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

[No Ghost In This Shell]

Kermos

I am curious about something here. When I read between the lines of what you post, the impression I’m getting is that you seem to be of the opinion that the notion of the BB model being a good model for the data points we have, somehow invalidates or threatens the concept of god.

Am I right? If so, why do you think this?

 

[exchemist]

Kermos

I am curious about something here. When I read between the lines of what you post, the impression I’m getting is that you seem to be of the opinion that the notion of the BB model being a good model for the data points we have, somehow invalidates or threatens the concept of god.

Am I right? If so, why do you think this?

Welcome - and a good question.I presume the answer will take us into exploring the rationale for biblical literalism. But let's see.

 

[No Ghost In This Shell]

Welcome

Thanks

 

[DaveC426913]

Kermos

I am curious about something here. When I read between the lines of what you post, the impression I’m getting is that you seem to be of the opinion that the notion of the BB model being a good model for the data points we have, somehow invalidates or threatens the concept of god.

Am I right? If so, why do you think this?

In the opening post the OP states that "I believe the Universe is about 6,000 years old."

TBBT holds that the univere is a skosh older than that.

 

[Pinball1970]

In the opening post the OP states that "I believe the Universe is about 6,000 years old."

TBBT holds that the univere is a skosh older than that.

He is out by a factor of 2.3 million which is a non trivial error.

 

[Pinball1970]

good model for the data points we have, somehow invalidates or threatens the concept of god

He thought The Theory of Evolution did that also because he used to be an "evolutionist" until "christ changed him into a Christian."

Strange because Jesus knew nothing about modern or ancient Christianity because he was an apocalyptic Jew. Christians do not celebrate passover, have a phobia of pork, refuse to work on Saturday or thought the world was coming an end in the first century.Some Christians managed to hang onto their foreskin too.

Educated, rational people accept scientific theories that are accepted by the scientific community, the people who actually know what they are talking about. This is because anyone who has lived in the modern world use stuff that they are completely clueless on and appreciate that smart guys worked stuff and other smart guys built a technology on that.

For instance, we have rocks on earth that are billions of years old, this is via radiometric dating techniques and the science community understand radioactivity very well.
If they didn't, nuclear power plants would not work and going for an x ray could be like playing Russian roulette.

Imagine the scenario at the hospital X ray suite.

Me "Sorry, it's done it again. God damn this radioactivity is a thinker."

Boss man " Pinball you're just a tech, if the science guys dont understand radioactivity, how the hell are we supposed to?"

To the patient


"Ok sir, i have some bad news. You will feel unwell, perk up then feel dash poorly again but don't worry it will all be over in about two weeks. Some good news though, it looks like it's just a sprain no fracture."

 

[scorpius]

Thanks, scorpius.

You expressly acknowledged your leap of faith.

You wrote "I believe..." which is a creed. You have a creed that states you believe in an everlasting universe without a scientific basis.

I have a creed. I believe in Almighty YHWH God, the Sovereign King from everlasting to everlasting (this means eternity past and eternity future) over all that is seen and unseen (this means energy, mass, light, and more). This creed can be powerfully heard with the excellent accompaniment of a hammered dulcimer at www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LR2hFP1yb4 (intentionally not converted to a media link).

Beliefs are ok,after all we dont know the whole universe,however problem is when your beliefs Interfere w our Knowledge of reality. Science etc,, bible is fiction.
also w All knowing Creator who made everything You have No free will.
btw your bible has way too many contradictions and downright Evil rules instructions on how to behave, treat others nonbelievers that no modern righteous society would accept.
Www.evilbible.com

 

[No Ghost In This Shell]

In the opening post the OP states that "I believe the Universe is about 6,000 years old."

Yes, I gathered that much. On this thread he’s trying to establish that scientific models (such as Lambda-CDM) rely on faith as much as religious beliefs do, and therefore that both domains of enquiry are on equal footing. Which, of course, is false, because they work in exactly opposite ways.

But regardless, I’m curious as to why so many religious fundamentalists (not only Christians) feel that the BB model would invalidate their concept of god. I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but I’d like to see it spelled out.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, I gathered that much. On this thread he’s trying to establish that scientific models (such as Lambda-CDM) rely on faith as much as religious beliefs do, and therefore that both domains of enquiry are on equal footing. Which, of course, is false, because they work in exactly opposite ways.

But regardless, I’m curious as to why so many religious fundamentalists (not only Christians) feel that the BB model would invalidate their concept of god. I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but I’d like to see it spelled out.

Surely the OP makes that fairly clear, at least in his case? He wrongly assumes the BB model proposes an origin for the cosmos: one that does not include God as creator. Subsequent posts of his confirm this misunderstanding. He cites a video (post 74) in which Lawrence Krauss*, a pop-sci cosmologist, speculates about the ways the cosmos could have originated - and claims it shows these ideas are part of the BB model, when they are not. It seems to me the only real question is whether he genuinely misunderstands what the BB model is, or whether it is a pretence to allow him to come here to parade his fundie Christianity and manufacture an argument with scientifically literate people.

* Krauss is a well-known evangelical atheist, somewhat in the Dawkins mould, so perhaps that's why the OP picked him.

 

[foghorn]

I wrote "For scientists (truly philosophers) who believe the Big Bang started from nothing", but you morphed it into the unrelated "At no point do scientists say the equations prove the universe started from nothing". You Big Bang philosophers keep misrepresenting this "Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith" as if I mentioned proof anywhere in the original post.

The following preemptively identifies a professor of Big Bang from nothing for you to be clear that such people people are around.

Like some others here have pointed out to you, Krauss in that video is talking about the quantum vacuum energy. Which averages out to zero.
The video you linked to has text, this is Lawrence M. Krauss talking…
Lawrence M. Krauss
“ By nothing I mean nothing. I mean [nothing].
If you take empty space, and that means get rid of all particles all the radiation, absolutely everything, it still weighs something.
That sounds ridiculous, why should nothing weigh something, nothing is nothing.
The answer is nothing isn’t nothing any more in physics, because the laws of Quantum mechanics
and Special Relativity on extremely small scales, nothing is really a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence.“
*****************************************
Here is Ethan Siegel.(Ph.D. astrophysicist) saying the same thing in different words.

“ Empty space. Think of all the "things" that exist in the Universe today. Think of every fundamental constituent of matter; every quantum of radiation; every black hole; every mass; every particle and antiparticle. Now, imagine removing them all. Imagine somehow taking them out of the Universe, leaving nothing but empty space behind. What would you have left? Some call that "nothing," and are quite happy with that definition.

The entity known as spacetime is still there, as are the laws of physics. All the fields present within empty space, from the Higgs field to gravitational fields to the quantum fields that we often visualize as particle-antiparticle pairs popping in-and-out of existence are still around. Physical laws like quantum field theory are still there; General Relativity is still around; the fundamental constants are not only still there, but they have the same values they do today. And the vacuum of empty space itself still has a zero-point energy that's non-zero.This manifests itself as dark energy today, and with a very different non-zero value in the distant past, was the driving force behind cosmological inflation“
********
Ethan goes on to say...

“Whatever you’re left with when you take away the entire Universe and the laws governing it. At last, you can conceive of removing everything, including space, time, and the rules that govern any sort of particles or quanta of energy. This creates a type of “nothing” that physicists have no definition for. This goes beyond “nothing” as it exists in the Universe, instead realizing some sort of philosophical, absolute nothingness. But in the context of physics, we cannot make sense of this sort of nothingness. We’d have to assume that there is such a thing as a state outside of space and time, where you can have the emergence of spacetime from this hypothesized state of true nothingness.“

Ethan Siegel Link
**************************************

 

[Kermos]

Kermos:

On some other matters you have raised...

There's nothing incompatible about being a Christian and believing in evolution. Did somebody tell you that they are in conflict? If so, I'm afraid you were misled.

Actually, distinct incompatibility exists between Cosmic Evolution (13,800,000,000 years) and Christianity (6,000 years).

Jesus Christ is the Word of God (John 1:14), and the Word of God says "in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy" (Exodus 20:11) as part of the Ten Commandments.

