Schouwenaars Posted June 14, 2014 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 153 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 44 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/04/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/05/1997 Share Posted June 14, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schouwenaars Posted June 14, 2014 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 153 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 44 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/04/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/05/1997 Share Posted June 14, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwikphilly Posted June 14, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 96 Topic Count: 307 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 18,136 Content Per Day: 4.63 Reputation: 27,816 Days Won: 327 Joined: 08/03/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted June 14, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schouwenaars Posted June 14, 2014 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 153 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 44 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/04/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/05/1997 Share Posted June 14, 2014 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthonyjmcgirr Posted June 14, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 194 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 37 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/31/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1984 Author Share Posted June 14, 2014 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j102 Posted June 14, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 443 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 24 Days Won: 1 Joined: 09/08/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted June 14, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 . 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts