Real Science Radio's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang

[Jukia]

Fortunately most scientists are curious about WHY things are a certain way. If our universe appears designed...maybe it was designed.

Our fine tuned universe is but one of many evidences for the "Biblical Diety".

as in "why does the universe appear 13+billion years old? How does evolution work? what is the explanation for cognitive dissonance?

Curious about things like that? Yep, feel free to provide a Biblical explanation.

 

[6days]

It is just Collins's silly 10^40 figure and the hyperbole of his assessment over the 'razor blade' assumption that I don't think is justified by the evidence. .

You seemed quite happy with Collins as your source, until you realized he was a theist.
Then suddenly you call his numbers silly, and call the "razor blade" assesment hyperbole.
Are you willing to do another back flip?
Here is a secular article in 'New Scientist'...
The feebleness of gravity is something we should be grateful for. If it were a tiny bit stronger, none of us would be here to scoff at its puny nature.

The moment of the universe's birth created both matter and an expanding space-time in which this matter could exist. While gravity pulled the matter together, the expansion of space drew particles of matter apart - and the further apart they drifted, the weaker their mutual attraction became.

It turns out that the struggle between these two was balanced on a knife-edge. If the expansion of space had overwhelmed the pull of gravity in the newborn universe, stars, galaxies and humans would never have been able to form. If, on the other hand, gravity had been much stronger, stars and galaxies might have formed, but they would have quickly collapsed in .
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227123.000-gravity-mysteries-why-is-gravity-finetuned.html

Alan Sandage (One of the greatest astromoers of the 20th century)http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1011/16Sandage/:
"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
From book 'Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest'

 

[Letsargue]

Pride has nothing to do with it, there is no evidence for your god other than the cobbled together oral myth.

There cannot be a Carnal without a Spiritual side, and the Universe is the Carnal side of God. (( They are exactly Equial ))!! If one sees the Universe, he sees God. --- (( Psalms 19:1-3 KJV )) --//---

God didn't start with a (( BIG BANG ))!!!!!

Paul - 040414

 

[Jukia]

Alan Sandage (One of the greatest astromoers of the 20th century)http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1011/16Sandage/:
"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
From book 'Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest'

Ah, and did Sandage suggest that this god created everything in 6 days about 6000 years ago?

 

[Letsargue]

Ah, and did Sandage suggest that this god created everything in 6 days about 6000 years ago?

Come On!! – (( “Actually”!! )) “NO!!”, - God did not create it in 6 days, - less that 10,000 years ago. – All that is (( Parables )), -- “Parables” of the ( TRUTH ). -- ( Read the Bible, the Book of Parables ). -- God, - or to say, the “Laws of the Universe” is who God is, and wants even the simple-minded to understand Him, and who He is. -- (( SOO!! )), all the Parables, -- for all to Learn HIM. - However, at the same time those who can see Him, can See what He’s Doing and Did, - and now it’s all Finished. -- There is no beginning or end to God or the Creation / Universe.

( TRUTH ) is one of the Most misunderstood words in all Scripture. – “TRUTH” is only what God says, - nothing more or less. But, that does not mean that it is ((( “TRUE” ))). ( Truth and True ), to God, (( “TO GOD” )) are two different Words of His Word, not the words of the world.

Just how could the Universe ever have begun in anyway anyhow?? – There is no Law that can cover that without drumming up some excuse of nonsense like the big bang, and of course the Geniuses must have ( black holes ) everywhere too.
The Question, -- “What is “Truth”, was asked, but wisely never answered in Word, but in the Spirit of the Word.

The Universe cannot expand either, into something that cannot exist, and that’s an “OUTSIDE” of the Universe, ( No Such Thing as outside of it )., Only the “INSIDE”. God is the “OTHER SIDE” of the Universe. – The Universe is the Carnal side of the Spirit of GOD. -- Anyway, -- all Galaxies Function as a ( “Gyroscope” ), but are facing in every random direction that proves that they are NOT traveling in somewhat the same direction, out from some center, and there is NO Straight lines in the Universe. – AND -- the Travel of Light from such great sources as Galaxies, for ( Billions of Years ), cannot keep its strength up to maximum. – Light over billions of years will relax a bit, and appear to be red-shifting, giving the thoughtless geniuses - the idea of expanding, -- Real Scientists Geniuses!!!

I might as well quit here, you all can’t accept this anyhow, IQ stands in the way. Of course mine to all - is ( Zero ). – Who cares about anything but what’s ((( THEIRS ))) anyway??

Paul – 040514

 

[6days]

I might as well quit here, you all can’t accept this anyhow, IQ stands in the way.

Shame on you. ....

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

I'm unaware of anyone saying 'fine tuning' refutes the Big Bang...

Jefferson did say that fine tuning is one of many evidences against the Big Bang.

It doesn't do either.

I have said theists believe 'fine tuning' is evidence of our Creator.

You've said a lot more than that:

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" ... 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) ...evidence that the universe has not evolved from the Big Bang. Evolutionists generally reject all evidence that we live in a designed universe. (See 'fine tuned', above)

So who is being dishonest here?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

The fine tuning argument is directed at atheists.

