Big Bang Debunked

[Hello Kitty]

Have you studied the Big Bang Theory in detail?  How old you think the Universe is?  7 days?  We can easily measure the Age of the Universe by the rate of expansion, and extrapolating backwards.  So you think the earth is older than the Sun and sits stationery at the center of the Universe on pillars?  LOL!  I didn't know I was dealing with primitive beliefs here.

Yes God's Word = God caused it.  That's what I said.  Science doesn't claim to know everything but it is always discovering new things and adding to its Knowledge base.  On the other hand, you PROVE to me that Creation happened exactly as Genesis says.

Oh by the way, Newflash - Birds are Avian Theropod Dinosaurs.  Look at their legs and claws.  Same as dinosaurs.  Ever heard of Archaeopteryx?  What do you think that was?

[Enoch2021]

22 hours ago, Hello Kitty said:

You cannot debunk the Big Bang and it wasn't 10 billion years ago. 

I just did. (See Previous Post)

 

Quote

It was 13.8 billion years ago

Really?  Please Provide Scientific Evidence...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

Quote

and it wasn't "nothing" that exploded because nothing created nothing.

 You wanna run that by us... one more time?

 

Quote

The Big Bang Theory is supported by overwhelming Scientific EVIDENCE. 

Sure.  I'd say there's a better chance of Liberace being resurrected sporting a purple tutu and jumping on a chartreuse hobbled unicorn and riding around the Sombrero Galaxy.

We're waiting...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

Quote

Here are several key pieces of evidence that support the Big Bang Theory.

Oh, I can't wait... 

 

Quote

1)  The fact that the Universe is expanding, proven with something called Red Shift. 

Red Shift has been "Debunked" by Anomalous Red Shifts.  I posted this here at Worthy a few years ago, here: Red Shift "Debunked"

If you'd like to sit back and listen, I debunked it here (You-Tube): Science vs. Scientism Episode 7 - Red Shift and the Nebular Hypothesis.

 

Quote

2) Cosmic Microwave background Radiation.

I also personally "Debunked" the CMB, here (You Tube): Science vs. Scientism Episode 6 - Speed of Light and the CMB.

 

Quote

3) Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.  Light elements (namely Deuterium, Helium, and Lithium) were produced in the first few minutes of the Big Bang, while elements heavier than Helium have their origins in the interiors of Stars which formed much later in the history of the Universe.

You have some BIG Problems:

Ahh, Nine Billion Years of MISSING METAL in a trillion stars (rotflol)...

"We're not saying there's a complete breakdown in the theory of galaxy evolution," says lead author and Indiana University astronomer John Salzer, "but that these objects do run counter to the standard model."
Salzer, J (as Quoted In); Clara Moskowitz; Newfound Spiral Galaxies Oddly Young; Space; 28 April 2009. Parent Paper....
Salzer, J et al; A POPULATION OF METAL-POOR GALAXIES WITH ~L* LUMINOSITIES AT INTERMEDIATE REDSHIFTS; The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 23 March 2009

and ...

- Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies (like the 13.2Bly-away EGS8p7) 
- An entire universe-worth of missing antimatter contradicts most fundamental BB prediction
- Observations show that spiral galaxies are the missing millions of years of BB predicted collisions
- Clusters of galaxies exist at great distances where the BB predicts they should not exist
- A trillion stars are missing an unimaginably massive quantity of heavy elements, a total of nine billion years worth 
- Galaxy superclusters exist yet the BB predicts that gravity couldn't form them even in the alleged age of the cosmos
- A missing generation of the alleged billions of first stars [Population III Stars] that the failed search has implied simply never existed
- Missing uniform distribution of earth's radioactivity
- Solar system formation theory wrong too
- It is "philosophy", not science, that makes the big-bang claim that the universe has no center
- Amassing evidence suggests the universe may have a center
- Sun is missing nearly 100% of the spin that natural formation would impart
- The beloved supernova chemical evolution story for the formation of heavy elements is now widely rejected
- Missing uniform distribution of solar system isotopes
- Missing billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies
- Surface brightness of the furthest galaxies, against a fundamental BB claim, is identical to that of the nearest galaxies
- Missing shadow of the big bang with the long-predicted "quieter" echo behind nearby galaxy clusters now disproved
- The CMB and other alleged confirmed big bang predictions (Google: big bang predictions. See that we're #1.)
- These "shouldn't exist" – a supermassive black hole, an iron-poor star, and a dusty galaxy – but they do
- Fine tuning and dozens of other MAJOR scientific observations and 1,000+ scientists doubting the big bang.