Christians believe Christ. Christians believe the beginning of creation week (Genesis 1:1) is about 6,000 years ago. The calculation is based on Biblical record from the beginning until the birth of Christ added to the 2,000 year after Christ's birth.

Therefore, a person who claims to be a Christian yet does not believe the above references to the creation account, then that person is not a Christian.

Christians understand six days is not six billion years, not six weeks, not about 14 billion years, but six days that the Word of God says God made Heaven and Earth.

I would be interested in learning more about what Christ did to change you into a Christian. Was this a personal interaction with Christ himself, or an interaction with the bible, or did somebody tell you about Jesus? If you'd prefer to discuss this in a separate thread, that's fine, of course. Also, I'll understand if you prefer not to share the details of your conversion.

I really meant it when I wrote that Christ made me a Christian. The Power of God (1 Corinthians 1:24) changed my heart (John 3:3).

Were you a Muslim previously, or some other religion?

No, I wasn't an Islamist. I've personally interacted with a number of Muslims, and I don't recall a single evolutionist among them. I did write that I was an evolutionist.

I suppose so. I'd sugggest it's best to poll actual cosmologists about what the best cosmological theories are, rather than polling scientists in general, though. What's the general consensus among the experts? Are you aware? Not that it matters, especially. After all, large numbers of people can believe in things that aren't true or accurate, can't they? That's why we need to look at evidence.

That's untenable in light of all the scientific evidence against it. I mean, you can certainly believe whatever you want, but you sound to me like the kind of person who wants to believe in things that are true, rather than somebody who wants to believe just because a story makes him feel comfortable. Am I right?

Who told you that the universe is 6000 years old? And why did you believe him/her/them?

You say "untenable" about 6,000, but the view of 13,800,000,000 is untenable.

Let's look at a model to see just how untenable it is to believe you can accumulate sufficient data to draw conclusions (your scientific evidence) about an event 13.8 billion years ago.

Carl Sagan wrote Cosmos, and in Cosmos, Sagan presented his Cosmic Calendar representing 13.8 billion years as a conventional single calendar year with January 1st as the Big Bang and December 31st as the current time. Are you familiar with Sagan's work?

Sagan's calculations put the birth of Christ on December 31st at 23:59:55. That's mere seconds before the end of the calendar year.

Each second on the Cosmic Calendar corresponds to 438 Earth years, According to historians, Hans Lippershey applied for a "telescope" patent in 1608, and astronomical observations were initiated by Galileo Galilei using an improved design. For your sake in this model, I'll give you the more ancient date of 1608 which is 417 years of documentary evidence for telescopes which is one second at the very end of that Cosmic Calendar year.

You believe you collected sufficient data about the Big Bang through such a negligibly small window, one second out of 31,536,000 seconds as represented by Sagan's Cosmic Calendar.

As an aside, Edwin Hubble is largely credited by the scientific community with discovering in 1924 that almost all galaxies are moving away from Earth, about 100 years ago, which is the last one-quarter second of 23:55:59 on December 31st. Further distilling the times into equal time segments, each unit being equal to 0.25 of 1 second, the ratio is 1:126,144,000 for your data collection since Hubble's work.

Back to giving you the full second.

The model also needs to compensate for space, and I'm extending a beneficial handicap to you. I'll only calculate for an X-axis, and I'll skip the Y-axis and Z-axis. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, so one light year is about 6 trillion miles (6,000,000,000,000 miles).

Earth is 8 light minutes from the Sun, so the field of measurement is about 16 light minutes (2,976,000 miles diameter of orbit).

Scientists speculate the solar system is about 4 light years across (24,000,000,000,000 miles).

Our own Milky Way galaxy is about 100,000 light-years (600,000,000,000,000,000 miles) across according to NASA personnel, and they estimate that the observable universe is about 92 billion light-years (552,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles) across.

As of Feb. 1, 2020, Voyager 1 is about 13.8 billion miles (13,800,000,000 miles) from the Sun.

Let's pretend CMBR data, telemetry data, and such continues to flow back to Earth's scientists from Voyager 1 collected with instruments congruent with 2025 technology instead of 1977 technology; in other words, I'm giving you another big fat handicap.

