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

[6days]

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.

Jukia...Sandage quite likely thought the Big Bang happened over 14 B. yrs ago, although I don't know. Whether he believed our universe was 14 billion years or 6000 years doesn't change the fact he thought our gravity was very very fine tuned.
If you want quotes specifically from astronomers or astrophysicists who say the universe is fine tuned...AND, just 6,000 yrs old...just ask.

 

[Jukia]

Jukia...Sandage quite likely thought the Big Bang happened over 14 B. yrs ago, although I don't know. Whether he believed our universe was 14 billion years or 6000 years doesn't change the fact he thought our gravity was very very fine tuned.
If you want quotes specifically from astronomers or astrophysicists who say the universe is fine tuned...AND, just 6,000 yrs old...just ask.

Actually, it does matter. Remember you quoted Sandage, "one of the greatest astronomers of the 20th century". If you had bothered to read even your reference---guess what---13 billion +.

I have no desire to read anything from an astronomer or astrophysicist who claims the universe is only 6000 years old. I would get more talking to my cat.

 

[6days]

Actually, it does matter. Remember you quoted Sandage, "one of the greatest astronomers of the 20th century". If you had bothered to read even your reference---guess what---13 billion +.

Yes... the article did call him "one of the greatest astronomers of the 20th century". He was making an argument that gravity is fine tuned.
Some theists believe the universe is 13+ billion years...Some believe its 6,000 years. But all believe that the fine tuning is evidence of our Creator. And theists believe that the laws which govern our universe were put in place by a law giver. Theists believe that something with such precision design is evidence of the Ultimate Designer.

 

[Jukia]

Yes... the article did call him "one of the greatest astronomers of the 20th century". He was making an argument that gravity is fine tuned.
Some theists believe the universe is 13+ billion years...Some believe its 6,000 years. But all believe that the fine tuning is evidence of our Creator. And theists believe that the laws which govern our universe were put in place by a law giver. Theists believe that something with such precision design is evidence of the Ultimate Designer.

Yes, I understand the positions. But the universe is 13 billion + years old, not 6000. The real world evidence, not the "evidence" of oral myth, shows that.

 

[Letsargue]

Yes, I understand the positions. But the universe is 13 billion + years old, not 6000. The real world evidence, not the "evidence" of oral myth, shows that.

Doesn't anyone here use Science, to prove their "Science"?? -- You use "Years" for your proof of the Biginning of the Universe. -- The Sun and Earth wasn't here then to count your "Years". There must be something that you all can use that is lasting to count your ~"times" the earth did something. -- (( "Time" ))?? - There's no such ( thing ), just the "events" of something. -- Science ain't Science unless it's Science, - not guesses.

Paul -- 040714

 

[alwight]

Doesn't anyone here use Science, to prove their "Science"?? -- You use "Years" for your proof of the Biginning of the Universe. -- The Sun and Earth wasn't here then to count your "Years". There must be something that you all can use that is lasting to count your ~"times" the earth did something. -- (( "Time" ))?? - There's no such ( thing ), just the "events" of something. -- Science ain't Science unless it's Science, - not guesses.

Paul -- 040714

It is science, everything in the universe is scientific evidence that the universe is expanding.
To backtrack everything to the "big bang" or singularity takes 13 + billion years.
If you can accept that your watch will be reasonably accurate for measuring the future passage of time then why not accept that the movement of the whole universe is a reasonable time measurement of the past?

 

[Letsargue]

It is science, everything in the universe is scientific evidence that the universe is expanding.
To backtrack everything to the "big bang" or singularity takes 13 + billion years.
If you can accept that your watch will be reasonably accurate for measuring the future passage of time then why not accept that the movement of the whole universe is a reasonable time measurement of the past?

You people couldn't possibly know anything like that. How in your world can any of you come to a conclusion like that??

Light red shifting??? -- You all are saying that Light cannot ( Relax ) a little (( over Billions of Years ))!!!??? - IS that's Science!!!???? -- Light and sound relaxes over time and (( changes Frequency )). You all call that ( "Expanding Universe" ). NO!!! - It's just Light and sound relaxes over time; - (( Listen the the thunder from different distances )). ( It relaxes and gets a deeper sound the farther away it is ))-- It just that simple, and By the Laws of Science, not foolish Gestering. -- It's plum shameful that all these Geniuses can't use the Brain to figure that simple thing OUT!!!!

Paul -- 040714

 

[alwight]

You people couldn't possibly know anything like that. How in your world can any of you come to a conclusion like that??

Light red shifting??? -- You all are saying that Light cannot ( Relax ) a little (( over Billions of Years ))!!!??? - IS that's Science!!!???? -- Light and sound relaxes over time and (( changes Frequency )). You all call that ( "Expanding Universe" ). NO!!! - It's just Light and sound relaxes over time; - (( Listen the the thunder from different distances )). ( It relaxes and gets a deeper sound the farther away it is ))-- It just that simple, and By the Laws of Science, not foolish Gestering. -- It's plum shameful that all these Geniuses can't use the Brain to figure that simple thing OUT!!!!

