Big Bang Debunked

[Enoch2021]

On 12/5/2017 at 7:39 PM, MorningGlory said:

Seeing as how this thread has also turned into a 'flat earth' discussion, I will go back to the OP. 

Well yea, it's one of the direct rebuttals to the Fairytale 'big bang'.  (The other "Common Sense")

 

Quote

I believe the so called 'Big Bang' DID happen.  It was the instant that God spoke everything into being.

1.  Key Phrase: "I Believe".

2.  So it's 'so-called' and you still believe it?

3.  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?

 

Quote

 The theory that the universe sprang from a singularity and expanded rapidly and is still expanding seems logical to me.

1.  "theory"   Where??  Are you using the Colloquial "theory" --- (Abject Speculation); THEN... attempting to Equivocate (Fallacy) between 'theory' and an Actual Scientific Theory?

2.  It seems logical to you ?   Please post the Syllogism to SUPPORT your Baseless Claim...?

3.  Still Expanding?  ...

Horgan, J (Interview): Paul Steinhardt (Pioneer of Inflation Theory, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton); Scientific American, 1 December 2014...

"Since 1983, it has become clear that inflation is very flexible (parameters can be adjusted to give any result) and generically leads to a multiverse consisting of patches in which any outcome is possible.  Imagine a scientific theory that was designed to explain and predict but ends up allowing literally any conceivable possibility without any rule about what is more likely.  What good is it?  It rules out nothing and can never be put to a real test."
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/

"That’s why I called it a cartoon of a theory – because we don’t understand how inflation works in any fundamental sense."
Dr. George Efstathiou; Director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology at the University of Cambridge.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/qa-planck-teach-us-universes-first-moments/

 

Quote

Someday He will explain everything to us; until then we just have to use the senses he gave us to see, hear, touch and learn as best we can.

HE's already explained where we live and what HE created.  THEN...Our senses CONFIRM that we live on a Flat Plane, Not Moving/Spinning, with the Sun, Moon, and Stars rotating about us....just like HE said.

 

regards

[MorningGlory]

On 12/6/2017 at 7:27 AM, siegi91 said:

Good point here.

I would not be surprised if the flat earth movement experienced growth of something like 100% this year.

From two people, to four. Or something.

 siegi

 

 

[MorningGlory]

31 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Well yea, it's one of the direct rebuttals to the Fairytale 'big bang'.  (The other "Common Sense")

 

1.  Key Phrase: "I Believe".

2.  So it's 'so-called' and you still believe it?

3.  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?

 

1.  "theory"   Where??  Are you using the Colloquial "theory" --- (Abject Speculation); THEN... attempting to Equivocate (Fallacy) between 'theory' and an Actual Scientific Theory?

2.  It seems logical to you ?   Please post the Syllogism to SUPPORT your Baseless Claim...?

3.  Still Expanding?  ...

Horgan, J (Interview): Paul Steinhardt (Pioneer of Inflation Theory, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton); Scientific American, 1 December 2014...

"Since 1983, it has become clear that inflation is very flexible (parameters can be adjusted to give any result) and generically leads to a multiverse consisting of patches in which any outcome is possible.  Imagine a scientific theory that was designed to explain and predict but ends up allowing literally any conceivable possibility without any rule about what is more likely.  What good is it?  It rules out nothing and can never be put to a real test."
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/

"That’s why I called it a cartoon of a theory – because we don’t understand how inflation works in any fundamental sense."
Dr. George Efstathiou; Director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology at the University of Cambridge.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/qa-planck-teach-us-universes-first-moments/

 

HE's already explained where we live and what HE created.  THEN...Our senses CONFIRM that we live on a Flat Plane, Not Moving/Spinning, with the Sun, Moon, and Stars rotating about us....just like HE said.

 

regards

You've already been over all that.  So what are your thoughts on the Big Bang, plausible or no?

[MorningGlory]

On 12/6/2017 at 10:32 AM, Enoch2021 said:

I was using his Expertise as a Bible Scholar as a Reference... not his "Beliefs"--(BIG difference).  His 'beliefs' are Painfully Irrelevant.  