Your data collection ratio is 13.8:552,000,000,000,000 miles. That ratio is a linear X-axis - excluding the compounding effect of the Y-axis and the Z-axis.

Scientists collected data across 13.8:552,000,000,000,000 distance units spanning 1:31,536,000 time units (a.k.a. 438:13,800,000,000 time units). This is conservatively favorable to your advantage.

I observe that you collected data over an insufficient time frame in an insignificantly sized sampling region.

In conclusion, the Big Bang Theory is not science, and the Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.

I title this the Zenith Model, and this thread contains the first publication of the Zenith Model of which I'm aware.

Andrew McKellar used W. S. Adams' spectroscopic instrumentation during 1941 to measure background temperature of 2.3 K of a B type star.

The vaunted Bell Telephone Laboratories had a facility atop Crawford Hill in Holmdel, New Jersey where Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson experimented in 1964. They detected a homogeneous, constant radiation.

Robert H. Dicke, Jim Peebles, and David Wilkinson, astrophysicists at Princeton University believed the Big Bang emitted a tremendous radiation blast resulting in cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), and they prepared to investigate microwave radiation levels in the year 1964.

But, Bernard F. Burke, professor of physics at MIT, introduced the two groups working a mere 40 miles from each other.

The two groups agreeably jointly published in Astrophysical Journal Letters. Two notes were published, (1) Dicke et al substantiated the Big Bang based on CMBR, and (2) Penzias et al noted the existence of 3.5 K CMBR universally.

Scientists had a leap of faith with a data reading in time - a sliver of time - in a sliver of space. No detailed temperature nor path history embedded in the particles. That's not science.

Continued to post #112

 

[Kermos]

Continued from post #111

That all sounds quite off topic for this thread. Perhaps we can discuss your Lord's triumphant return in a different thread, if you want to.

In the meantime, let's focus on your thread topic, please! You have urged others to do so. You wouldn't want to make a hypocrite of yourself, would you?

I continued to define faith, so the description is germane to the postulate. With so much interest in politely and honestly discussing Christianity expressed by others, including you as in the opening of this post, I've been less petulant about discussing the topic.

Yes. Correct.

Thank you. The word "believe" in "Scientists believe the Big Bang Theory is science" indicates faith.

No. It's a scientific theory, supported by numerous lines of evidence. See my explanation of the difference between faith and justification, above.

And, please see my explanation about faith and justification.

It sounds like you might be a bit confused about the distinction between philosophy and science. (I notice that you posted this thread in the Philosophy forum, originally, which is probably a mistake when you want to talk about a scientific theory. We have Science subforums.)

Philosophers often deal in hypotheticals, in possible worlds and in thought experiments. Science, on the other hand, values evidence from the natural world. It uses a hypothetico-deductive method that appeals to evidence. It is not faith-based in the sense that religions are.

The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory, not a religion. The same is true of the theory of evolution, by the way. (Another topic for a different thread!)

Please see my response to your immediately subsequent post for further discussion on "the distinction between philosophy and science" and lack thereof by Big Bang Theory adherents (see where you bring up your "cosmic distance ladder" or celestial body distance database or, for brevity, your "star bible").

It might be fair to describe Christians as philosophers of the Christian religion, because Christianity doesn't appeal to evidence. In fact, Christ himself explicitly extolled the virtues of believing without evidence on several occasions, if we are to believe the biblical accounts. Do you believe the biblical accounts, Kermos?

Absolutely, I believe the Biblical accounts, including "if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father" (John 10:31) just like I wholeheartedly believe "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their Word" (John 17:20).

Christ taught about believing with evidence and believing without evidence.

You shouldn't assume that all the people on sciforums are scientists. A lot of our members here are interested in science. Some of us have formal credentials in science, but there's little point in waving those around on an informal and anonymous discussion forum. Anyway, the point is: you'll find a lot of interested amateurs here and the odd professional. Also, I hope you're aware that credentials are not a solid guarantee that a person will be right about everything - even about everything in their own field of expertise. It's better to judge the arguments on their own merits, rather than appealing to authority, I'd say.

Ok. Good.