http://kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang

 

Quote

This link might be of interest ~http://www.esa.int/For_Media/Press_Releases/Planck_reveals_an_almost_perfect_Universe

Why?  More Pseudo-Science to Debunk??  Go ahead and pull out some "specifics" from your Elephant Hurling Fallacy here and I'll PUMMEL them into the Incoherent Oblivion!!

 

ProTip:  Mindless PARROTING Pseudo-Science Fairytale "Just-So" Stories are not gonna Fly here. 

 

regards

[Hello Kitty]

If you seriously believe you have debunked the "Big Bang Theory" then why don't you go to the Science Academies, present your evidence, and claim your Noble Prize?  You will become the most FAMOUS person in the World and receive a million dollars!  So what's keeping you from doing this?

[Enoch2021]

11 minutes ago, Hello Kitty said:

Have you studied the Big Bang Theory in detail? 

Yes, it's NOT a Scientific Theory and I already explain why in quite some detail.

 

Quote

How old you think the Universe is?  7 days?

When you say "Universe" what exactly do you mean...?

1.  Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows Prima Facia, that ALL "Dating Methods" are OUTSIDE of the Scientific Method; Errr..."Sciences" Purview, for goodness sakes.
You have NO....: "Independent Variable", so as to Form a Valid Scientific Hypothesis to TEST then VALIDATE your PREDICTION. Ahhh... "SCIENCE" !

a. So "Independent Variables" are the "Input" (The Cause) that is CHANGED "manipulated by the scientist" so as to measure/validate the "Output" (The Effect) "Dependent Variables"---Predictions.

b. "Independent Variables" are sine qua non (indispensable, as it were) to Scientific Hypothesis construction, then Ipso Facto Experiments!! So can you please elaborate: 
How on Earth can you CHANGE the "INPUT" and TEST your Prediction on a Past Event (lol) without a Time Machine, Pray Tell....?

You're in a simple Category Error. The Scientific Method is used to Validate "Cause and Effect" Relationships...it's Non Sequitur (Fallacy) to use it to extrapolate "age".
It's tantamount to using a Framing Square to calculate the GNP of the Netherlands, for goodness sakes.  

Ergo...

A Better Question: Given the Immutable Fact that it is OUTSIDE the Scientific Method and can never be VALIDATED, why on Earth are these "Long Ages" PUSHED ad nauseam, mainly by Pseudo-Scientists..."Then Stage 5 Clung" to with a Kung Fu Death Grip then Blindly Parroted by the masses as Fact and all challengers ridiculed endlessly for even bringing the topic up, Pray Tell...??? 

Sounds like "Propaganda" to me, you? It's mind numbing.

2.  You heard of Quantum Mechanics by chance?? ...

The 'Radioactive Decay Law', as is the case for ALL Physical Laws, is Consequent -- "Contingent" upon Quantum Mechanical Laws...

"The Laws of Physics are ALWAYS Quantum Mechanical Laws."
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. 
Quantum Mechanics II.  (33:50 minute mark)

i.e., The following condition MUST EXIST (NECESSARY ANTECEDENT)before you can Appeal to the Radioactive Decay Law...it's kinda 'HARD to get Around':

According to Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, described by Erwin Schrodinger --- THEN...
Validated Repeatedly via Thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception(!!) for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... : 
Independent of the KNOWLEDGE of the "Which-Path Information" -- or of it EXISTING... particles (Photons, All Elementary Particles, Atoms, Molecules) have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of "A Wave Function" which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. 
That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities.  Wave "Functions" aren't "WAVES"(Classical Peak/Troughs) they are "Potentialities" i.e., Probabilities, they have no Mass/Energy. 
To put it another way, the "Wave" of a Wave Function is not a "Wave" in "Physical Space", it's merely an abstract mathematical construct.