 

Post each Scripture and tell us what God "MEANT" (i.e., Context/Strong's Definitions, The Whole 9 Yards) for each...?

 

1.) Key Phrase: "I do not believe"; We're gonna need a "Tad" bit more...?

When should a Scripture be taken Literally and when should a Scripture be taken Figuratively, Compare and Contrast...?

Then show why these Specific Scriptures should be taken Figuratively....?

2.)  Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy 

 

regards

Redundant Ipse Dixit,ll Constantly Repeat Yourself, Baseless, said it a thousand times Fallacy.  Got any new barbs to throw at other members, Enoch? 

[Enoch2021]

45 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

You've already been over all that. 

1.  Already been all over what?

2.  Back to quoting my entire post without a whisper to it's content, eh?

 

Quote

So what are your thoughts on the Big Bang, plausible or no?

Why don't you read my posts in this thread...including the one you just Quoted , then take a Wild Guess on what my position on the Fairytale 'big bang' is. 

 

Quote

Redundant Ipse Dixit

Really?  To what are you referring to...? 

Then... show how it's "Redundant"?  Then...before you show How/Why it's an Ipse Dixit, please define what an Ipse Dixit is...? (So we know you're not just throwing terms/phrases around without knowing what they mean.)

 

Quote

Constantly Repeat Yourself

Well I have to because you CONSTANTLY Quote my Entire Post ...without speaking to any of it.  So I repeat it in the hopes of you finally "Dealing With It".

 

Quote

said it a thousand times Fallacy

Please Cite a Source with the Definition of a 'said it a thousand times Fallacy' ...?

 

Quote

Got any new barbs to throw at other members, Enoch?

Loaded Question (Fallacy): is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

The presumption is the throwing of "Barbs" to begin with.  Validate that first...?

It's also a Red Herring Fallacy (Diversion) employed when the challenger has no coherent argument or position on the topic.

 

regards

[Kevinb]

On 07/12/2017 at 6:46 PM, MorningGlory said:

You've already been over all that.  So what are your thoughts on the Big Bang, plausible or no?

More than plausible... it's the best model we have based on equations stemming from Einstein initially... added to by observation such as galaxy red shift and cmb. The armchair unqualified physicist that denys observations doesn't hold much water. 

Besides attempting to poke holes in the model because of any particular God presupposition bias doesn't ergo mean God... that's an arguement from ignorance/incredulity fallacy. Still need to demonstrate evidence for the God claim and causation not just assert it. 

The counter to big bang is only the fallacy cited then just add a God assertion and faith. Not convincing and not how we've ever got to theory and found evidence.... about anything. More science and evidence adds or tweaks not just trying to poke holes having already decided a God did it and just chucking in personal Faith.

[Enoch2021]

On 12/10/2017 at 6:07 PM, Kevinb said:

More than plausible...

Phlogiston, 13th Century Alchemy, and Alice in Wonderland are more 'plausible' than the 'big bang'. 

 

Quote

it's the best model we have

'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science

Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!! lol)...?

"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY." 
https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066

Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science" ...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being 'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !! 
REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or  INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!! 
Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments -(Hypothesis TESTS).
A "Model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UNTESTABLE !!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !!

 

Quote

based on equations stemming from Einstein initially

1.  "sr" and "gr" have been Scientifically Falsified by Quantum Mechanics. (Laughed at by 3rd Graders everywhere 10 minutes after their respective publications.)
2.  Mathematics (equations) isn't "Science"!

 

Quote

... added to by observation such as galaxy red shift and cmb.

I PUMMEL Hubble's Law -- Red Shift and the CMB here, (You Tube): Science vs. Scientism Episode 6 - Speed of Light and the CMB.

If you wish to read then witness an evisceration of the 'big bang', here: Evisceration of the 'big bang'

 

Quote

The armchair unqualified physicist that denys observations doesn't hold much water.

Observing Phenomenon is merely the First Step of The Scientific Method.  And your comments concerning "SCIENCE" in general are hollow since it's been shown on this forum so many times now I've lost count...that you couldn't Pass 5th Grade General Science .

 

Quote

Still need to demonstrate evidence for the God claim and causation not just assert it. 

AGAIN??  This is well over the 10th Time to you personally...