I don't, so I selectively used the phrase "you scientists" inside the postulate to narrow the audience. If anyone responds, then such a one has implied to being a scientist. Please recall, I identified myself upon initial approach.

Credentials are only as valuable as the imprinted paper, but true authority is worthy of credence.

Under the authority of Christ,
Kermos

 

[Kermos]

This isn't really relevant to the thread topic, is it?

Or this (?)

Tht sounds like a topic for a different thread. Maybe try to focus on the topic you raised. One thing at a time.

The relevance lies in exchemist's attempt to justify the Big Bang Theory to me by evidencing with the creator of the Big Bang Theory, Georges Lemaître as a Christian.

exchemist made an appeal to authority for the Big Bang via the faith of Georges Lemaître, so my response was consistent with "I postulate that the Big Bang Theory is based on faith" of the OP. Lemaître's faith was in the Big Bang Theory instead of the Word of God.

I dispelled that "evidence" to exchemist.

Why do you raise this? Do you see it as a problem? Can you explain what you think the problem is?

Please see the discourse about "untenable" in my prior post to you.

Only some of them, as you acknowledged at the start of this discussion.

Some of them. "Big bang adherents" also includes many non-professionals.

That's incorrect. We know that the speed of light is finite. We can measure it in many different ways.

Your "That's incorrect" is falsifiable. First, I was not addressing the speed of light. Second, I was addressing the detection of light. Third, you changed my argument from detection of light to speed of light. Fourth, you introduced distance based upon the speed of light into my argument.

The cosmic light detected by scientific instruments does not arrive with a place of origin stamp nor an origin production timestamp; therefore, the instrument encountered an emission of incomplete place origin and unknown time origin (with some caveats identified below).

Your "That's incorrect" is false.

We also have a "cosmic distance ladder" that allows astronomers to accurately determine the distances to stars and galaxies that are literally billions of lightyears away from us. And that means we can infer, with confidence, that the light from those galaxies must have taken billions of years to reach us.

I'm skimming over a lot of detail here, you understand. But I'm giving you the quick summary, because it sounds like this might be new information for you. Also, it would take too much space to attempt to teach you Astronomy 101 on this forum, even if I had the time and inclination to attempt it. I trust you understand.

Now, I arrived at your "cosmic distance ladder" or "star bible" as I put it. You have a book of your forefathers, and that book was developed with less mature technology as compared to your current instruments.

A galaxy candidate named HDI is pegged at 13.5 billion light years from Earth by astronomers who put HDI in the early universe.

The astronomers cannot use parallax because that requires knowing the luminosity at the source or the distance to the object.

Astronomers already claim to know the distance without visiting the source to determine the brightness.

This leaves telescopes for determining the distance.

You claim that telescopes provides evidence for you, even that telescopes enable you to determine the distance from Earth to celestial bodies many light years away.

If you take a first measurement to a particular object in space from a telescope on Earth on June 21 and a second reading on December 21 of the same year, then you can use the angle-side-angle geometric formula to determine the distance to the object.

For the purposes of this example, I'm switching to a much more manageable distance from 13,500,000,000 light years (HDI) to an object 1 (one) light year away from Earth.

I want to give you an idea of just how narrow that triangle is by way of a scale model.

A first person uses a red marking pen to put a dot on the TransAmerica building in San Francisco.

A second person sets up two street survey instruments on tripods 800 miles away on the Space Needle in Seattle, and the survey instruments are set 16 inches apart.

Now, the second person finds the red dot and collects the angle-side-angle data for calculating the distance to the red dot.

That is one NARROW triangle, and that is merely a single light year scale model.

The triangle with respect to the nearest solar system, Andromeda, at 4 light years away, is much narrower. Think of it, the first person leaves San Francisco California, 800 miles from Seattle, to travel south, past Los Angeles, past Mexico City all the way through Mexico, further south into Central America, into the northern outskirts of Managua in Nicaragua, 3,200 miles from Seattle, and tethers a red helium filled balloon to the top of the tallest tree; meanwhile, the second person keeps the two survey instruments in the same 16" separated locations on the Space Needle in Seattle of the USA, and the second person finds the red balloon and collects the angle-side-angle data for triangulating the distance to the red balloon. Those angles are ever so slight!

