Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith

DaveC426913 said:
Did they debunk it/find an error? Or did they just say "No way, Jose"?
Click to expand...
Stephen's quintet is complicated to begin with of which NGC 7319 is a part of and the quasar in question in terms of back ground.

Arps claims about Intrinsic red shift were rejected and the consensus is that the quasar is a background object.

Improved spectroscopy ruled this anomaly out.

What is great is that Arps paper was not necessarily bad science although his ideas were fringe at the time, after time the SC dismissed it.
The Gupta paper will probably suffer the same fate, either largely ignored or directly discredited.
 
The shame about all this is that Kermos is missing the real excitement in Cosmology right now. No one is debating Arp's paper, just like no one in the life science SC is debating Evolution.
They are puzzled about early large bright galaxies that the JWST has found and a few other things.
These galaxies, including MoM 14 formed only 280 million years after the BB, which current models do not explain.
That is the beauty of a science Kermos it is constantly challenging, reviewing, updating and correcting itself.
That is the nature of the scientific method, something James R has explained to you several times.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Pretty much. There are a lot of technical follow ups to this, but I want to see if Kermos is interested.
If he is not interested in those, then why was he interested in the first place? Why choose that paper?
Click to expand...
He was only interested in it because whomever is yanking his strings said "this disproves TBBT". (even if it were true, it still wouldn't falsify TBBT)

kermos doesn't actually know anything about it except what he's been told. He's repeating the claptrap some other dishonest Creationist is promulgating.
 
DaveC426913 said:
He was only interested in it because whomever is yanking his strings said "this disproves TBBT". (even if it were true, it still wouldn't falsify TBBT)

kermos doesn't actually know anything about it except what he's been told. He's repeating the claptrap some other dishonest Creationist is promulgating.
Click to expand...
He asked me for discourse, I am here.
 
Pinball1970 said:
The shame about all this is that Kermos is missing the real excitement in Cosmology right now. No one is debating Arp's paper, just like no one in the life science SC is debating Evolution.
They are puzzled about early large bright galaxies that the JWST has found and a few other things.
These galaxies, including MoM 14 formed only 280 million years after the BB, which current models do not explain.
That is the beauty of a science Kermos it is constantly challenging, reviewing, updating and correcting itself.
Click to expand...
Yeah. It's ironic that there are plenty of real points of vigorous, ongoing debate in cosmology and astrophysics. Plenty of unsolved problems and cases of some data not matching up to theoretical expectations. But Kermos and his YEC buddies are uninterested in learning anything about current science. Instead, they mostly recycle old controversies, as we saw in this thread. And they usually misrepresent those.
Pinball1970 said:
Pretty much. There are a lot of technical follow ups to this, but I want to see if Kermos is interested.
If he is not interested in those, then why was he interested in the first place? Why choose that paper?
Click to expand...
He didn't choose it. He sort of half-linked to it by accident, without even realising he'd done that, then I managed to find it for him. Of course, he has been loudly protesting that his accidental half-link was completely intentional on his part.

The reason that he referred to this kind of "anomaly" in the first place is most likely because he was mindlessly cutting and pasting from a YEC website somewhere. He's probably using Answers in Genesis or some equally disreputable source, which doesn't change the fact of the existence of the scientific paper itself, of course.

It's clear that Kermos doesn't understand any of the science he attempts to expound on. Understanding it is not the point, as far as he is concerned. He only goes looking for any hint that science might be wrong regarding things like the age of the Earth or the universe. Then he suckers onto whatever AiG wants to feed him. It no doubt helps him to rationalise believing in so many things that can easily be disproven by anybody who grew up in the 21st century.
 
