little bang

[kwikphilly]

Blessings standing_alone

     I would like to welcome you to Worthy,personally l abhor debate.......I am always happy to discuss almost any topic with others ,respect others for their beliefs & opinions when they differ from my own and reason together...........I know my Brother Alpha feels the same way & not that he needs me to speak for him but this topic is like a dead horse that has been beaten to death  and usually goes nowhere fast..................

       God Bless you,you can probably find many many discussions on this subject by looking up the old ones,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,With love-in Christ,Kwik

[Joshua260]

standing_alone: I think you misunderstood me.  I was not suggesting that I support the big bang theory.  What I was saying is that the red-shift that has been recorded may be due to a different cause (local system gravity) other than that of universes speeding away from us (the Doppler effect).  Einstein did indeed prove that gravity pretty satisfactorily (or actually the curvature of space) bent light coming to earth while passing close by the sun.  The delta was measured by noting light coming from stars in a specific area of space, and then later again while there was a solar eclipse in that same area of our sky. 

[gray wolf]

The title of this topic Reminds me of a Far Side cartoon - the one with the short scientist pushing his "little bang" theory

[kwikphilly]

Hey gray!!!!!

    Good to see you Brother,God Bless you......................yeah,I think so too,it is a cute title-got my attention                          With love-in Christ,Kwik

[standing_alone]

Thanks for the welcome, Kwikphilly. And what does it tell you, that despite the number of arguments against big bang people still believe in it?

 

But the true irony is that I could not find amongst the opponents, nor personally conceive, more damaging arguments against big bang than those forwarded by the very proponents of big bang…

Edited February 5, 2015 by standing_alone

[standing_alone]

Enoch2021, speaking of deGrasse, I found him offering a personal explanation for flatness. One that, if I remember correctly, couldn’t find at any other supporter of big bang. And a wrong explanation, of course. Just like all the others…

[standing_alone]

 Einstein did indeed prove that gravity pretty satisfactorily (or actually the curvature of space) bent light coming to earth while passing close by the sun. 

 

Sorry, but no, he didn't.

[Tristen]

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Hey Enoch,

 

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

 

I understand that debate is not an explicit stage of the scientific method; however the scientific method is not a stand-alone protocol.  The scientific method is a system with rational implications and has to be justified in logic.

 

When formulating hypotheses, we don’t just accept an explanation upon the hearing. There may be several competing hypotheses presented to account for the same observation. So at this stage, the scientific method makes provision for discussion, debate and challenge.

 

The simple fact that the scientific method requires hypotheses to be tested further demonstrates that scrutiny and scepticism are fundamental concepts which underpin the scientific method.

 

At the hypothesis testing stage, experimental design and robustness are common sources of debate and discussion.

 

Many scientific documents have an explicit Discussion section where the research implications (including; weaknesses, assumptions, inferences, and any competing, alternate ideas as well as conclusions) are stated and considered – all of which remain subject to scrutiny.

 

And, as I am sure you are aware, the publication of research does not equate to verification of the conclusions. It only means that experts have considered the research methodology and found it to be sound. Publishing research renders it more broadly subject to scrutiny and challenge - not beyond reproach.

 

Even from the perspective of fundamental logic, the scientific method can never provide certainty (which is why absolutist terminology, such as “proven,” is logically illegitimate in a scientific context). At any time, a new observation could undermine anything we think we know about the natural world. Therefore, a provision for discussion, scrutiny, debate and challenge remain fundamental implications of the scientific method (but not an explicit stage in and of itself).

 

 

 

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

 

We have previously debated the use of the word “science”. We both understand theoretical weaknesses associated with historical claims. I prefer to describe the distinction as historical science and operational science – rather than utterly abandon the word science for historical claims. There are several reasons why I choose to adopt this usage;

 

1) The investigation of historical claims often utilises legitimate scientific practices. For example, geological sampling methods and chemical measurements are a legitimate source of scientific information. It’s only when they try to equate that information with age that they move into fallacy (i.e. affirming the consequent). Likewise, searching for dark matter and dark energy are legitimate scientific pursuits. However, if they ever find either, they will try to claim that it adds to our confidence in Big Bang – which we both know is logically bankrupt, and scientifically unjustified. So the suggestion that investigating historical claims is utterly bereft of science isn’t strictly correct.

 

2) A common strategy of creationist opponents is to claim a disparity between our position and science (e.g. we are allegedly anti-science, or science deniers, or ignore evidence etc.). Creationism is commonly, though illegitimately, described as pseudo-science – implying that our position lacks rational merit. Again they resort to fallacy (namely; Innuendo – but there is usually a raft of fallacies tied together). So when we say “it’s not science”, they are likely to hear an echo of their own false strategy and miss the legitimate argument.

 

3) I’ve also noticed that people disengage when we say “it’s not science”. One of my goals is to maintain engagement with those who are prepared to participate in discussion. For the sake of a different use of terminology, I get more of a chance to have my arguments considered.

 

 

 

“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”

 

I probably shouldn’t have been surprised, but I was shocked to hear such a ridiculous claim – even though I was aware of his prior, anti-religious form. I agree that there are many on the list – I think there are those who, like Tyson and Dawkins, are good communicators. It’s just a pity that they use their skills to attack religious faith more than to advance scientific comprehension (ironically - under the guise of maintaining scientific integrity).

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

The scientific method is a system with rational implications and has to be justified in logic.

When formulating hypotheses, we don’t just accept an explanation upon the hearing. There may be several competing hypotheses presented to account for the same observation. So at this stage, the scientific method makes provision for discussion, debate and challenge.

 

 

Experiment settles the matter.

 

 

At the hypothesis testing stage, experimental design and robustness are common sources of debate and discussion.  Many scientific documents have an explicit Discussion section where the research implications (including; weaknesses, assumptions, inferences, and any competing, alternate ideas as well as conclusions) are stated and considered – all of which remain subject to scrutiny.

 

 

This is where the only "Discussion" and "Opinion" should take place.  I agree 100%

 

 

Even from the perspective of fundamental logic, the scientific method can never provide certainty (which is why absolutist terminology, such as “proven,” is logically illegitimate in a scientific context).

 

 

I disagree, vehemently. (Short List) The Laws of Thermodynamics, and Information only coming from "a Mind", are Absolutes!  If you disagree, please provide ONE anomaly....?

 

 

We both understand theoretical weaknesses associated with historical claims

 

 

Scientifically, they can't be TESTED/Validated...end of story.  However, the Scientific Method is not the only "method" to arrive @ TRUTH.

 

 

geological sampling methods and chemical measurements are a legitimate source of scientific information

 

 

Define "Scientific Information" and Compare and Contrast with plain ole "Information"....?

 

 

A common strategy of creationist opponents is to claim a disparity between our position and science (e.g. we are allegedly anti-science, or science deniers, or ignore evidence etc.)

 

 

Yes, it's a laugher and doesn't stand up to Formica Deep Scrutiny.

 

 

I’ve also noticed that people disengage when we say “it’s not science”

 

 

I call it as I see it.  If it can't be TESTED.... it's not "Science".  

 

 

 

May The LORD be with you Brother.

[enoob57]

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?

I wouldn't stress to much over this seeing that the comment is coming from nobody