Paul -- 040714

I'm not sure what qualifies you to think that you understand more than peer reviewed science or to assert something they don't regarding "relaxed" light and sound whatever that is?
I'll guess that you are already committed to believing in something rather less than 13 billion years and for that reason alone are compelled to reject science though I'm rather sure you can't actually falsify any of it.
The Doppler effect in both sound and electromagnetic radiation has been well established scientifically for over 160 years and an effect that that can be heard by anyone who has stood on a train platform as a fast train passes by or as seen in the redshift of starlight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

 

[Letsargue]

I'm not sure what qualifies you to think that you understand more than peer reviewed science or to assert something they don't regarding "relaxed" light and sound whatever that is?
I'll guess that you are already committed to believing in something rather less than 13 billion years and for that reason alone are compelled to reject science though I'm rather sure you can't actually falsify any of it.
The Doppler effect in both sound and electromagnetic radiation has been well established scientifically for over 160 years and an effect that that can be heard by anyone who has stood on a train platform as a fast train passes by or as seen in the redshift of starlight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Nothing has been "Astablished" in These matters. It's all Theory / "THEORY". - Stupid guessings - ( Accepted ).

Black Holes, Gravity, Expanction of the Universe, is all accepted by the money grabbers. ---- However. - Space compression and Decompression, - and Space Flow, -- If the Truth was known, or accepted, there would be a whole New Group of men building a Space Compression and Decompression UNITS that would shorten Distances as much as WANTED!! - ((( But No )))! - Any thing NEW is from a stupid fool like me.

I don't care any more!! - I'm pulling for the Laws of the Universe to relax the Laws that keep the Place under controal as fools need!!!

Get Squeaky to help you!!

Paul -- 040714

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

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

I have said no such thing.

Except here:

DS: The subtext here is that the Big Bang is the domain of atheists, and to prove God is to disprove the Big Bang 6Days: So I explained... you were wrong

 

[Stripe]

Evolutionists hate discussing evidence.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Evolutionists hate discussing evidence.

Instances of stripe evading discussion of evidence here, and here.

Faith in Christ requires belief despite scientific fact.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

* Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies[/b]: 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!

Atheist baffled!
How exactly do mature galaxies figure if nothing is older than a few thousand years anyway, were they all created just to look old?:think:

That is quite the quandary isn't it?

* Nine billion years of missing metal in a trillion stars: Indiana University led a study of fifteen galaxies that undermined rather than fulfilled a major and fundamental big bang prediction. Krauss and other theorists do not *know* but they "believe" that, as billions of years pass during star evolution, these trillion stars were supposed to be creating vast quantities of heavy metals, but instead, these stars lack nine billion years worth of metal (i.e., in astronomy speak, that means elements heavier than hydrogen and helium).

So of the 60 billion or so spiral galaxies, that 15 or so might be as young as 3 billion years old, this you believe is supportive of Young Earth Creationism?

Most of these other "evidences" fall along similar lines of reasoning. Every sort of adjustment and recalculation of previously unknown factors, which still results in a universe many many times older than YECism would like to admit, is evidence against the Big Bang -- despite the fact that most of theses aren't even talking about the Big Bang but of the nebular hypothesis and stellar formation theory. Of course they needn't be bothered to learn about that which they are attempting to refute. Charming indeed.

 

[Letsargue]

I'm not sure what qualifies you to think that you understand more than peer reviewed science or to assert something they don't regarding "relaxed" light and sound whatever that is?
I'll guess that you are already committed to believing in something rather less than 13 billion years and for that reason alone are compelled to reject science though I'm rather sure you can't actually falsify any of it.
The Doppler effect in both sound and electromagnetic radiation has been well established scientifically for over 160 years and an effect that that can be heard by anyone who has stood on a train platform as a fast train passes by or as seen in the redshift of starlight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Why can't you speak some truth some of the time about me if you're interested in anything???
You must not know what qualifies me for anything. I assure you it ain't what qualifies you to judge ME!!!!

Your Ignorent Scientists ( coudn't ) know even the distance of objects in distant Space. - Space is SOO active in all directions and compressed and decompressed everywhere. it's impossible to view anything with ANY accuracy. - ((( Your phonies even say that Space "BENDS" ))). If Space can Bend, it can stretch, shrink, and form every form of Atomic Partical and energy frequency that exist. (( Prove me wrong )) or pull a ~squeaky!!! -- I'm sure you're not smart enough to even ask a simple question, like that other Phony christian atheist!!!!

Paul -- 040814

 

[alwight]

Why can't you speak some truth some of the time about me if you're interested in anything???
You must not know what qualifies me for anything. I assure you it ain't what qualifies you to judge ME!!!!

OK so perhaps you would like to present your credentials Letsargue, but this isn't really about individuals being judged, it's more about judging how well evidence is described by science.
If you are only going to make bald assertions then can you at least claim to have some expertise and a reputation in this particular field of science you've offered your opinions on?

