better.  You're not smarter or more intelligent. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Observation is the main tool of science.   Observation, replication are the heart of experimentation.

 

And yes, you cannot know as proven fact, in the world of science, what you can't observe directly. 

 

All you can do is provide evidence of that you think supports the big bang.  You cannot prove it empirically.

 

 

Nobody has ever seen an atom directly, with or without a microscope. Nevertheless, i think we all agree they exist. 

And it has been observated that the universe is expanding, so if something expands, it had to start somewhere,  doesnt matter if it is 5000 or 13.7 billion years ago.

but because we have observated that the universe is billions of lightyears in seize, and light has a limited speed, it is impossible the that light has traveled billions of lightyears towards us in just 5000 years.

Not that that is the only evidence:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/innovation/big-bang-gravitational-waves/

 

By the way in the begin post i saw the mentioning of a quasar. 5000 years is totally NOT enough time to even enough time to form an apropirate star for it, not even speaking of the quasar itself.

Also look at the fact that the fotons of the quasar had to travel towards us with the limited light speed. And the quasar happened much more than 5000 lightyears away from us.

I can continue with this for a very long time... I know much about astronomie and physics.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Nobody has ever seen an atom directly, with or without a microscope. Nevertheless, i think we all agree they exist. 

 

doesn't matter if it was with a microscope.  It has been observed, so your point is meaningless.

 

 

And it has been observated that the universe is expanding, so if something expands, it had to start somewhere,  doesnt matter if it is 5000 or 13.7 billion years ago.

but because we have observated that the universe is billions of lightyears in seize, and light has a limited speed, it is impossible the that light has traveled billions of lightyears towards us in just 5000 years.

Not that that is the only evidence:

http://edition.cnn.c...tational-waves/

 

 

Evidence isn't proof.  That the universe is allegedly expanding isn't proof that the universe began a singularity.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

because the universe is expanding, just means it had to begin somewhere, wether it's a singularity or not.

 

and what is correct observation to you? evolution has been observated in a way too. gravitational waves of the big bang have been observated too. your point is meaningless. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

because the universe is expanding, just means it had to begin somewhere, wether it's a singularity or not.

 

and what is correct observation to you? evolution has been observated in a way too. gravitational waves of the big bang have been observated too. your point is meaningless. 

Evolution has never been observed, not once.

 

Since you were not present to observe the origin of the universe you have no proof of how it started.  The Big Bang and Evolution are hypotheses and that is the most that can really be said because there is no experiment that can be conducted to test either one.

 

Ultimately, you have nothing in terms of anything that prove a Big Bang ever occurred.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Blessings Anthony

     Good Morning!Praise the Lord! Thank you for the OP ,good article,very interesting ....I have been hearing a lot about redshift lately,pretty cool,huh?I like that magazine,they seem to always have some good reading material ....very informative,again-thank you!

                                                                                                                                                                 With love-in Christ,Kwik

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

evolution can be observed at any time. it hasn't stopped or it didn't just happen in the past alone. exemple:

during many millenia elephants with bigger tusks were more likely to reproduce, and so their children had also bigger tusks and their genes would go on. elephants with smaller tusks would no reproduce that much.

but during the last centurie, all the elephants with large tusks have been killed by man for their tusks, so that only the ones with smaller tusks would remain and reproduce.

the evolution is now that having less tusk is an advatage, and so in the future most elephants you'll see in wild will have smaller tusks. that's evolution. so your argument that we cannot observe evolution is false.

 

and not everything that cannot be observed has to be false. exemple:

i'm quite sure nobody has ever been inside the sun. but yet we know the energy inside the sun is produced by the fusion of tritium and deutrium. (look it up if you don't know it)

but we haven't observed that!! so that makes it not true?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The only things that evolves more than nature is scientific theory.

 

Check out my thread on time dilation.  This post on major redshift differences goes right along with that.  Time isn't static everywhere.  Things obviously aren't expanding at the same rate in the universe.  The speed that light travels also isn't static.  You can make measurements here on earth using your own rate of time at sea level, but you have no idea if light travels faster at Pluto than at Earth due to the decreased gravity.  There is just too much out there that we haven't even begun to observe, but only assume and then pass off as fact.  It's frustrating. 

 

Like the Oort Cloud.  We've never actually seen it and have no clue if it exists.  But they need it to exist to account for comets.  Otherwise, it would prove the universe is young, but they can't have that, can they?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

evolution can be observed at any time. it hasn't stopped or it didn't just happen in the past alone. exemple:

during many millenia elephants with bigger tusks were more likely to reproduce, and so their children had also bigger tusks and their genes would go on. elephants with smaller tusks would no reproduce that much.

but during the last centurie, all the elephants with large tusks have been killed by man for their tusks, so that only the ones with smaller tusks would remain and reproduce.

the evolution is now that having less tusk is an advatage, and so in the future most elephants you'll see in wild will have smaller tusks. that's evolution. so your argument that we cannot observe evolution is false.

 

and not everything that cannot be observed has to be false. exemple:

i'm quite sure nobody has ever been inside the sun. but yet we know the energy inside the sun is produced by the fusion of tritium and deutrium. (look it up if you don't know it)

but we haven't observed that!! so that makes it not true?

No evolution can't be observed.  No one has observed a lizard turning into a bird. 

 

What you are calling evolution isn't.  It is nothing more than a species adapting to its environment. That is adaptation, not evolution.   Sorry but your position is false.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

because the universe is expanding, just means it had to begin somewhere, wether it's a singularity or not.

 

and what is correct observation to you? evolution has been observated in a way too. gravitational waves of the big bang have been observated too. your point is meaningless.

Evolution has never been observed, not once.

 

Since you were not present to observe the origin of the universe you have no proof of how it started.  The Big Bang and Evolution are hypotheses and that is the most that can really be said because there is no experiment that can be conducted to test either one.