1.  Scientific Law: Information/"CODE"/Software is ONLY ever ever ever CAUSED by Intelligent Agency, Without Exception!

That is...whenever we find INFORMATION existing and trace it back to it's source...it invariably leads to an Intelligent Agent EVERY SINGLE TIME !!

SUPPORT:

1. Library of Congress.
2. ALL Books.
3. ALL Newspapers.
4. ALL Languages.
5. ALL Computer Software.
6. THE INFORMATION AGE !!!

Null Hypothesis in Support: Nature/Natural Phenomena Causation CAN NOT create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes --- (INFORMATION).

If you 'cry foul' and claim there is No "Information" or "CODE" in the " Genetic CODE ", you're screwed...

"DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."
Hood, L., Galas, D.,: The Digital Code of DNA: Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) |  doi :10.1038/nature01410

"The genetic code performs a mapping between the sequences of the four nucleotides in mRNA to the sequences of the 20 amino acids in protein. It is highly relevant to the origin of life that the genetic code is constructed to confront and solve the problems of communication and recording by THE SAME PRINCIPLES found both in the GENETIC INFORMATION SYSTEM and in MODERN COMPUTER and COMMUNICATION CODES."
Yockey, HP; Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication. In open problems of computational molecular biology. Computers and Chemistry; 24(1):105-123, Jan 2000

I have roughly 1.8 Million more in SUPPORT, if needed.

Sooo...

Theist Position-- The Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Phenomena causation CAN NOT create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes. (DNA -- Transcription & Translation)

Your Position --Alternative Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Phenomena causation *CAN* create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes.  

So essentially, you MUST SHOW:  Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Authoring Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?

We'll wait.

 

2.  Quantum Mechanics:

a. Observe a Phenomenon: Photons/elementary particles/atoms/molecules exhibit both "Wave-Like" and a Particle behavior.

b. Alternative Hypothesis: If the "which-path Information" is KNOWN or can be KNOWN then we will observe "No Interference" (Wave-Function Collapse: Matter Existing); 
Conversely, If the "which-path Information" is NOT Known and never can be KNOWN then we will observe "Interference" (Wave Function Intact: No Matter).

Null Hypothesis: If the Environment is the mechanism for Wave-Function Collapse (i.e., "Decoherence" --- interaction of quanta with a physical measuring device "Slit Detectors") then we WILL NOT observe any change in pattern (All Detectors will denote ' No Interference ').

c. Experiment: Which one of the Thousands (Without Exception !!) would you like??

1.  Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226. 

"The presence of PATH INFORMATION anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/

[THEREFORE, The LACK of 'which-path' Information anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!]

2.  Kim, Y-H. et al. (2000). A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser; Physical Review Letters 84, pp. 1–5. 

The authors show not only that "Knowledge" of 'which-path' Information SOLELY collapses "The Wave Function" but can accurately predict future actions of "wave-like" and particle behavior after the Signal Photon has registered and before it's twin Idler has arrived; i.e., QM phenomena transcend Time and Space. SEE also: Walborn SP et al 2002, Scarcelli G et al 2005.
http://cds.cern.ch/record/381875/files/9903047.pdf

In conclusion, this Experiment Unequivocally Validates:

a.  Knowledge (Knowing) the 'WHICH-PATH' Information ALONE causes Wave Function Collapse.
b.  Decoherence (physical interaction with the measuring devices) DOES NOT cause Wave Function Collapse.
c.  QM Phenomena transcend Time and Space. i.e., Space-Time has NO MEANING in Quantum Mechanics.

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

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

That is MATTER is Derivative (The Consequent). 
Consciousness is Primary (Necessary Antecedent).

To overturn the Scientific Falsification of "Locality" and by direct proxy ---- Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (atheism); whereby invalidating Idealism "Christianity" (which is not a "religion", btw) and as an ancillary benefit collect yourself a 'Feather in your Cap' Nobel Prize...

Please take up the Quantum Randi Challenge (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168  .... ( "The Quantum Randi Challenge, hence forth QRC, challenges any pseudo-scientist [ YOU, as it were ] who claims that quantum physics is not true and that quantum entanglement experiments can be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model."
https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.5294v1.pdf

A Nobel Prize AND $1,000,000(USD) is being offered: All you have to do is...
Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent.
4 Years + and still no takers, I wonder why?  