Your Ignorent Scientists ( coudn't ) know even the distance of objects in distant Space. - Space is SOO active in all directions and compressed and decompressed everywhere. it's impossible to view anything with ANY accuracy. - ((( Your phonies even say that Space "BENDS" ))). If Space can Bend, it can stretch, shrink, and form every form of Atomic Partical and energy frequency that exist. (( Prove me wrong )) or pull a ~squeaky!!! -- I'm sure you're not smart enough to even ask a simple question, like that other Phony christian atheist!!!!

Paul -- 040814

You have it backwards imo, bald assertions can simply be dismissed as easily as they are asserted. There is no way to falsify worthless evidence-free assertions, nor any need to try.
Hypothesise based in evidence otoh must describe and explain that evidence or else they can be proven to be false by it if indeed they are.
What you should be doing is trying to falsify evidence based science, not expecting your evidence-free notions to be proven wrong.
The burden of proof is on you to show that what you claim is supported by the evidence and that their claims are not.

 

[Letsargue]

OK so perhaps you would like to present your credentials Letsargue, but this isn't really about individuals being judged, it's more about judging how well evidence is described by science.
If you are only going to make bald assertions then can you at least claim to have some expertise and a reputation in this particular field of science you've offered your opinions on?

You have it backwards imo, bald assertions can simply be dismissed as easily as they are asserted. There is no way to falsify worthless evidence-free assertions, nor any need to try.
Hypothesise based in evidence otoh must describe and explain that evidence or else they can be proven to be false by it if indeed they are.
What you should be doing is trying to falsify evidence based science, not expecting your evidence-free notions to be proven wrong.
The burden of proof is on you to show that what you claim is supported by the evidence and that their claims are not.

What you're saying is that - You all can make any statement you choose, but If I state my ideas of the universe, (((( I'M an IDIOT of ALL FOOLS!!!! ))))!!

I'm Just disagreeing with those extreme Idiot Scientists, ( Now YOU )!!! - Believe any thing you want to, I have the right to believe anything I want to. -- ( They Are Wrong )!!!! - Why can't any self proclaimed -- Phony Genius even ask a Qustion to find our?? - (( Just SPIT )) -- That's all you stupid Arheists can do anyhow, You all are SOOO Smart!!! - You can't even ask a question!! -- Yes, you and Squeaky are just alike!!!!

BOY!!! -- What kindness is found here in this ungodly Place!!!!

Paul -- 040814

 

[Letsargue]

OK so perhaps you would like to present your credentials Letsargue, but this isn't really about individuals being judged, it's more about judging how well evidence is described by science.
If you are only going to make bald assertions then can you at least claim to have some expertise and a reputation in this particular field of science you've offered your opinions on?

You have it backwards imo, bald assertions can simply be dismissed as easily as they are asserted. There is no way to falsify worthless evidence-free assertions, nor any need to try.
Hypothesise based in evidence otoh must describe and explain that evidence or else they can be proven to be false by it if indeed they are.
What you should be doing is trying to falsify evidence based science, not expecting your evidence-free notions to be proven wrong.
The burden of proof is on you to show that what you claim is supported by the evidence and that their claims are not.

Where's your --- "Credentials", --- to say anything you agreeing with???? -- It's all Theory!!! - Mine is Logic, and Law, and GOD!!!

Paul -- 040814

 

[alwight]

What you're saying is that - You all can make any statement you choose, but If I state my ideas of the universe, (((( I'M an IDIOT of ALL FOOLS!!!! ))))!!

I'm Just disagreeing with those extreme Idiot Scientists, ( Now YOU )!!! - Believe any thing you want to, I have the right to believe anything I want to. -- ( They Are Wrong )!!!! - Why can't any self proclaimed -- Phony Genius even ask a Qustion to find our?? - (( Just SPIT )) -- That's all you stupid Arheists can do anyhow, You all are SOOO Smart!!! - You can't even ask a question!! -- Yes, you and Squeaky are just alike!!!!

BOY!!! -- What kindness is found here in this ungodly Place!!!!

Paul -- 040814

Science isn't a matter of opinions and bald assertions it's about evidence, which is not something you seem particularly willing to have anywhere in your more Godly "reasoning".

 

[alwight]

Where's your --- "Credentials", --- to say anything you agreeing with???? -- It's all Theory!!! - Mine is Logic, and Law, and GOD!!!

Paul -- 040814

I don't claim any particular credentials which is why I don't simply offer my bald opinion, I offer my understanding of peer reviewed science, which you are free to challenge me on.

 

[Letsargue]

Science isn't a matter of opinions and bald assertions it's about evidence, which is not something you seem particularly willing to have anywhere in your more Godly "reasoning".

Opinions are about ALL your Theories are, Just Openions, No evidence at all of Gravity!!!

(( ALL RIGHT!! )) -- Just where is your evisence of (( Gravity ))??? -- Anything, - anything at ALL!!!!

How are you going to prove that your ~gravity is not caused by the Flowing of Space. -- Explain you Gravity and how it causes an object to be (( "Pulled" )) Down!!! -- There is no such thing as a force that (( Pulls ))!!! - Prove your point wise guy!!

Paul -- 040814