 

Ultimately, you have nothing in terms of anything that prove a Big Bang ever occurred.

.

Evolution has been observed by man. Just look at how all of our dogs today have descended from a single ancestor the gray wolf.

So to say that evolution does not happen is a sheer and utter nonsense.

Also to deny that there was a Big Bang is to also deny that God created the universe at one point in time because the Bible clearly states that the universe did not always exist and that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

.

Evolution has been observed by man. Just look at how all of our dogs today have descended from a single ancestor the gray wolf.

So to say that evolution does not happen is a sheer and utter nonsense.

 

No, what YOU posted is sheer and utter nonsense.  That is NOT evolution.  Variations within a kind or species isn't "evolution."  Animals adapt within a given kind or species.  They don't evolve into another kind of creature.

 

Also to deny that there was a Big Bang is to also deny that God created the universe at one point in time because the Bible clearly states that the universe did not always exist and that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

 

More liberal drivel.   The Big Bang is not described in the Bible and the Bible contradicts the  Big Bang on fundamental levels.  You obviously have a low view of God's inerrant word and a high view man's fallible words.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

adaption is a phase in evolution. of couse a lizard does not change in a bird in just one day, but due to many and many adaptions the lizard will finally become a bird.

the wolf -> dog is a good exemple.

and not everything that is not in the bible cannot exist or have happened. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

.

Evolution has been observed by man. Just look at how all of our dogs today have descended from a single ancestor the gray wolf.

So to say that evolution does not happen is a sheer and utter nonsense.

No, what YOU posted is sheer and utter nonsense.  That is NOT evolution.  Variations within a kind or species isn't "evolution."  Animals adapt within a given kind or species.  They don't evolve into another kind of creature.

 

Also to deny that there was a Big Bang is to also deny that God created the universe at one point in time because the Bible clearly states that the universe did not always exist and that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

More liberal drivel.   The Big Bang is not described in the Bible and the Bible contradicts the  Big Bang on fundamental levels.  You obviously have a low view of God's inerrant word and a high view man's fallible words.
.

I tried to find an emoticon for a facepalm but couldn't find one...... I guess the saying is true you can lead a man to knowledge but can't make him think.

In no way do I say this to disrespect you as a person, its just a remark in general about how people can be scientificly illiterate when it comes to matters like this.

Oh and thanks by compairing me to the librals, and putting false words in my mouth by saying I have a higher opinion of mans words rather than God's word. Did the holy spirit supernaturaly reveal that to you?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

.

I tried to find an emoticon for a facepalm but couldn't find one...... I guess the saying is true you can lead a man to knowledge but can't make him think.

In no way do I say this to disrespect you as a person, its just a remark in general about how people can be scientificly illiterate when it comes to matters like this.

 

Sorry but you didn't put forth an example of evolution.  Micro-evolution doesn't prove macro-evolution. Just because there are variations within a species doesn't warrant a leap in logic that says lizards evolved into birds.

 

Your position is nonsense because it is bait-and-switch.  Claim that evolution is proven and then trying to produce micro-evolution examples and pretend that such examples prove evolution en toto.   

 

Sorry but I am not the one with thinking issues.  I simply don't except evolution because it has NEVER been empirically proven or intuitively observed and that is simple basic fact, whether you can bring yourself to face up to it or not.

 

 

Oh and thanks by compairing me to the librals, and putting false words in my mouth by saying I have a higher opinion of mans words rather than God's word. Did the holy spirit supernaturaly reveal that to you?

 

 

It's obvious from what you said that you reject God's word that He created the earth in six days and anyone who knows anything about the Big Bang knows it is incompatible with the Bible so when it comes to choices, you chose a hypothesis over God's inerrant Word.

 

I am a Christian.  I believe God.  That's what Christians do.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

It's obvious from what you said that you reject God's word that He created the earth in six days and anyone who knows anything about the Big Bang knows it is incompatible with the Bible so when it comes to choices, you chose a hypothesis over God's inerrant Word.

Well i would chose a theory who has 99.9999% chance of being right over believe in something were is no prove for at all!! 

you are constantly saying there is no neutral evidence for the big bang, but there is not even a single piece of possible neutral evidence for creationism.

and believing in God does not has to be taking the bible pure litterally. there are many many many people who believe in the god but do not take the bible litterally.

they are christians too. 

i suspect 20-30% of the belgians is believes in god, but at highest 1% takes the bible litterally and believes in creationism.

this can be taken for the majority of west europe.

even our bisshops, the ones who should have the most strongest believe here, say they believe in evolution and the big bang.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Well i would chose a theory who has 99.9999% chance of being right over believe in something were is no prove for at all!! 

 

Sorry, but the Big Bang isn't even close to that.  It is nothing more than a hypothesis.

 

 

you are constantly saying there is no neutral evidence for the big bang, but there is not even a single piece of possible neutral evidence for creationism.

 

I didn't say there was no evidence for the Big Bang.  I said there was no proof.  You need to learn the difference.  There is evidence for creationism, but most people like you dismiss it out of hand as evidence at all.

 

and believing in God does not has to be taking the bible pure litterally. there are many many many people who believe in the god but do not take the bible litterally.

they are christians too. 

i suspect 20-30% of the belgians is believes in god, but at highest 1% takes the bible litterally and believes in creationism.

this can be taken for the majority of west europe.

even our bisshops, the ones who should have the most strongest believe here, say they believe in evolution and the big bang.

 

And all of them would be wrong.   There is a difference between being a "Christian" and being a genuine follower of Jesus.  Most of Europe as abandoned Jesus for a version of Christianity that is devoid of God or Jesus.   They have a religion, but they are still lost sinners going to hell, just like you.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0