Big Bang Proven False?

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't see the Big Bang as opposed to the Bible.

The Bible says that the stars were created after the earth.  The BB says they were created before the earth.

 

But why can't the BB be the way God created the universe. I think it can. And I don't see that as a problem. I often think Genesis picks up where God started to cool down the mass we call Earth, and carries on from there. And since the Bible says with God a day can be as 1000 years (or maybe even 1 million) the 7 days of Genesis can be any amount of time.

 

The problem is that the Bible gives us a watery start to the earth, not a cooling start.  

 

The seven days of Genesis can't be any amount of time.  The Hebrew won't allow for that.

 

[TheVeganBuddhist]

 

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.

 

Did you really say that Evidence is not proof?

 

So if you have evidence that I stole money from a bank (me waving to the security camera on my way in and out) then I cannot be tried and put away for stealing the money right? Because even though you have evidence whether it be the money or footage it isn't proof . . .

[Guest]

Did you really say that Evidence is not proof....

 

 

Beloved, Without Sight

 

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

 

Evidence Is

 

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

 

Fake

 

What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 

 

Not at all!

 

Let God be true, and every human being a liar.

 

As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.” Romans 3:3-4 (NIV)

 

~

 

Believe

 

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

Love, Joe

[gray wolf]

It is a little more complicated in this situation. We have evidence, but it differs from the video camera example. Sometimes you must take the evidence and construct a scenario, a model to explain it when it is not clear cut. And this is where you get the different proposed explanations.

[BoddhiBody]

The Big Bang isn't a scientific consensus. It's a large majority vote, but unlike evolution there are considerable numbers of reputable scientists who oppose it.

 

Just to get you guys up to speed, the big bang is also not this idea of 'nothing' becoming 'something'. It's to do with super hot, super dense potential energy releasing its potential, not 'nothing' becoming 'something'.

Edited June 18, 2014 by BoddhiBody

[Guest shiloh357]

The Big Bang isn't a scientific consensus. It's a large majority vote, but unlike evolution there are considerable numbers of reputable scientists who oppose it.

 

Just to get you guys up to speed, the big bang is also not this idea of 'nothing' becoming 'something'. It's to do with super hot, super dense potential energy releasing its potential, not 'nothing' becoming 'something'.

Which is another reason why it is in contradiction to the Bible.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

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.

 

Did you really say that Evidence is not proof?

 

So if you have evidence that I stole money from a bank (me waving to the security camera on my way in and out) then I cannot be tried and put away for stealing the money right? Because even though you have evidence whether it be the money or footage it isn't proof . . .

 

Yes, evidence isn't proof.  Proof requires a different standard.  Proof is undeniable.   I can prove that the sun exists.  I can prove water extinguishes fire. 

 

Evidence supports a claim, but it doesn't necessarily prove a claim because the evidence one possesses may not contain all of the facts on a given issue.  Evidence supports a claim, but doesn't always tell the whole story.

 

Evidence allows you to make the case that your claim has value, is rational and has a good chance of being true.  But there may be evidence (facts) that might work against your claim, as well.  It may be that your claim is based on insufficient evidence and in the face of new evidence your claim may need to modified or discarded altogether.

 

It is also important to understand that in a court of law, the standard of "proof" isn't the same as is required in a laboratory.  In court, it is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."   In court something is "proven" when the preponderance of evidence points in either direction of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

 

Science works from a far more stringent standard of "proof" that may or may not be attainable.

[BoddhiBody]

 

 

 

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.

 

Did you really say that Evidence is not proof?

 

So if you have evidence that I stole money from a bank (me waving to the security camera on my way in and out) then I cannot be tried and put away for stealing the money right? Because even though you have evidence whether it be the money or footage it isn't proof . . .

 

Yes, evidence isn't proof.  Proof requires a different standard.  Proof is undeniable.   I can prove that the sun exists.  I can prove water extinguishes fire. 

 

Evidence supports a claim, but it doesn't necessarily prove a claim because the evidence one possesses may not contain all of the facts on a given issue.  Evidence supports a claim, but doesn't always tell the whole story.

 

Evidence allows you to make the case that your claim has value, is rational and has a good chance of being true.  But there may be evidence (facts) that might work against your claim, as well.  It may be that your claim is based on insufficient evidence and in the face of new evidence your claim may need to modified or discarded altogether.

 

It is also important to understand that in a court of law, the standard of "proof" isn't the same as is required in a laboratory.  In court, it is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."   In court something is "proven" when the preponderance of evidence points in either direction of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

 

Science works from a far more stringent standard of "proof" that may or may not be attainable.

 

Regardless of whatever rambling you keep doing, the facts of the matter are these.

