You are determined to believe, aren't you? :chuckle:
Nope. Evidence. That is what you need to convince a creationist. Rambling about what you find amusing only works to disguise your lack of evidence from your fellow believers.
Real Science Radio's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
Ok, then you've just conceded the only point I've made.
In regards to your fine-tuning argument, it's not particularly pertinent to the veracity of the Big Bang.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
Insofar as every rational person is obliged to believe that which is upheld on high empirical count.
That's never hindered you before.
My evidence is contained in every physics journal the world over.
Evolutionists love to talk about evidence as if that is what they were presenting.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
Where did I claim to present evidence of the Big Bang? Please spare me your verbal colostomy.
6days
New member
Other than suggesting we live in a created universe? (Follow the evidence!)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist) "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"
From his book "Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature"
Ed Harrison (cosmologist) "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."
From his book " Masks of the Universe"
Jason Lisle (astrophysicist) "The big bang has many scientific problems. These problems are symptomatic of the underlying incorrect worldview. The big bang erroneously assumes that the universe was not supernaturally created, but that it came about by natural processes billions of years ago. However, reality does not line up with this notion. Biblical creation explains the evidence in a more straightforward way without the ubiquitous speculations prevalent in secular models. But ultimately, the best reason to reject the big bang is that it goes against what the Creator of the universe himself has taught: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1)
Jukia, was Krauss was right to say all evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang?
Jukia, was Krauss was right to say all evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang?
* Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies: The Big Bang predicts that when telescopes peer especially far into outer space, they should see only infant galaxies. Instead, as we've been documenting for two decades, they are repeatedly "startled" and "baffled" (per the journal Science) to see exactly what the Big Bang predicts should not exist. For many of the most distant ("youngest") galaxies look just like the Milky Way and the oldest galaxies all around us! Just in time for our 2014 RSR Big Bang program, the Carnegie Observatories: "discovered 15 [more] massive, mature galaxies located where they shouldn't be: at an average distance of 12 billion light years away from Earth." Such discoveries prove wrong Neil deGrasse Tyson claim last week that we creationists cannot not make predictions, as any glance at our RSR Predictions and our confirmed predictions shows. In 2005 a cover story for Science News stated, "Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the cooing babies, a few that look like grown men. That's the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as they've looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies filled the cosmos. Some of these babies have turned out to be nearly as massive as the Milky Way and other galactic geezers that have taken billions of years to form." Finally, in 1995, as NASA was preparing to publish their first Hubble Deep Field Image, Bob Enyart predicted (as would all biblical creationists) that NASA and the entire Big Bang community of astronomers, physicists and astrophysicists, would all be wrong, because the furthest galaxies would look just like nearby galaxies regarding apparent age. Learn more here, here, here, here, and here!
* Clusters of galaxies exist at great distances where the BB did not predict they would exist: Galaxy clusters typically have between 100 and 1,000 gravitationally bound galaxies. When astronomers began looking at the furthest galaxies, which must have been formed when the universe was young, they did not expect to find galaxies pulled together into clusters. But they did. "The surprising thing is that when we look closely at this galaxy cluster," said Raphael Gobat, lead author of an Astronomy & Astrophysics journal paper, "it doesn't look young..." The official Hubble website reports that its very old stars and galaxies, "makes the cluster a mature object, similar in mass to the Virgo galaxy cluster..." The Virgo cluster is not 10 billion years away; it's so close to us that we're in it. The Virgo cluster contains 2,000 galaxies including the Milky Way. So finding a cluster with the mass and age of the Virgo cluster, more than 10 billion light years from the earth is more than "surprising"; it is another major failure of the Big Bang model's ability to predict the nature of the universe. And even further clusters will continue to be discovered. For the Jet Propulsion Lab had just previously announced discovery of another galaxy cluster comprising "400 billion suns" at a distance of "12.6 billion light-years away from Earth."
* Galaxy superclusters exist yet the BB predicted that gravity couldn't form them in less than a trillion years: Enormous clusters, called superclusters, contain about 90% of all galaxies and are made up of millions of galaxies. Astronomers find them shaped like filaments and bubbles and in structures like the Great Wall, and the billion-light-year-long Sloan Great Wall. Even at the alleged 13.8 billion years of age, the universe lacks 99% of the time required for gravity to pull these structures together. Thus because it would take a trillion years of work by gravity to pull together even the smaller superclusters, the "standard model" did not predict their existence. Thus if the Big Bang were true, superclusters should not exist. But they do. So to save their favored theory (and motivated by a desire to explain the cosmos apart from the Creator), theoreticians imagined a BB rescue device: dark matter.
* Missing billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies: As Princeton's astrophysics Prof. Michael Strauss describes the data: "...tremendously distant galaxies are just as clustered as today [that is, as those that are nearby] and are arranged in the same filamentary, bubbly structures that nearby galaxies are." Thus, rescuing the Big Bang theory from the existence of unexpected distant galaxy clusters merely exposes an equal and opposite failure of the theory. If 96% of the stuff of the universe is hypothetical and unknown, but sufficient to rapidly pull together galaxy clusters from across the universe as they existed allegedly many billions of years ago, then that same extra matter should have pulled together the mass of nearby galaxies far more so than it could have done in just the early stages of the universe to the most distant galaxies. At the home of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, CalTech's astronomy Prof. Charles Steidel concurs with the degree of clustering, near and far: "The work is ongoing, but what we’re able to say now is that galaxies we are seeing at great distances are as strongly clustered in the early universe as they are today." This enormous observation fits the predictions of young-earth creation but contradicts BB expectations.
So Jukia, just considering these four (rather extensive) observations above, do you think that Lawrence Krauss is correct to say that all evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang?
- Bob Enyart
http://rsr.org
Jukia, was Krauss was right to say all evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang?
Hi Jukia! Hey, I'm wondering if, of the dozens of evidences above, just considering the first four (which I'll paste again here), do you think Lawrence Krauss is correct to say that all evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang? I know it takes time, but if you would, please consider these four pieces of evidence, and then answer (if you would)...
* Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies: The Big Bang predicts that when telescopes peer especially far into outer space, they should see only infant galaxies. Instead, as we've been documenting for two decades, they are repeatedly "startled" and "baffled" (per the journal Science) to see exactly what the Big Bang predicts should not exist. For many of the most distant ("youngest") galaxies look just like the Milky Way and the oldest galaxies all around us! Just in time for our 2014 RSR Big Bang program, the Carnegie Observatories: "discovered 15 [more] massive, mature galaxies located where they shouldn't be: at an average distance of 12 billion light years away from Earth." Such discoveries prove wrong Neil deGrasse Tyson claim last week that we creationists cannot not make predictions, as any glance at our RSR Predictions and our confirmed predictions shows. In 2005 a cover story for Science News stated, "Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the cooing babies, a few that look like grown men. That's the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as they've looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies filled the cosmos. Some of these babies have turned out to be nearly as massive as the Milky Way and other galactic geezers that have taken billions of years to form." Finally, in 1995, as NASA was preparing to publish their first Hubble Deep Field Image, Bob Enyart predicted (as would all biblical creationists) that NASA and the entire Big Bang community of astronomers, physicists and astrophysicists, would all be wrong, because the furthest galaxies would look just like nearby galaxies regarding apparent age. Learn more here, here, here, here, and here!* Clusters of galaxies exist at great distances where the BB did not predict they would exist: Galaxy clusters typically have between 100 and 1,000 gravitationally bound galaxies. When astronomers began looking at the furthest galaxies, which must have been formed when the universe was young, they did not expect to find galaxies pulled together into clusters. But they did. "The surprising thing is that when we look closely at this galaxy cluster," said Raphael Gobat, lead author of an Astronomy & Astrophysics journal paper, "it doesn't look young..." The official Hubble website reports that its very old stars and galaxies, "makes the cluster a mature object, similar in mass to the Virgo galaxy cluster..." The Virgo cluster is not 10 billion years away; it's so close to us that we're in it. The Virgo cluster contains 2,000 galaxies including the Milky Way. So finding a cluster with the mass and age of the Virgo cluster, more than 10 billion light years from the earth is more than "surprising"; it is another major failure of the Big Bang model's ability to predict the nature of the universe. And even further clusters will continue to be discovered. For the Jet Propulsion Lab had just previously announced discovery of another galaxy cluster comprising "400 billion suns" at a distance of "12.6 billion light-years away from Earth."
