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

[Kermos]

Why do you say this? We have reading across the entire spectrum. If the space 100 light years away were significantly different, we would see it evidenced in a hundred different ways.

I wrote "Man is incapable of obtaining source readings one hundred light years away from Earth" because the writing is true.

Your beliefs are testable as shall be evidenced in the next section.

And in fact we do, because there are places 100 light years that are miiliond of degreed hotter than here. They happen to be at the core of stars - which we see, with our telescopes. The fact that we can see stars means that we certainly can get reading of conditions very far way.

Is anyone of you scientists measuring temperature at the source star 100 light years from Earth? The answer is a decisive "no".

You scientists convert "we see, with our telescopes" (a visual observation of emissions received at Earth) into "miiliond of degreed hotter than here" (a non-visual conclusion stated as "in fact we do" (opinion masquerading as scientific fact) for an object "100 light years away" (600,000,000,000,000 miles from Earth).

DaveC426913, that's 100 light years. Why not talk about the Big Dog star at your almost 4,000 light years away? In case your curious, you can find discussion of the star in the Episcopic Model documented in post #113.

The fact that there are conditions assumed in our models does not mean the models themselves are an assumption.

That's not scientific.

Again, that's tantamont to saying "it's a leap of faith that ethane moleceules are not passing freely through the aluminum engine block, therefore the fact that internal combustion engines work at all is a leap of faith." No. It's not.

Your analogy of a heat producing engine under examination of gaseous permeability with sensors strategically attached and in direct proximity conducted on Earth compared to your "there are places 100 light years that are miiliond of degreed hotter than here. They happen to be at the core of stars" is an apples to oranges comparison.

In other words, your argument in favor of the Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.

 

[DaveC426913]

Science is discovered knowledge with acknowledgment of the Truth (John 14:6),

The day may come when a science denier such as yourself does not

- speak with conviction, despite wholesale ignorance of science and the scientific method,
- utterly ignore all the evidence presented to keep beating on the same debunked notions,
- argue in bad faith,
- lie.

But today is not that day.

You are done.

 

[Pinball1970]

You are done

Hallelujah.

 

[James R]

Kermos:

You still haven't caught up with my most recent posts, so I look forward to you addressing the specific points I made in those. Meanwhile, I have some comments on your new posts.

All parties need to critically examine the definition of evidence:

​

ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood​

​

(Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014 obtained from www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence)​

That all seems fine. See my previous post on the matter of defining "evidence", too.

You wrote 'We are not talking about what is "true"' in direct relation to science (proof post #137), yet the definition of evidence clearly includes proof of what is "true".

Science doesn't claim to have an ultimate truth, though. That's more something that religions claim.

Read DaveC's helpful explanation about the distinction between theory and evidence, not too far above this post, for instance.

Let's visit the definition of science as a continuation of the above. I recall one of you explaining to me "Science, on the other hand, values evidence from the natural world. It uses a hypothetico-deductive method that appeals to evidence".

We debate about true and false. You argued "I have evidence for the Big Bang", and your argument evaluates to either true or false.

It is true that I have evidence for the Big Bang, if that's what you're talking about.

As your argument stands at this time of writing, since your evidence is truly "opinion", then your argument evaluates to false.

The evidence I have for the big bang is not just my opinion. Not just anybody's opinion, actually. The evidence isn't from people's opinions. It is evidence from things like the microwave background radiation, the relative abudances of light elements in the universe, etc. As I explained to you previously. Catch up.

Science is discovered knowledge with acknowledgment of the Truth (John 14:6)...

No. Scientists do just fine without ever having to refer to John 14:6. That's not part of science.

... and the scientific method reveals facts about nature...

If you say so.

... not predict nature because that is faith...

The predictions of scientific theories do not require faith. They are empirically testable. That's the scientific method. No faith necessary.

Otherwise, science is a pointless endeavor without the Grand Creator of the universe as recorded in Genesis 1:1.

That's just your opinion. I beg to differ. I don't believe that science is a pointless endeavour when done in the absence of Kermos's personal religious beliefs.

Is your belief better than mine?

I don't need to name a book, DaveC426913, because intelligent humans recognize that Interstellar particles arrive to Earth with no discernable timestamp of production nor path traveled nor origin signature.

When it comes to light, it mostly travels in straight lines (with a few important caveats), so it does arrive at Earth with some information about the path travelled. The direction that light comes from also often gives us important hints as to its likely origin.

