little bang

[standing_alone]

Maybe instead of debating the topic with others you could just explain your

thoughts on why the Big Bang model doesn't seem feasible to you?

 

 

 

 

Simply because there's nothing in it that stands. Even when completely disregarding alternative explanations. Instead of the formal history of the universe (aka big bang), you should read the history of big bang, and then ask yourself: why exactly has it been changed both so often and so radically?

[standing_alone]

Joshua260, let me assure you that nobody has ever proven that “gravity affects light”, despite einsteinian propaganda. Let me also assure you that nobody has ever proven that the universe is actually gravitational, in the first place.

 

Now, if you or alphaparticle think otherwise, then please go ahead and give me evidence that:

- does not have anything to do with philosophy (or wishful thinking, to put it bluntly)

- does not have alternative explanations.

 

Also specify how much more wrong does a gravitational universe has to be before you, or alphaparticle, or mainstream, would admit that it is… wrong? Because I for one can hardly picture a more anti-gravitational universe than what big bang already is – and in fact has always been…

[standing_alone]

Alphaparticle, please start a thread, and I’ll join.

 

To “become a believer you” certainly must not “embrace anti-intellectualism and turn against science”.

 

And it seems to me that that’s the problem with so many people, right there. Believing without skepticism all that mainstream tells them to believe. In other words, burying science while calling themselves scientific, and intellectual.

 

But I’m even more interested in why you, as a Christian, believe in big bang, since I can hardly picture a cosmology more opposite to the Bible than this.

[alphaparticle]

Alphaparticle, please start a thread, and I’ll join.

 

To “become a believer you” certainly must not “embrace anti-intellectualism and turn against science”.

 

And it seems to me that that’s the problem with so many people, right there. Believing without skepticism all that mainstream tells them to believe. In other words, burying science while calling themselves scientific, and intellectual.

 

But I’m even more interested in why you, as a Christian, believe in big bang, since I can hardly picture a cosmology more opposite to the Bible than this.

I will be willing to answer that if you start a thread on it in a non Outer Court part of the forum. I don't have enough interest to be the one to start the thread, since I would just be answering your questions.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

Hi, alphaparticle.

 

Of course you would have to show me exactly what evidence supports the big bang and only the big bang.

 

I heard that some people made a list with as far as 50 alternative explanations for redshift, for example. (People such as Paul Marmet, if I remember correctly; I haven’t actually looked into that, since I already know big bang is wrong.)

 

It’s philosophy that makes one pick an explanation over another. And speaking of philosophy, there is one philosophical statement that big bang, and in fact almost all the cosmologies in the world (more than 99.99% of them), is based upon. One that Einstein implicitly assumed, just as almost all cosmologists that followed him, including and even foremost the proponents of big bang. A principle that meanwhile has been proven so wrong. Now, would you agree that therefore, general relativity (and in fact any mathematical effort to portray the universe) is wrong, solely for this reason? If not, why exactly not?

 

In general, feel free to show me that it’s actual science that leads to big bang’s statements, and not philosophy. Because I can easily show you it’s the other way around.

 

Please also explain how exactly is “diversity of opinion among Christians on this sort of topic” (or on any topic) a good thing, and not a bad thing.

I am willing to answer these questions, but not here. I have two fundamental reasons for that. First, the outer court is apparently supposed to be for the engagement of believers and unbelievers for witnessing purposes. I don't see how that would be accomplished by us going at here. Second, I hate the existence of this sub-forum. I find it positively appalling. Why is it fatih *vs* science? This just propagates the image that if you become a believer you must embrace anti-intellectualism and turn against science. Or, the false understanding that science as a whole is someone entirely opposed to faith. You can see this is untrue by simply looking at some of the greatest scientists who ever lived and see that they were often inspired *by* their faith in their profession.

 

Alright, all that is a long way to say, if you want to post this on another part of the forum I'll engage your questions. If not, that's cool also.

 

Hi alpha,

 

As a YEC myself, I obviously disagree with your conclusion that the evidence best supports Big Bang Theory. I also disagree that the issue is “not worthy of debate”. The prevalence of secular scientific models represents a significant cause of people rejecting the Christian faith; as well as a major stumbling block for people coming to the faith. So I think it benefits both Christians and non-Christians to see that questioning and debating secular scientific dogma is actually permitted (actually encouraged by the correct application of the scientific method) – and that one can promote alternative models of reality without compromising their scientific or intellectual integrity.