* Galaxy superclusters exist yet the BB predicted that gravity couldn't form them in less than a trillion years: Enormous clusters, called superclusters, contain about 90% of all galaxies and are made up of millions of galaxies. Astronomers find them shaped like filaments and bubbles and in structures like the Great Wall, and the billion-light-year-long Sloan Great Wall. Even at the alleged 13.8 billion years of age, the universe lacks 99% of the time required for gravity to pull these structures together. Thus because it would take a trillion years of work by gravity to pull together even the smaller superclusters, the "standard model" did not predict their existence. Thus if the Big Bang were true, superclusters should not exist. But they do. So to save their favored theory (and motivated by a desire to explain the cosmos apart from the Creator), theoreticians imagined a BB rescue device: dark matter.
* Missing billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies: As Princeton's astrophysics Prof. Michael Strauss describes the data: "...tremendously distant galaxies are just as clustered as today [that is, as those that are nearby] and are arranged in the same filamentary, bubbly structures that nearby galaxies are." Thus, rescuing the Big Bang theory from the existence of unexpected distant galaxy clusters merely exposes an equal and opposite failure of the theory. If 96% of the stuff of the universe is hypothetical and unknown, but sufficient to rapidly pull together galaxy clusters from across the universe as they existed allegedly many billions of years ago, then that same extra matter should have pulled together the mass of nearby galaxies far more so than it could have done in just the early stages of the universe to the most distant galaxies. At the home of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, CalTech's astronomy Prof. Charles Steidel concurs with the degree of clustering, near and far: "The work is ongoing, but what we’re able to say now is that galaxies we are seeing at great distances are as strongly clustered in the early universe as they are today." This enormous observation fits the predictions of young-earth creation but contradicts BB expectations.
So Jukia, just considering these four (rather extensive) observations above, do you think that Lawrence Krauss is correct to say that all evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang?
- Bob Enyart
http://rsr.org
drbrumley
Well-known member
Maybe your looking in the wrong laboratory? Just sayin.....
gcthomas
New member
If by 'balanced on a knife edge' he means 'if you made gravity a billion times stronger', then i might agree. This is what he actually wrote:
If we increased the strength of gravity a billion-fold, for instance, the force of gravity on a planet with the mass and size of the earth would be so great that organisms anywhere near the size of human beings, whether land-based or aquatic, would be crushed.
The 'one inch' thing is a distraction. A factor of a billion is not a tiny, knife edge change!
:chuckle:
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
I contend that many of the features you claim are finely tune, are not. Even so, even if every feature of the universe were finely tuned, it would still amount to no more than an argument from ignorance. And it would still be irrelevant, as it would still not preclude the Big Bang. An omnipotent creator is not relegated to magical incantations to conjure the universe into existence, a big bang could have been used just as easily to the same effect.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
How do you know what the total range is?
6days
New member
Daedalean's_Sun said:
Collins says to imagine a measuring tape divided into one inch increments stretched a cross the entire visible university. There would be billions upon billions upon billions of increments representing the range of possible gravitation
Gravity is just one of 30 +things that show that life is "balanced on a razor's edge"... evidence of an intelligent creator.
In the beginning, God created
gcthomas
New member
The razor's edge he mentioned required having gravity a billion times stronger than now - hardly fine tuned, 6D.
6days
New member
Either you are getting your info from a dishonest source, or you are being dishonest yourself. Collins is writing about a fine tuned universe. You or your source are dishonestly ignoring the measuring stick he uses, and the intent of his argument. He says " Although individual calculations of fine-tuning are only approximate and could be in error, the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life is almost beyond question because of the large number of independent instances of apparent fine-tuning"gcthomas said:
What is 1 billion inches in comparison to 100 billion light years? Or even if you compared it 1 billion light years? It would not even be the width of a razors edge.
Its foolish to try argue that our universe does not appear to be fine tuned. Thanks to science
in the past 50 years, this is an exciting time to be a Christian. Science continues to reveal how awesome our God is.
Stephen Hawking, on the constant s of physics, “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." (*A Brief History of Time)
6days
New member
"Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met. This is usually done by the "losing" side of an argument in a desperate bid to save face."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
This doesn't really answer my question, unless you're asserting that the total range is whatever Collins can imagine.
golly, sorry. I was just trying to get to the heart of your quote mining brand of "science". You seem to believe that both Collins ad Hawking believe the universe is "fine tuned" I was just trying to understand how the opinions of two world class scientists could fit into the box required by your interpretation of your Holy Book.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
In which case we could conclude the total range is a gajillion.