 

The universe is expanding. The universe, like everything else, is ruled by our laws of physics. it is not ruled by laws of physics which are non-existent, or those of some omni-verse we're yet to ever see, nor of universe X whose laws of physics are not so much laws as instructions.

 

Our universe complies with our laws of physics, or rather, our laws of physics comply with our universe.

 

Physical fun-fact number 1: The universe is expanding. This tells us that over time, it expanded, and so at one point, it was unexpanded.

 

Physical fun fact number 2: Time requires motion, space, and stuff. If the universe was hot, dense and motionless, just potential energy, waiting to be released, time itself would not be existent, thus the idea of 'before the universe' is contradictory. Before 'time' is a better analogy. We know that time had a beginning, but evidence suggests the 'stuff' of the universe, in a state without time, had no beginning. That's just logic. A timeless entity cannot 'begin' or 'end', but time can become out of that beginningless, perpetual 'stuff'.

 

Physical fun fact number 3: Every kind of 'stuff', matter or otherwise, has a gravitational negative energy, able to be counteracted by an opposing positive potential energy. The total energy in the universe is a mathematical zero. (The equilibrium zero, not the 'nothingness' zero)

 

Physical fun fact number 4: Because of this zero-energy existence, our universe has never not-existed. Time, on the other hand, did have a beginning.

 

If you imply God was the driving force behind the expansion of dense matters, thus beginning 'time', then there need be no contradiction between big-bang and bible. Though, 7 'yom' is more likely 7 eons than 7 days.

Edited June 18, 2014 by BoddhiBody

[TheVeganBuddhist]

 

 

 

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.

 

Did you really say that Evidence is not proof?

 

So if you have evidence that I stole money from a bank (me waving to the security camera on my way in and out) then I cannot be tried and put away for stealing the money right? Because even though you have evidence whether it be the money or footage it isn't proof . . .

 

Yes, evidence isn't proof.  Proof requires a different standard.  Proof is undeniable.   I can prove that the sun exists.  I can prove water extinguishes fire. 

 

Evidence supports a claim, but it doesn't necessarily prove a claim because the evidence one possesses may not contain all of the facts on a given issue.  Evidence supports a claim, but doesn't always tell the whole story.

 

Evidence allows you to make the case that your claim has value, is rational and has a good chance of being true.  But there may be evidence (facts) that might work against your claim, as well.  It may be that your claim is based on insufficient evidence and in the face of new evidence your claim may need to modified or discarded altogether.

 

It is also important to understand that in a court of law, the standard of "proof" isn't the same as is required in a laboratory.  In court, it is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."   In court something is "proven" when the preponderance of evidence points in either direction of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

 

Science works from a far more stringent standard of "proof" that may or may not be attainable.

 

If evidence is not proof I hope you are never called for jury duty I would hate for you to stand the floor and say "Yes, I know those are his prints on the gun, and the gun was found in his bag, I know that is him in the video, and I know DNA linked him to the location, and eye-witnesses confirmed it, but that does not prove he did it."

[Guest shiloh357]

If evidence is not proof I hope you are never called for jury duty I would hate for you to stand the floor and say "Yes, I know those are his prints on the gun, and the gun was found in his bag, I know that is him in the video, and I know DNA linked him to the location, and eye-witnesses confirmed it, but that does not prove he did it."

 

You don't understand the nature of evidence vs. proof.    Evidence is a pointer or an indicators and there are different qualities of evidence. Some evidence is better than others. 

 

What you list above would likely result in a person being convicted in a court of law.  it would meet the level of proof needed for a conviction where the standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."  The preponderance of evidence listed above is a lot different than what is usually being dealt with in a court of law.  Your example isn't typical of the kind of evidence prosecutors have because many times there may be a lack of DNA, no murder weapon, no video.  Maybe only ONE kind of evidence has turned up.  Many times, in fact most of the time, juries have to render a verdict based on a deficit of evidence.

 

Consider this.  How many people have been wrongly convicted of a crime based on "evidence" in a court?  How many people had enough evidence stacked against them to convict them in a court, only to have that conviction overturned later because more evidence has been found and it was better evidence than the defense had at the time of conviction? 

 

Evidence isn't always slam dunk.  It doesn't rise to the level of proof.   Evidence can appear to lead a certain way until more evidence is uncovered. 

 

If you and I are in a room with a table and I leave a plate of brownies on the table and tell you not to eat the brownies, and I return later to find the plate empty and brownie crumbs by the chair you were sitting in when I left, that is evidence you ate the brownies I told you not to eat.  I can't prove you ate the brownies.  There might be more than one explanation for why there are brownie crumbs next to your chair without you having eaten the brownies.

 

The crumbs are evidence that I might use to suspect you as the perpetrator, but since I didn't see you eat them, and since I don't know who else has been in the room between the times I was there, I have no proof you ate the brownies.