You might have noticed this in your daily life. If you look up at the sun do you think "Ooh! I see a bright light. But I have no idea where that bright light could have come from. I can't see a timestamp of production on the light, so I'm all at sea. I can see what looks like a very bright ball in the sky. People call that the Sun, I hear, but I'm not sure that when I look at it the light I'm seeing actually comes from there. Maybe it actually comes from my neighbour's swimming pool. Maybe it comes out of my left nostril. There's no way for me to tell, because it carries no discernable origin signature." Is that what you think, Kermos?

Would you like to reframe your argument about why the Big Bang Theory is not a leap of faith?

You'll need to address the arguments I have already put to you, in detail, first.

You can have a respectful discussion about these things, can't you?

Your Canadian Shield serves no purpose in establishing that the Big Bang Theory is not a leap of faith.

It does, however, point to the age of the Earth being much older than 6000 years.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

Again, you believe your instruments receive light from millions and billions of light years away. And millions and billions of light years distance equals millions and billions of years in the past, yet the particles your instruments receive arrived at Earth with no discernable timestamp of production nor path traveled nor origin signature, so you do not know when the light originated nor the travel path of the particles nor spatial coordinates of origin.

We can deduce when the light was emitted if we can measure the distance to a known source of the light, which we can often determine from knowing that light mostly travels in straight lines, as I previously discussed.

To determine the distance to the source, we can make use of the astronomers' cosmic distance ladder, if necessary. And the distance then allows us to calculate the transit time for the light.

Understand?

You have a log of particles received, everything else about millions and billions of light years away and millions and billions of years in the past is a leap of faith.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. See above - and my previous posts that you haven't yet responded to.

Astronomers believe Polaris is the nearest Cepheid variable star to Earth, at 445.5 light years (2,673,000,000,000,000 miles). Polaris is commonly referred to as the North Star.

Polaris' minimum and maximum diameter in miles at Polaris is unobserval by astronomers, and any temperature change for Polaris is not measurable at Polaris by astronomers.

That's incorrect. The temperatures of stars are easily measured using spectroscopic techniques.

Astronomers possess no luminosity data at the source for Polaris, but astronomers do possess brightness data at Earth.

Knowing the distance to Polaris and its apparent magnitude allows astronomers to calculate its absolute magnitude.

And, finally, astronomers never accurately measured the distance from Polaris to Earth.

That's incorrect. Astronomers can use both the parallax method and the fact that it is a Cepheid variable to measure the distance of Polaris from Earth.

The results of both measurements agree with one another, which means we can be confident that we have determined the distance correctly.

More specifically, the Hipparcos and Gaia satellites have both made precise parallax measurements for Polaris, both resulting in a distance of 446.1 plus or minus 1.1 light years.

Will you now acknowledge your error and agree that the parallax method can be used for Polaris, Kermos? Or are you going to stick your head in the sand and keep insisting that it can't be done?

Astronomers do not collect sufficient, complete, and accurate data at 2,673,000,000,000,000 miles (2.6 quadrillion miles) from Polaris, the nearest Cepheid variable star, nor any other Cepheid which astronomers believe are more distant from Earth.

That is an assertion that needs support.

Astronomer Henrietta Swan Leavitt believed that observing a Cepheid star's pulsation period results in astronomers knowing the true luminosity of the Cepheid star thus astronomers possess sufficient information to determine fantastic Interstellar distances. Astronomers believe they can compare "known" (unobserved) luminosity to observed brightness calibrated by observing the parallax distance to Polaris (or another Cepheid star with a "known" distance from Earth) which results in the distance to the Cepheid star.

You're conflating the two methods there. In fact, the parallax method and Cepheid method complement each other, and allow astronomers to cross-check the accuracy of the cosmic distance ladder.

In the same post, you brought up a case in point of Cepheid variable in which astronomers leverage parallax for your star bible's millions and billions of light years away and millions and billions of years in the past.

We can identify Cepheid variable stars in some galaxies external to the Milky Way. So you are correct: they can be used to measure the distances to some galaxies that are millions of light years away. I'd have to check your billions claim.

Rewind to the foundational star bible contribution by Leavitt in which astronomers use an unobserved luminosity (at the star) to calculate a star's distance. Astronomers cannot determine the true luminosity (at the star) of a Cepheid by observing the change in the star's brightness (at Earth) - such brightness-to-luminosity extrapolation is a leap of faith.