Pinball1970 said:
The shame about all this is that Kermos is missing the real excitement in Cosmology right now. No one is debating Arp's paper, just like no one in the life science SC is debating Evolution.
They are puzzled about early large bright galaxies that the JWST has found and a few other things.
These galaxies, including MoM 14 formed only 280 million years after the BB, which current models do not explain.
That is the beauty of a science Kermos it is constantly challenging, reviewing, updating and correcting itself.
That is the nature of the scientific method, something James R has explained to you several times.
Click to expand...
Arp sounds vaguely familiar. Isn't that the bloke that published some book called "The Big Bang Never Happened"?
 
Roosters for ever said:
Answering my own question after some research....The author of "The Big Bang Never Happened" was Eric J Lerner: He is pushing the age old debunked nonsense of "tired light" and electric/Plasma Universe as proposed by Hannes Alfvén and Oskar Klein.
Click to expand...
I had to look this guy up. He doesn’t make the Encyclopaedia of American Loons, but he does feature in Rationalwiki. Curiously he is not an engineer, which is what I had been expecting for an electric universe nut. Anyway, a name I shall look out for.
 
Kermos said:
Faith is proof of things not seen;
Click to expand...
You can stop right there, faith is NOT proof of anything.
Kermos said:
in other words, that which you say/think but not see is what you believe.
Click to expand...
That much is true, but what you believe is not proof of anything.
Kermos said:
I want to give you an idea of who I am. I was an evolutionist,
Click to expand...
Highly unlikely. No one calls themselves an 'evolutionist', that is a term used by militant theists.
Kermos said:
but Christ changed me into a Christian.
Click to expand...
Hilarious. That makes no sense at all. Not only that, but after your change, you decide to come to a science forum and state falsehoods. It's like saying you were a vegan but wine turned you into an alcoholic. Do you even know anything Jesus said?
Kermos said:
I believe the Universe is about 6,000 years old. For me, and not for scientists of the Big Bang persuasion, "faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1) applies because my assurance of things hoped for is my Lord and my God Jesus Christ's triumphant return while scientists are not hoping for the Big Bang since scientists believe the Big Bang is an event of the past.
Click to expand...
Jesus never said the Universe was 6000 years old. Your faith is swiss cheese.
Kermos said:
Scientists believe the Big Bang Theory is science. I postulate that the Big Bang Theory is based on faith. I propose scientists of the Big Bang Theory are more accurately identified as philosophers of the Big Bang Philosophy or Evolution religion, and I write this because of the difference between science and faith. Can any of you scientists rationally explain away this postulate as wrong?
Click to expand...
That would be the difference between evidence and imagination, yours is but conjured from irrational beliefs.
Kermos said:
LiveScience.com presents an excellent explanation of the term science at https://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html with an essence of the scientific method including (1) hypothesis, (2) repeatable observation and experimentation, and (3) conclusions. This is pertinent to this thread.
Click to expand...
Gee, it looks so easy, kids could understand it, why can't you?
 
(Q) said:
You can stop right there, faith is NOT proof of anything.

That much is true, but what you believe is not proof of anything.

Highly unlikely. No one calls themselves an 'evolutionist', that is a term used by militant theists.

Hilarious. That makes no sense at all. Not only that, but after your change, you decide to come to a science forum and state falsehoods. It's like saying you were a vegan but wine turned you into an alcoholic. Do you even know anything Jesus said?

Jesus never said the Universe was 6000 years old. Your faith is swiss cheese.

That would be the difference between evidence and imagination, yours is but conjured from irrational beliefs.

Gee, it looks so easy, kids could understand it, why can't you?
Click to expand...
DNFTT;)
 
Pinball1970 said:
I think that particular troll has left the building. Wow has upped his troll activities however, taken up the baton.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I sense however the start of a new vendetta between WoW and this "new" rooster we seem to have acquired. He started gently enough but now it seems to be "Up periscope". For good measure he is also starting a vendetta with Olga, the hypothesised 15st. tattooed, hairy-arsed truck driver.

Seems curiously familiar behaviour. Could be an old adversary that was either banned or left, I forget which, - a retired machinist and physics autodidact from Oz. I've filed a report just in case.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top