James R, if you don't perceive your evidence disappearing, then that's a shame.

Astronomers claim VY Canis Majoris, is approximately 3,900 light-years away from Earth. Could the second person place a red tarp over the descent stage of the Lunar Module Eagle sitting on the moon for this example? Not without being about 60,000 to 80,000 miles too close to those two survey instruments sitting 16" apart on the Space Needle in Seattle, WA, USA, Earth (312,000 miles required for the 16" surveyor scale model)! I'm giving you the benefit of the red tarp over the decent stage, yet the triangulation has the appearance of being parallel lines for a celestial object far less than 100,000 light years from Earth, and this example hasn't even touched upon the 100,000 light years diameter of the Milky Way galaxy, so Astronomers are faith based regarding celestial bodies being 1,000,000 (one million) light years from Earth instead of science based. 1,000,000,000 (one billion) light years from Earth is a triangulation distance measurement leap of faith calculation.

Back to galaxy candidate HDI, the resulting triangle using telescopes on Earth to arrive at 13.5 billion light years from Earth is nonscience, definitely not the scientific method.

Your star bible fails to help you avoid the leap of faith because your star bible itself is a foundation based on faith.

I title this the Episcopic Model that proves you only have the characteristics of received emissions at the time of reception. You do not have accurate origin object distance nor luminosity nor size nor age for celestial objects purportedly exceeding 6,000 light years from Earth.

Technically speaking, you are correct. The "Big Bang philosophers" do, however, "watch" the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is one strong line of evidence that supports the big bang theory.

Please see the Zenith Model in my previous post to you.

How fortunate for us that they cannot do that! They can, however, model it and simulate it.

How so? Please explain what they are doing wrong, which is against the scientific method.

The Big Bang is not observable, so it's not science.

The Big Bang is not repeatable, sp it's not science.

The Big Bang model is not science.

Big Bang adherents were not witness to the Big Bang, so Big Bang adherents indulge a leap of faith.

No. The big bang theory is a scientific theory, you see. Christianity is faith-based. It is a religion.

Please see the Episcopic Model in which your faith's bible is identified.

No. They construct models that they can compare with observational data and measurements. Their confidence in the models is proportional to the degree to which the models can reproduce the observations and measurements. If they can do that, then there is some justification for postulating that the assumptions and axioms of the models correlate with processes that occur in the natural world that we observe.

There is nothing special about cosmological models, in this regard. All science works like this.

You wrote "All science works like this" regarding the cosmological models.

I declare your statement is inaccurate. I obtained a paraphrased definition for the scientific method from LiveScience.com in the original post - which you acknowledged in your prior post to me.

Are you familiar with the iodine clock reaction scientific investigation? The investigation follows the scientific method with hypothesis, experiment, observation, conclusion, and repeatability. If you perform the investigation in the same manner as I with both of us shining a flashlight through the starting clear liquid, then both our outputs will be blue opaque liquid blocking the passage of light after a similar latency. Even if we try to separate our individual experiments over time, say, one year, then our results remain the same. In a follow-up, we can increase the amount of hydrogen peroxide to reduce the time for the liquid to transition from clear to blue. We prove an inverse relationship which can be expressed by a mathematical formula. This is the scientific method!

Your non-science Big Bang Theory models lack experimentation and repeatability; therefore, your models do not follow the scientific method.

Furthermore, calling your Big Bang observations "limited" is a very generous saying

As this thread has been settling, the Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.

 

[Kermos]

Believing in anything is a belief. So, believing that the universe is 13.8 billion years old is a belief. So is believing that the universe is 6000 years old.

This is the point I've been trying to convey.

The difference is that there's a much more robust justification for the former view than the latter one.

Your unvalidated observations, as born out with the Zenith Model and the Episcopic Model, shows there is NO robust justification for the former.

Do you accept the Law of Conservation of energy because you have faith in it, or because it is supported by evidence? I'm curious. Does the bible mention the Law of Conservation of energy? If not, how do you know it is true? Why do you believe it?

I didn't say I accept any of the laws of thermodynamics. I mentioned the laws because scientists, er philosophers, bind those laws to their models except where the laws are inconvenient.