 

I do agree that the “faith v science” label promotes the illegitimate conflict myth – that science and faith are fundamentally incompatible with each other – which, in my opinion, panders to atheistic propaganda. I also think the admins can be a bit funny about what can and can’t be discussed in this section (which, in my humble opinion, stifles debate and engagement with unbelievers).

 

Most importantly, I appreciate your use of hedging language; “I accept”, “the … model” & “I think”. I think this somewhat nullifies the challenge of the OP. It indicates that you already understand that Big Bang is not ‘a fact’, or ‘proven’, or, as Neil deGrassy Tyson suggests, ‘scientific law’ – levels of confidence which cannot be justified in logic, or by the scientific method. Your use of hedging language further indicates that you understand the role of presupposition in scientific interpretation – which is a welcome change from the usual position of Big Bang proponents.

 

I suppose it was bound to happen I'd agree with you somewhere, and I do agree with a couple of your points here.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

Hi, alphaparticle.

 

Of course you would have to show me exactly what evidence supports the big bang and only the big bang.

 

I heard that some people made a list with as far as 50 alternative explanations for redshift, for example. (People such as Paul Marmet, if I remember correctly; I haven’t actually looked into that, since I already know big bang is wrong.)

 

It’s philosophy that makes one pick an explanation over another. And speaking of philosophy, there is one philosophical statement that big bang, and in fact almost all the cosmologies in the world (more than 99.99% of them), is based upon. One that Einstein implicitly assumed, just as almost all cosmologists that followed him, including and even foremost the proponents of big bang. A principle that meanwhile has been proven so wrong. Now, would you agree that therefore, general relativity (and in fact any mathematical effort to portray the universe) is wrong, solely for this reason? If not, why exactly not?

 

In general, feel free to show me that it’s actual science that leads to big bang’s statements, and not philosophy. Because I can easily show you it’s the other way around.

 

Please also explain how exactly is “diversity of opinion among Christians on this sort of topic” (or on any topic) a good thing, and not a bad thing.

I am willing to answer these questions, but not here. I have two fundamental reasons for that. First, the outer court is apparently supposed to be for the engagement of believers and unbelievers for witnessing purposes. I don't see how that would be accomplished by us going at here. Second, I hate the existence of this sub-forum. I find it positively appalling. Why is it fatih *vs* science? This just propagates the image that if you become a believer you must embrace anti-intellectualism and turn against science. Or, the false understanding that science as a whole is someone entirely opposed to faith. You can see this is untrue by simply looking at some of the greatest scientists who ever lived and see that they were often inspired *by* their faith in their profession.

 

Alright, all that is a long way to say, if you want to post this on another part of the forum I'll engage your questions. If not, that's cool also.

 

Hi alpha,

 

As a YEC myself, I obviously disagree with your conclusion that the evidence best supports Big Bang Theory. I also disagree that the issue is “not worthy of debate”. The prevalence of secular scientific models represents a significant cause of people rejecting the Christian faith; as well as a major stumbling block for people coming to the faith. So I think it benefits both Christians and non-Christians to see that questioning and debating secular scientific dogma is actually permitted (actually encouraged by the correct application of the scientific method) – and that one can promote alternative models of reality without compromising their scientific or intellectual integrity.

 

I do agree that the “faith v science” label promotes the illegitimate conflict myth – that science and faith are fundamentally incompatible with each other – which, in my opinion, panders to atheistic propaganda. I also think the admins can be a bit funny about what can and can’t be discussed in this section (which, in my humble opinion, stifles debate and engagement with unbelievers).

 

Most importantly, I appreciate your use of hedging language; “I accept”, “the … model” & “I think”. I think this somewhat nullifies the challenge of the OP. It indicates that you already understand that Big Bang is not ‘a fact’, or ‘proven’, or, as Neil deGrassy Tyson suggests, ‘scientific law’ – levels of confidence which cannot be justified in logic, or by the scientific method. Your use of hedging language further indicates that you understand the role of presupposition in scientific interpretation – which is a welcome change from the usual position of Big Bang proponents.

