LookingForAnswers Posted January 18, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 18, 2014 Science is all about what can be observed. On this we agree, but what is being observed does not need to be the actual event, but perhaps the results and consequences of the actual event. There is much to be observed in the universe. The Big Bang is not falsifiable because there was no one there to observe it and it cannot be empirically tested in a lab. There are all kinds of hypoethesis out there based on radiation, and the movement of stars away from each other. But there is no way to falsify the claim that the universe began as singularity and expanded in all directions. That is untestable hypothesis. A theory is nothing more than a well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified hypotheses. You falsify a theory by doing so to the individual hypothesis. If you wish to disprove the big bang theory then you go after each hypothesis. This is actually what a great many scientist are doing today as they recognize the implications of a beginning like the Big Bang so they are working to find an explanation that leaves no room for a creator. It is a wild goose chase, but it is what is happening. There are some funadmental assumptions in the scientific community that are considered untouchable and despite not ever having been tested, much less proven. These assumptions are protected at all costs, even when there is evidence that suggests that the assumptions are false. For example, C14 was used for a long time in dating even though it was known to be inaccurate, but an acknowledgement of that fact would stand in the way of claiming an older earth, so the evidence was simply ignored and the assumption was maintained. This is true, and it is a good thing to point out. But to make statements about what is and what is not "real" science only opens yourself and others up to ridicule, and in my opinion it is deserved. To tell someone like Nebula that what she is doing is not really science but a bagel is demeaning and a few other things I cannot put into words on this forum. If you do not like the conclusion then work to show it is false, but comments like the one by Enoch2021 put an end to any real dialogue because as soon as they are made the person is dismissed as a loon, or worse as someone that is disingenuous and trying to make a distinction that does not exist so that they can have their cake and eat it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwikphilly Posted January 18, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 96 Topic Count: 307 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 18,134 Content Per Day: 4.63 Reputation: 27,815 Days Won: 327 Joined: 08/03/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 18, 2014 Blessings Sister neb!!! Good Morning......don't ya just wake up some mornings & you just can't seem to Praise High enough,or shout loud enough or dance hard enough to say.........Bless You "ABBA"!!!!!!Thats the kind of morning I am having-lol !!!!!!!Halleluliah! I think I see where you where going with your little scenario .......I began reading some commentaries but honestly they were so long & I am just to excited to do all that reading.................. I just wanted to stick my little two cents in & say that sometimes when the Holy Spirit is working on the heart of the recipient "S".........the very simplest of answers are all that is needed.......whew,Praise & Glory to God Almighty!!!!! God bless you all this wonderful day our Lord has made!!!!! With love in Christ-Kwik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 18, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Okay, here is some science I would like to hear a rebuttal on from the YEC camp: Cosmic microwave background Here is an article to help refresh you on this. It includes other evidence to support BB, but we can start at the Cosmic stuff. Sound goodhttp://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/ Yes, No problem.... ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published .....New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). **Currently over 300 have signed up*** Some Highlights..... ‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’ ‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’ ‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.' ‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’ aka......"Just So" Stories or "Recovery Hypothesis" /"Ad Hoc Hypotheses" Big Bangs Afterglow fails Intergalactic Shadow Test. Dr. Richard Lieu.... ‘Either it (the microwave background) isn’t coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or … there is something else going on.'http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm ‘But you don’t see this fluctuation’, said Lieu. ‘There appear to be no lensing effects whatsoever.' Lieu, R. and Mitaz, J.P.D., On the absence of gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background, Astrophysical Journal 628:583, 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 18, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 My goodness, this thread took on a life of its own! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 18, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Conventional Scientist, now (Born Again Christian) : I thought the Universe was eternal? YEC: Well the 1st Law (1LOT): The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. 2nd Law (2LOT): The amount of energy available for work is running out, and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death. If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe. “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past. There must be some kind of boundary.” Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, Tufts University Boston. Grossman, L., Death of the eternal cosmos, New Scientist 213(2847):6–7, 14 January 2012. Therefore, you only have 3 choices: The Universe has always existed (in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics); The Universe created itself (in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); The Universe was Created by GOD. H.J. Lipson, Physics, U. of Manchester, "I think however that we should go further than this and admit that the only accepted explanation is creation. I know that is anathema to physicists, as it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." Physics Bulletin, Vol.31, 1980, p.138 "The first gulp from the glass of natural science will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." Werner Heisenberg 1901-1976 Physicist Albert Einstein 1879-1955 " I am not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a small child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books but he does not know how. He does not understand the languages in which they are written. This child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That it seems to me is the thought of the most intelligent human being towards God ". Conventional Scientist, now (Born Again Christian) : When's Church? YEC: Every single moment Henceforth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 18, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 Anyway, I have more thoughts to formalize. But that's a start if anyone wants to comment. Letting The Evolutionist Speak For His Or Her Self I appreciate your line of thinking, but Evolution is actually an entirely different field of study than cosmology. Evolution focuses on Earth's biology. Cosmology focuses on physics, matter, the cosmos, theories like "the Big Bang." So bringing evolution into the debate completely misses your target. Rather That Turning To Jesus For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 "It is your duty, not to bring down the gospel into a conformity with them, but to change them into a conformity with the gospel." - Robert Hall Sure, but please explain to me how the insistence of conforming scientists to a 6000 year old universe is going to bring them face to face with their sin and their need for a Savior? Their problem is not refusing to embracing the authority of the Bible. Very rarely would that be the true root for hardness of heart. If anything, the whole Creation debate turns more people off from looking to Jesus. That's been my experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 18, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 18, 2014 My goodness, this thread took on a life of its own! I thought the format was absolute genius!! Best OP I was ever apart of.....there is no limit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted January 18, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 18, 2014 Conventional Scientist, now (Born Again Christian) : I thought the Universe was eternal? YEC: Well the 1st Law (1LOT): The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. 2nd Law (2LOT): The amount of energy available for work is running out, and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death. If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe. “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past. There must be some kind of boundary.” Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, Tufts University Boston. Grossman, L., Death of the eternal cosmos, New Scientist 213(2847):6–7, 14 January 2012. Therefore, you only have 3 choices: The Universe has always existed (in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics); The Universe created itself (in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); The Universe was Created by GOD. H.J. Lipson, Physics, U. of Manchester, "I think however that we should go further than this and admit that the only accepted explanation is creation. I know that is anathema to physicists, as it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." Physics Bulletin, Vol.31, 1980, p.138 "The first gulp from the glass of natural science will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." Werner Heisenberg 1901-1976 Physicist Albert Einstein 1879-1955 " I am not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a small child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books but he does not know how. He does not understand the languages in which they are written. This child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That it seems to me is the thought of the most intelligent human being towards God ". Conventional Scientist, now (Born Again Christian) : When's Church? YEC: Every single moment Henceforth Born Again Christian Conventional Scientist: The Big Bang theory supports choice 3, The Universe was Created by GOD. One does not need to deny science to come to this conclusion. YEC: That is not what AIG told me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 18, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 Easy does it. I wasn't accusing you of qoute mining. I'd prefer a journal article to get a better understanding. As for the interview, I'd say C is not doing very well Hi, I apologize for that. My dialogue was an expression of my frustrations. In my experience, C's responses tend to be the standard fall-back kinds of statements when people do not know how else to answer. I am sure if I were expressing things the other way, S's responses would just as insulting to other S's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 18, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 YEC: The Big Bang goes against "science" Scientist: Why/How? Well the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT) "Pillar of Science", states: Nature can't create or destroy matter/energy...they can just change form. And we are here Scientist: You're right. Can I see that Bible of Yours??? YEC: Yes, you surely can Scientist: The big bang was a change in form, not the creation of new matter or energy. YEC: That is not what AIG told me! Very good! I was envisioning something like: YEC: Well the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT) "Pillar of Science", states: Nature can't create or destroy matter/energy...they can just change form. And we are here Scientist: [insert quantum physics and string theory explanations.] YEC: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.03b9a592ab3fbf402fba028ca0d40a97.thumb.jpg.2258d605d3ad1f34b6effde23d20e7d7.jpg)
Recommended Posts