Big Bang Proven False?

[anthonyjmcgirr]

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

[jerryR34]

There are several causes of non-velocity redshifting.

[anthonyjmcgirr]

Like?

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

[jerryR34]

Like?

 

http://starburstfound.org/sqkblog/?p=138

[jerryR34]

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...

[Guest shiloh357]

 

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.

[jerryR34]

 

 

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.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

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.

[anthonyjmcgirr]

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.