I say Jesus Christ can suspend what you call laws at His discretion.

Let's assume you're right. That would rule out the possibility that the Big Bang started from nothing, then.

You are getting closer.

Is it possible that, instead, the Big Bang started from something? That seems like the logical alternative to me.

Not something, but someone, specifically YHWH God!

Like the Law of Conservation of energy, you mean? Where does the bible mention that? And if it doesn't, why do you have confidence in the Law of Conservation of energy? Also, do you think the bible should have mentioned such an important scientific law? Why doesn't it mention it?

No, thermodynamic laws are not what I meant.

The Bible is about Father's glory in the person of the Son, Emmanuel. The Bible is about knowing God and being known by God. The heavens declare the glory of God. The expanse shows the work of His hands (Psalm 19:1).

The laws I meant are such as the specific law I mentioned, the first of the Ten Commandments "you shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3).

I look at the heavens, and I see a beautiful tapestry with an eagle sign in Messier 16. I receive the promise "those who wait for YHWH will gain new strength; They will mount up with wings like eagles, They will run and not get tired, They will walk and not become weary" (Isaiah 40:31).

You look at the heavens, and you see an accident. No intelligence for a design = undesigned conglomeration. The Earth just happens to be in that narrow band that supports such an interesting variety of creatures. That's a leap of faith.

 

[Pinball1970]

Can this be moved to religion james ?

 

[DaveC426913]

Scientists speculate the solar system is about 4 light years across...

What?? Where are you getting your information from?

Scientists had a leap of faith with a data reading in time - a sliver of time - in a sliver of space. No detailed temperature nor path history embedded in the particles. That's not science.

Yes it is.

Your whole idea that we somehow need to observe in real time the evolution of the universe is nonsense.

The Canadian Shield is over 3 billion years old. We can get a lot of information from it from a few years of observation and testing. Do you really assert that we can't do any scence on the geology of the Canadian Shield unless we literally sit there - looking at it with our eyeballs - for, what? a hundred million years?

You have a woefully uneducated idea of how science works.

 

[Kermos]

It is quite obvious from what you have posted - and what you have ignored - that you have little understanding of science and that you have no wish to understand it. Like most creationists, you carefully cultivate ignorance of what science is and how it works, as that makes it easier for you to misrepresent it - as you are already doing.

It is easier to dismiss, disregard, and belittle with words like "cultivate ignorance" and "misrepresent it" instead of engaging in correspondence with honesty and integrity, exchemist. BTW, your "you have little understanding of science" is falsifiable, just take a gander at post #113's iodine clock scientific method section - it's my post to James R in which I tagged you.

 

[exchemist]

It is easier to dismiss, disregard, and belittle with words like "cultivate ignorance" and "misrepresent it" instead of engaging in correspondence with honesty and integrity, exchemist. BTW, your "you have little understanding of science" is falsifiable, just take a gander at post #113's iodine clock scientific method section - it's my post to James R in which I tagged you.

Don’t waste my time.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is easier to dismiss, disregard, and belittle with words like "cultivate ignorance" and "misrepresent it" instead of engaging in correspondence with honesty and integrity,

I have engaged honestly by pointing out great gaps in your understanding of how science works.

You do not know what the cosmic ladder is.
You do not know what Cepheid variables are.
You do not know how historical and pre-historical science work.
You think science can only be done on things in our lifetime, with our personal eyes, and locally.

These are things you have admitted, here.

And yet, you said you would engage in good faith. But you have not.


Can God make a rock so heavy even he cannot lift it?
If it is too heavy for him to lift, then he is not omnipowerful.
If it is not too heavey for him to lift then he is not omnipowerful.
There, I have just disproven God.

You see, it doesn't require me knowing how God works. I can stay ignorant of God and use my own ignorant knowledge of him to disprove him.

That is what you are doing with science.

 

[billvon]

Actually, distinct incompatibility exists between Cosmic Evolution (13,800,000,000 years) and Christianity (6,000 years).

True. Of course, a distinct incompatibility exists between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, so perhaps relying on those for the literal truth is a mistake.