So... "Matter" (Our Reality) doesn't exist without, FIRST:

*A "Knower"/Existence of the "Which-Path" Information.*

Read carefully...

“It begins to look as WE ourselves, by OUR last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that WEourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The PAST is NOT really the PAST until is has been *REGISTERED*. 
Or to put it another way, THE PAST has NO MEANING or EXISTENCE unless it exists as a RECORD in the present.”
Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68.

So... unless you can provide The Name of the Person who "Originally" Observed these Rocks/Light/Whatever, Date/Time Stamped -- REGISTERED and Recorded THEM (Then a Chain of Continuous Observational CUSTODY till current times) ...

Then you MUST provide: the "Decay Rate" for a Wave of Potentialities...?
 
It'll be easier Sprouting Broccoli from your ARMPITS !!!!

 

Quote

We can easily measure the Age of the Universe by the rate of expansion, and extrapolating backwards.

You can't, it's a Fairytale.  (See: Explanation above)

 

Quote

So you think the earth is older than the Sun

No "I KNOW" the Earth is older than the Sun by 3 Days since God told us it was.

 

Quote

and sits stationery at the center of the Universe on pillars? 

Well it's: Flat/Non-Spinning/Domed and Geocentric.

 

Quote

I didn't know I was dealing with primitive beliefs here.

Coming from someone who would FAIL 5th Grade General Science.

 

Quote

Science doesn't claim to know everything

Well "Science" doesn't claim anything .  "Science" isn't an ENTITY or a result, It's a Method; The Scientific Method.  "Science" doesn't: "CLAIM", say, jump, run, swim, point to, or do the hokey pokey.  To do such things takes, Sentience, Prescience, and Intelligence...to be ALIVE.  Science isn't ALIVE, Ergo...Reification Fallacy.

 

Quote

On the other hand, you PROVE to me that Creation happened exactly as Genesis says.

How would you like me to do that...? Isn't Genesis itself..."The Evidence"?

 

Quote

Oh by the way, Newflash - Birds are Avian Theropod Dinosaurs.  Look at their legs and claws.  Same as dinosaurs.

Where did this come from?  So from the Pseudo-Science Fairytale big bang -- to now the Pseudo-Science Fairytale "Birds are Dino's", eh?  smh

1.  Can you post the Scientific Evidence supporting your claim here...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

2. And smh...

Oregon State University. "Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links." ScienceDaily. 9 June 2009. ...

"But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs," Ruben said. "However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link."

And lol: “‘For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from,’ Ruben said. ‘That’s a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories."

Parent Paper: Quick, D.E. and Ruben, J.A., Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs, Journal of Morphology, 20 May 2009

 

Quote

Ever heard of Archaeopteryx?  What do you think that was?

Yea.  It was A BIRD. ...

"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an Earth-bound, feathered dinosaur.  But it's not.  It is a bird, a perching bird.  And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."
Feduccia, A.; cited in: V. Morell, Arxhaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms, Science 259(5096):764-65, 5 February, 1993.

 

Any more Fairytale PARROTED Pseudo-Science you need me to PUMMEL?

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

19 minutes ago, Hello Kitty said:

If you seriously believe you have debunked the "Big Bang Theory"

Yea, 'duh'.  My 12 Year old daughter could PUMMEL it in less than a minute.

 

Quote

then why don't you go to the Science Academies, present your evidence

You mean Pseudo-Science Academies.  I've already presented this Information to a whole slew of Pseudo-Scientists...they just call me names. 

 

Quote

and claim your Noble Prize? 