No. Cepheid variable stars are useful precisely because there is an observed correlation between the period of variation of a Cepheid star and its absolute magnitude.

So, astronomers can determine the absolute magnitude of a Cepheid star, by measuring the period of its brightening and dimming.

Study up, Kermos. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as they say.

Your evidence of the Cepheid variable demonstrated the Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.

Nobody made that claim - not DaveC and not me. What are you talking about?

Previously in this thread, I conveyed that believing YHWH God created all which is seen and unseen starting about 6,000 years ago is based on faith.

Yes. Which goes to show how unreliable religious faith can be when it comes to trying to determine what is true.

See, the thing is: science doesn't start with a conclusion and work backwards to try to rationalise it, while ignoring all contradictory evidence. It turns out, sadly, that many Creationists who call themselves Christians do exactly that.

As an intellectually honest enquirer after Truth, surely you, personally, haven't fallen into that trap. Have you?

I wrote "Man is incapable of obtaining source readings one hundred light years away from Earth" because the writing is true.

It's okay. Everybody makes mistakes from time to time.

Now you know better, and with what you have learned here you can move on with your life and not make the same error again.

Your beliefs are testable as shall be evidenced in the next section.

Are yours?

Is anyone of you scientists measuring temperature at the source star 100 light years from Earth? The answer is a decisive "no".

Wrong again, I'm afraid.

Do you know what blackbody radiation is, Kermos?

You scientists convert "we see, with our telescopes" (a visual observation of emissions received at Earth) into "miiliond of degreed hotter than here" (a non-visual conclusion stated as "in fact we do" (opinion masquerading as scientific fact) for an object "100 light years away" (600,000,000,000,000 miles from Earth).

Yes. Science is a wonderful enterprise, because it allows us to deduce facts about the world that are (a) not directly apparent, and/or (b) not directly measurable.

Why not talk about the Big Dog star at your almost 4,000 light years away?

We can measure its temperature just as easily.

In other words, your argument in favor of the Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.

Repeating yourself is unnecessarily redundant.

What you need to do, if this is what you believe, is to make an argument for your position that isn't falsified by relatively simple scientific objections - something you have yet to do in this thread.

 

[James R]

Kermos:

One more general thought and question occurs to me, that I hope you can help me with.

You have started a thread here asking people to show you why the big bang theory is not a leap of faith. The main thrust of your arguments so far has been you trying to show that the big bang theory is a leap of faith.

Are we to understand that you don't like people taking leaps of faith then? That you think that taking leaps of faith is a poor way to obtain reliable knowledge about what it true?

Do you take a leap of faith when you believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? I can't see why else you would believe that. All the relevant science is against you, on that, after all. But maybe you have some reasons that don't rely on faith. If so, maybe we can discuss those in a different thread.

Is it okay to take a leap of faith on certain things and not others, according to you? Big bang theory: leap of faith bad. Earth is 6000 years old: leap of faith good. That kind of thing? If so, why the double standard? Or do you have criteria we can use to decide when a leap of faith is or is not an acceptable way of acquiring reliable knowledge? If you do, can you tell me what they are?

Back to the topic. Suppose you manage to persuade me that my belief in the big bang theory is a leap of faith, and that taking the leap of faith to accept the big bang theory is a bad thing. Then, what alternative theory do you have that doesn't require me to take a leap of faith? You haven't said anything about any alternative scientific theory that does not require a leap of faith and that you consider acceptable, so far.

Finally, does believing that God is real require a leap of faith? If so, is that acceptable to you? Why, or why not? If it is acceptable, why isn't the leap of faith for the big bang theory also acceptable (if it requires one)?

If a leap of faith is not needed for you to believe in God, then I'd like to find out more about why you believe in God - i.e. your reasons that have nothing to do with leaps of faith. That's probably a topic better discussed in a different thread, I think, but I'm interested.

 

[exchemist]

Kermos:

One more general thought and question occurs to me, that I hope you can help me with.

You have started a thread here asking people to show you why the big bang theory is not a leap of faith. The main thrust of your arguments so far has been you trying to show that the big bang theory is a leap of faith.

Are we to understand that you don't like people taking leaps of faith then? That you think that taking leaps of faith is a poor way to obtain reliable knowledge about what it true?