 

 

 

=================================================================================================================

 

 

Hey Tristen, long time.  An issue and a comment, everything else is spot on....

 

 

So I think it benefits both Christians and non-Christians to see that questioning and debating secular scientific dogma is actually permitted (actually encouraged by the correct application of the scientific method) – and that one can promote alternative models of reality without compromising their scientific or intellectual integrity.

 

 

"Debate" is not apart of the Scientific Method.  "Debates" are tenets of Political "science", Philosophy, and Cake Decorating discussion threads.

 

The big bang is not "science" it's a "Just So" Story; that's why there are "DEBATES".

 

 

or, as Neil deGrassy Tyson suggests, ‘scientific law’

 

 

Neil "smokin degrassy" Tyson (Yes Childish, but highly accurate assessment)

 

Scientific Laws - describes the "What" and are the result of repeated experiments. They are inviolable as the "Observed" part of the Natural World.

 

I'd like to "SEE" the Experiments Validating the big bang.  I would be very interested in the Make/Model/Serial# of the Time Machine they used     

 

It's safe to say that "Neil" (he's not the only one...it's quite a long list) wouldn't know what real science was if it landed on his Head and Whistled Dixie.

 

 

regards

[standing_alone]

Alphaparticle, so far you avoid explaining even why you, as a Christian, believe in big bang, since, again, I can hardly picture a cosmology more opposite to the Bible than this.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

 

Alphaparticle, please start a thread, and I’ll join.

 

To “become a believer you” certainly must not “embrace anti-intellectualism and turn against science”.

 

And it seems to me that that’s the problem with so many people, right there. Believing without skepticism all that mainstream tells them to believe. In other words, burying science while calling themselves scientific, and intellectual.

 

But I’m even more interested in why you, as a Christian, believe in big bang, since I can hardly picture a cosmology more opposite to the Bible than this.

I will be willing to answer that if you start a thread on it in a non Outer Court part of the forum. I don't have enough interest to be the one to start the thread, since I would just be answering your questions.

 

I see the YEC as akin to flat earthers.  They come up with fantastic and unprovable theories while those of us who have used science in the real world see God's handiwork and majesty first hand.  They practice the same anti-intellectuallism that the papists did against Galileo.  What's the point in arguing with them when they just make stuff up? 

[standing_alone]

Nobody-2441, how ironic what you say, since Galileo had no evidence whatsoever for his claim. (Admitted as such even by today formal sources, just in case you want to dispute that…) And the situation stayed like that for a couple of centuries more…

 

And it’s not YECs that have to prove anything. It’s not YECs claiming to understand the universe. To the contrary, it’s OECs and atheists that have to prove their big bang, or whatever. So why don’t you do that? Really looking forward. And you should start by defining what science is, because not only is big bang wrong, but it’s not even science, whatever formal definition of science you would pick up…

 

It’s also ironic that both OECs and atheists accuse YECs of “anti-intellectualism”, forgetting from whom exactly this “intellectualism” they hold so dear comes from, in the first place.

 

As for making stuff up, I personally can hardly imagine of a more appropriate description for big bang. Spot on.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

Alphaparticle, please start a thread, and I’ll join.

 

To “become a believer you” certainly must not “embrace anti-intellectualism and turn against science”.

 

And it seems to me that that’s the problem with so many people, right there. Believing without skepticism all that mainstream tells them to believe. In other words, burying science while calling themselves scientific, and intellectual.

 

But I’m even more interested in why you, as a Christian, believe in big bang, since I can hardly picture a cosmology more opposite to the Bible than this.

I will be willing to answer that if you start a thread on it in a non Outer Court part of the forum. I don't have enough interest to be the one to start the thread, since I would just be answering your questions.

 

I see the YEC as akin to flat earthers.  They come up with fantastic and unprovable theories while those of us who have used science in the real world see God's handiwork and majesty first hand.  They practice the same anti-intellectuallism that the papists did against Galileo.  What's the point in arguing with them when they just make stuff up? 

 

I don't see this commentary as helpful here. Everything you have said here is propaganda without much substance. What is the point of lobbing insults at one another?