I know it was, that's rather the point. This is a thread of "Evidence against the big bang" so why are arguments for theism, being presented in a thread about evidence against the big bang? Either you're being intentionally off-topic, or you're equating 'those that accept the Big Bang' with 'atheists'. I think it's pretty obvious which.

 

[Letsargue]

Shame on you. ....

Shame on me??? - How's that??? - Looks like the geniuses who ( Can't Respond Responsibly ) who call themselves "Scientists" or "Christians" are the "Shamed"!! -- I just put it out there, and no one can correct me?? - Is this all just a Funny Game to you all, or are you serious about how the Universe works??? -- All Answers are Very, Very Simple, - ( when you know the Answer ). There are no Difficult answers )!!

"Shame on me"!! - What kind of smarts is that??

Paul -- 040514

 

[6days]

So who is being dishonest here?

Well.....

The subtext here is that the Big Bang is the domain of atheists, and to prove God is to disprove the Big Bang

So I explained... you were wrong

The BB is not the "domain of atheists". Many theists believe that model including most Muslims. However, they also believe that the Creator was involved and designed this planet for humans

In spite of being told the BB is not the sole domain of theists, you persisted...

...either you actually were insisting that the Big Bang is the position of Atheists, or your previous arguments were erroneous. I await your response.

Yes... the Big Bang IS the position of atheists . But it is also a position held by many many theists. Proving, or disproving the Big Bang is not an argument that proves or disproves God. You have been told this several times, but you keep misrepresenting others positions.

so.....to answer your question about who is dishonest... I think its you.


BTW... you talk about disproving the Big Bang. The thread is titled "EVIDENCES AGAINST" ( Not proofs). I don't know if you can disprove supernatural creation, or the Big Bang..... They are beliefs about the past. We were discussing beliefs that our universe was fine tuned... evidence of our Creator. And we were discussing evidences against the Big Bang model.


One of the evidences against the Big Bang mentioned in the topic.....

Why aren't there any population 3 stars?

 

[6days]

Shame on me??? - How's that??? -

For implying that Jukia has a lower IQ because he believes different.

 

[Letsargue]

For implying that Jukia has a lower IQ because he believes different.

AAAAHHHHH!!! - I wasn't referring that these geniuses had a ( Lower IQ ), but their Higher IQ is not allowing them to have their minds changed to anything different than their Great accepted foolish ~knowledge!!! -- One's IQ has nothing to do with their Intelligence of Science, or God, or Politics. - Hitler, Putin, Obama, Jimmy Swaggart, or any other leader of a very large Group of ignorant people. - The little people are no different. IQ has no meaning in ones belief of anything.

Paul -- 040514

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Well.....


So I explained... you were wrong

Despite the fact that your previous arguments contradict your current statements as we will see below.

In spite of being told the BB is not the sole domain of theists, you persisted... Yes... the Big Bang IS the position of atheists . But it is also a position held by many many theists.

Now let's compare this statement to a quote you previously cited:

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)

Proving, or disproving the Big Bang is not an argument that proves or disproves God. You have been told this several times, but you keep misrepresenting others positions.

That wasn't the contention. You've got it backwards mate. The argument I am accusing you of making, is that God (if he designed the universe) is evidence against the Big Bang. See your own statement below:

...evidence that the universe has not evolved from the Big Bang. Evolutionists generally reject all evidence that we live in a designed universe. (See 'fine tuned', above)

We were discussing beliefs that our universe was fine tuned... evidence of our Creator. And we were discussing evidences against the Big Bang model.

Because clearly you were implying, despite you vehement denial, that evidence for a creator is evidence against the Big Bang, otherwise why else bring it up? Do explain this.

 

[Stripe]

Evolutionists love to argue about anything that will distract from the topic at hand.

 

[6days]

Evolutionists love to argue about anything that will distract from the topic at hand.

How did you notice? Ha

 

[Jukia]

6: How old did Sandage "one of the greatest astronomers of the 20th century" suggest the universe was?

6 thousand years or 13 + billion years?

Or have you only taken that quote mine from some creationist site?

I think that is on topic enough for you and Stripey.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

How did you notice? Ha

That's ironic given the topic of the thread is "evidence against the Big Bang" and the the only thing you've presented thus far is a fine tuning argument which you've already admitted doesn't dispute the Big Bang.

 

[Stripe]

That's ironic given the topic of the thread is "evidence against the Big Bang" and the the only thing you've presented thus far is a fine tuning argument which you've already admitted doesn't dispute the Big Bang.

Evolutionists hate reading OPs.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Evolutionists hate reading OPs.

Read the OP. That Jefferson (and Bob Enyart) list Fine-tuning as an evidence against the Big Bang, does not in any way indicate that it is. The fact of the matter is that 6Days has already admitted that Fine Tuning is not an argument against the Big Bang, and that's the person I am having the discussion with.

 

[6days]

The fact of the matter is that 6Days has already admitted that Fine Tuning is not an argument against the Big Bang, and that's the person I am having the discussion with.

Oh my DS... n
Is English your first language? You seem to misunderstand then misrepresent everything.

I have said no such thing. See post 78 where I said " Jefferson did say that fine tuning is one of many evidences against the Big Bang. I have said theists believe 'fine tuning' is evidence of our Creator.