Big Bang Debunked

[KiwiChristian]

On 11/18/2017 at 3:18 AM, SkyWriting said:

One of the reasons I am no longer a YE creationist
is that I asked Creationist James Irwin, face to face,
about the age of the moon and the amount of dust. 
His answer was that it was not young.  I trust his judgment
over any others who have not been there. It's not an outing
one takes lightly. 

wow, i am convinced!

 

yawn.

Edited November 23, 2017 by KiwiChristian

[KiwiChristian]

On 11/18/2017 at 3:10 AM, SkyWriting said:

I used to think that as well.  The story of Jesus turning water to wine illustrates
that "wine" for example, is aged.   So there is no reason to "Scientifically" support
a young earth.   Spiritually....there is no problem with the message that Adam was 
the first human possessing the breath of life.  God doesn't really focus on the lives
of animals. 

What does alcohol have to do with the big bang theory?

 

Jesus did NOT make alcohol, BTW.

[SkyWriting]

9 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

What does alcohol have to do with the big bang theory?

 

Jesus did NOT make alcohol, BTW.

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.

[SkyWriting]

10 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

wow, i am convinced!

 

yawn.

It took me years to see the YEC mistakes.  One post won't do it.

[Enoch2021]

On 11/17/2017 at 8:04 AM, SkyWriting said:

In addition, given all the lifeless space

Where?

 

Quote

this planet is quite exceptional.

The Earth isn't a "Planet" (Sphere/Ball), for goodness sakes.  To refute...

Please post ONE SHRED of "Scientific Evidence" for your 'Spinning-Ball' Religion...?  That is...

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

It would take 30,000 years to get to the next star.

Alice in Wonderland has more veracity.

1.  Are Stars, Suns?  Please post the Scripture(s)...?

2.  So the nearest star is 30,000 years away?  I thought we measured "Distance" by: "distance = rate/time"... aren't you missing something?

Do people say: "I'm busy right now, come back in 35 Miles!" ??

3.  Show 'The Method' (rationale, calculations, ect) of how we ascertain then VALIDATE the distance to the Sun...? (Please rigidly define each term, Thanks)

Is it the same 'method' we use to calculate the distance to, let's say... Polaris?  Please compare and contrast...?

 

regards

[SkyWriting]

On 11/23/2017 at 2:28 PM, Enoch2021 said:

Where?

Everywhere but here.   And the rest is pretty big.

[Hello Kitty]

You cannot debunk the Big Bang and it wasn't 10 billion years ago.  It was 13.8 billion years ago and it wasn't "nothing" that exploded because nothing created nothing.  The Big Bang Theory is supported by overwhelming Scientific EVIDENCE.  Here are several key pieces of evidence that support the Big Bang Theory. 

1)  The fact that the Universe is expanding, proven with something called Red Shift.  (Light travels to Earth from other galaxies.  As the light from that galaxy gets closer to Earth, the distance between Earth and the galaxy increases, which causes the wavelength of that light to get longer.  Longer wavelengths of visible light are red, and that is why it is called the Red Shift.  This Red Shift of light gives Scientists information on the speed and direction that a star is moving.  This in turn tells scientists that stars are not only moving away from us, but they are also moving away from each other).

2) Cosmic Microwave background Radiation.  Cosmic Microwave background Radiation is Electromagnetic Radiation left over from an early stage of the Universe.   The early Universe was a very hot place and as it expanded, the gas within it cooled.  Thus the Universe should be filled with radiation that is literally the remnant heat left over from the Big Bang, called the "Cosmic Microwave Background."

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.

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

[missmuffet]

The big bang is only a theory.

[Hello Kitty]

3 hours ago, missmuffet said:

The big bang is only a theory.

It is a Scientific Theory.  Please Google it so that you will know what it means.

I believe in Jesus Christ, He is my LORD and my God.  I don't have a problem with the Big Bang.  I believe God spoke and created all things through the Big Bang. 

[Enoch2021]

11 hours ago, Hello Kitty said:

It [big bang] is a Scientific Theory. 

  Crocheting is more Scientific!! 

1.  "Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The "How/WHY"(mechanisms/ process) AND...Identify "The Cause" ; e.g., Germ Theory.  Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED via The Scientific Method...

"A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with REPEATED TESTING." 
https://www.thoughtco.com/scientific-hypothesis-theory-law-definitions-604138

"A  Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with REPEATED TESTING."
https://futurism.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

"A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

2.  Step 1 of The Scientific Method is: Observe a Phenomenon, Please post the Phenomena that was Observed at the big bang...? (Please include the Make/Model/Serial# of the Time Machine used...?)

3.  Since you can't even get to Step 1 of The Scientific Method; Ergo...you can't even Formulate a Viable Scientific Hypothesis; Ergo...you can't get to an Experiment (Hypothesis TEST); Ergo, no hope of a Scientific Theory... since they are the result of Validated Scientific Hypotheses.  Ergo...it's a Fairytale "Just-So" Story.

 

Quote

Please Google it so that you will know what it means.

Please "Google" and attempt to Scare Up some semblance of an "Actual" Science Acumen.

 

Quote

I don't have a problem with the Big Bang. 

If you had a 5th Grade General Science Acumen, you most certainly would.

 

Quote

I believe God spoke and created all things through the Big Bang. 

Really?

"big bang" --- Naturalistic Cause: singularity, quantum fluctuation, 'nothing' (lol) et al. (Also a 1LOT and Quantum Mechanics Violation)
GOD'S WORD --- GOD caused it.

"big bang" --- Billions of Years Ago. 
GOD'S WORD --- Thousands of Years. (Gen: 5, 10; Doctrine of Salvation)

"big bang" --- Sun before the Earth.
GOD'S WORD --- Earth before the Sun.

"big bang" --- Earth: Molten Rock First.
GOD'S WORD --- Earth: Water First.

"big bang" --- Fish before Trees.
GOD'S WORD --- Trees before Fish.

"big bang" --- Dinosaurs before Birds.
GOD'S WORD --- Birds before Dinosaurs.

So that Begs The Question:  Which 'god' are you talking about?

 

regards