Alice in Wonderland has more veracity and is more tenable than your position.

 

3. Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity:

Hallmarks reveal: Intent, Purpose, Planning, Choice, often with Contingency, CONTRIVED; without deterministic law like necessity. 
Example: Functional Interlinked Systems.

There are 3 Types of Complexity 1) random sequence complexity (RSC), 2) ordered sequence complexity (OSC), or 3) Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC)."

Random (RSC): fgskztosbclgdsk. e.g., Aftermath of a Tornado. 
Order (OSC): hhhhhhdddddduuuuuu. e.g., Crystals, Snow Flakes, Sand Dunes, Fractals.

Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC): "It Puts The Lotion in the Basket",  Sand Castles, The Genetic CODE, Barbecue Grills, Indy Cars, Hyper-NanoTech Machines and Robots (Kinesin, ATP Synthase, Flagellum, Cilia....ad nauseam) et al.

So RSC and OSC = "Nature" construct.

FSC = Intelligent Design Construct.

"In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity".
Leslie E. Orgel; The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, pg. 189 (Chapman & Hall: London, 1973)

"The attempts to relate the idea of order...with biological organization or SPECIFICITY must be regarded as a play on words that cannot stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by [self-organizing] physico-chemical factors".
H.P. Yockey; "A Calculation of Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory"; Journal of Theoretical Biology 67, 1977; p. 390.

No amount of RSC or OSC or the combination thereof, will EVER lead to Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC).

Examples FSC:

Cholecystokinin: is a Peptide Hormone "Functional Protein" produced in the mucosal epithelium of the small intestine and stimulates release of Digestive Enzymes from the Pancreas vital for digestion and absorption... 
Without it, you die.

Albumin: a "Functional Protein" is ONLY produced by the Liver. It's consists of a single polypeptide chain of 580 amino acids.  Of it's many functions, it's Main Function is to maintain intravascular oncotic (colloid osmotic) pressure. It's vital to homeostasis... Without it, you die.

They are Functionally Specific/Sequentially Complex...you cannot interchange them.  They are Specifically Designed for their Specific Roles and Specific Functions.

If anyone is having a case of the 'Willful Stupids', please call/email the SETI Institute (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) and ask them how they tell the difference between RSC/OSC and Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC); they'll Tighten their Shot Group, right quick. 

btw, "INFORMATION" (All of Biology (LIFE) ): The Genetic Code ---Replication/ Transcription/Translation, Metabolic Pathways ect; All of Physics: Quantum Mechanics, Basically...the foundation of ALL OF REALITY, is the Quintessential Example of Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC) 

 

I got roughly 30 more   But they would be Painfully Redundant in lieu of the above.

 

Quote

The counter to big bang is only the fallacy cited...

This is Incoherent.

 

Quote

Not convincing and not how we've ever got to theory and found evidence.... about anything.

You don't know what an ACTUAL Scientific Theory is.  Exhibit A:  Evidence comes BEFORE a Scientific Theory, it's called Validated Hypotheses.

 

Quote

having already decided a God did it and just chucking in personal Faith.

Well we 'decided' based on "Evidence" and Logic (Biblical Faith)...

1.  SEE Quantum Mechanics above, and...

2.  Laws of Thermodynamics:

1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT): The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. (Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy Matter/Energy).

2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT): The amount of energy available for work is running out, the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death.

If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the Universe will End — the 'Heat Death’ (The Big Chill) of the Universe; ERGO...it had a BEGINNING (CREATION) ---and not the 'big bang' Pseudo-Science Trainwreck.

Since that First Law (1LOT) states that Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy Matter/Energy.
AND...
Since the Universe had a BEGINNING (2LOT),
AND...
Since there are ONLY Two Choices, (Nature vs Intelligent Design)--- for 'The HOW' of that Beginning... 
AND...
Since "Matter" (Nature) CAN'T Pre-Exist before it's Existence then Poof itself into Existence (before that... Poof itself from Nothing into Pre-Existence)...

Therefore: 'A CREATOR'.

 

regards