Procedural Argument not one of "Substance".  And I've already got My Prize.

 

Quote

You will become the most FAMOUS person in the World and receive a million dollars! So what's keeping you from doing this?

Just 1 Million? 

(Matthew 16:26) " For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"

(James 4:4) "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

8 hours ago, Hello Kitty said:

So you have brain washed your daughter also? 

Nope. I taught her "HOW" to think, NOT..."What" to think.

 

Quote

If the majority of Scientists are rejecting your claims it is because you have nothing of substance which support your claims!

1.  Flailing Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.

2.  Most aren't "Scientists" to begin with.

3.  They're not rejecting them, they're 'Side-Stepping" with: Ad Homs, Appeals to Ridicule, Red Herrings, ect ect.

 

Quote

The difference between you and me is that I am willing to LEARN, you are NOT.

Oh Brother.

1.  Ad Hom Fallacy.

2.  Baseless Ipse Dixit 'bare Assertion Fallacy.

Do you have a 'coherent' Substantive Argument/Position concerning the Actual "Subject" by chance?

Guess not...

 

Quote

You are satisfied with not knowing and have closed your mind to anything that might challenge your set beliefs.

Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy

 

Quote

I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the Universe is 13.8 billion years old.

You 'believe' them Blindly and in Direct Contradiction to just the mere fundamentals of "Science"... as I have shown.  

 

Quote

Does this have any influence in my belief in God?

Red Herring Fallacy. 

 

Quote

Yes there is AWE in the Big Bang

The only "AWE" concerning the big bang is how many Mindlessly PARROT the Fairytale.

 

Quote

and AWE when you look at the photos of the immense vastness of the Universe

There are no Photographs of the Universe; all you're seeing is CGI (Computer Generated Images).  Two very different animals.

 

Quote

provided by the Hubble Telescope. 

You mean Computer Generated Images (CGI) from SOPHIA, if that.

 

Quote

Why would you want to ignore such things?

I didn't/don't ignore them.  I download the Source Files of thousands and run them through Photo Forensics.  All the while KNOWING with Absolute Certainty that there is No "Outer Space" as it's Portrayed.

 
 

Quote

So then try to convince me that the Genesis Creation is a literal account

Isn't Genesis particularly, Self Evident?

 

Quote

what was the first thing God created?

The Heavens and the Earth.

(Genesis 1:1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

 

regards

[Steve_S]

23 hours ago, Hello Kitty said:

So you have brain washed your daughter also?  How sad ... 

If the majority of Scientists are rejecting your claims it is because you have nothing of substance which support your claims!  The difference between you and me is that I am willing to LEARN, you are NOT.  You are satisfied with not knowing and have closed your mind to anything that might challenge your set beliefs.

This is going too far and getting way too personal. Please refrain from making such comments towards other users in the future. It can and will result in being removed from threads.

[KiwiChristian]

On 23/11/2017 at 11:35 PM, SkyWriting said:

According to the passage in scripture, a "scientist" at the celebration said that
the best wine is not saved for later.   The "Best wine" would likely be alcoholic.

There are other passages with language that make clear that the alcohol was part
of the fermenting process that killed bacteria in the water.  So scripturally, all
wine mentioned must be alcoholic to be purified.  

 

The significance is that the wine was instantly "aged"
as the Cosmos may have been created already aged and suitable for use.

Key words "would likely be alcoholic."

 

Wrong. the best is fresh or new wine. freshly squeezed. 

 

 

[KiwiChristian]

On 01/12/2017 at 4:03 AM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

What does any of this have to do with the Big Bang?

I dont know.

 

Ask the person that first brought up alcohol.

[siegi91]

On 11/26/2017 at 9:38 PM, Enoch2021 said:

Well it's: Flat/Non-Spinning/Domed and Geocentric.

Coming from someone who would FAIL 5th Grade General Science.

 

I am not acquainted with Science education in North America. But is it really true?

Do they teach at 5th grade that the earth is flat, not spinning and that the sun rotates around it? 

 siegi