Do you take a leap of faith when you believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? I can't see why else you would believe that. All the relevant science is against you, on that, after all. But maybe you have some reasons that don't rely on faith. If so, maybe we can discuss those in a different thread.

Is it okay to take a leap of faith on certain things and not others, according to you? Big bang theory: leap of faith bad. Earth is 6000 years old: leap of faith good. That kind of thing? If so, why the double standard? Or do you have criteria we can use to decide when a leap of faith is or is not an acceptable way of acquiring reliable knowledge? If you do, can you tell me what they are?

Back to the topic. Suppose you manage to persuade me that my belief in the big bang theory is a leap of faith, and that taking the leap of faith to accept the big bang theory is a bad thing. Then, what alternative theory do you have that doesn't require me to take a leap of faith? You haven't said anything about any alternative scientific theory that does not require a leap of faith and that you consider acceptable, so far.

Finally, does believing that God is real require a leap of faith? If so, is that acceptable to you? Why, or why not? If it is acceptable, why isn't the leap of faith for the big bang theory also acceptable (if it requires one)?

If a leap of faith is not needed for you to believe in God, then I'd like to find out more about why you believe in God - i.e. your reasons that have nothing to do with leaps of faith. That's probably a topic better discussed in a different thread, I think, but I'm interested.

James, I feel fairly sure this is not what Kermos wants to suggest. I believe it is no more than the old creationist false equivalence claim, as between religious faith and science. It's such an old chestnut. Most of these guys don't have much by way of original thoughts on the subject. They just read a creationist tract on-line and regurgitate it.

The idea is to assert that a literal reading of the Old Testament is just as valid an account of creation as scientific theories of cosmology. This is of course wrong at two levels, first because there is no scientific account of creation of the cosmos, and second because cosmological theories are based on evidence from reproducible observations. But there we are.

These people are not interested in learning anything different. They exhibit a carefully curated ignorance about science, as it is necessary to their beliefs.

 

[James R]

exchemist:

You might be right.

In that case, then, Kermos would presumably take the position that leaps of faith are usually a good thing. With that premise, taking a leap of faith to believe in the big bang theory would be a perfectly acceptable thing to do, in Kermos's opinion. His objection to the big bang theory would then boil down to an assertion that there is a preferable leap of faith, for him, that leads him to have faith in some other theory - or at least to have faith that the big bang theory is wrong.

In other words, it would all come down to little more than Kermos's personal likes and dislikes. Deciding between rival hypotheses, for Kermos, would boil down to deciding the issue of personal attraction to the aesthetics of one idea or the other, rather than to considering the evidence or any rational arguments that might justify supporting one theory over the other.

Asserting that scientific theories and pseudoscientific ones (like "intelligent design") - or overtly religious ones such as biblical Creationism - are on an equal footing because both of them are based on nothing better than leaps of faith could help Kermos to rationalise away his unfounded rejection of science, I guess.

I suppose that, since Creationism can't compete with science its own playing field, someone who wants to believe that Creationism is true is motivated to try moving the goalposts. Pretending that science is faith-based is one way to try to do that, certainly.

I agree with you that this requires the Creationist to turn a blind eye to a number of rather obvious defeaters of his rationalisation. But that's not so hard when you believe that the security of your immortal soul depends on your holding certain beliefs. And there's a whole industry full of dishonest Creationists who are more than ready to applaud anybody who wants to join them in their dishonesty. If they can extract some donation money from the newbie in the process, all the better.

 

[Kermos]

No. Just you. We understand how science works. All we're doing here is trying to get you up to speed.

Again, you confuse two things.

You wrote "We've just made it very clear that there is a mountain of evidence that the universe is billions of years old" (proof post #133) to me in an earlier post.

You use the word evidence for both theory and models, both under oberved physical conditions and faith based unobserved conditions.

Due to your impolite and improper truncation of my post, I am including that which you removed, ignored, and tried to marginalize me, and I'm altering the emphasis to you.

You need to critically examine the definition of evidence:

ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood

(Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014 obtained from www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence)
​

You wrote 'We are not talking about what is "true"' in direct relation to science (proof post #137), yet the definition of evidence clearly includes proof of what is "true". You delegitimized my argument through cognitive dissonance, there, DaveC426913; in other words, you convey to me that science is not about what is "true" because science is about what is "true". Would you like to reframe your argument with the more appropriate term "opinion"?

Let's visit the definition of science as a continuation of the above. I recall one of you explaining to me "Science, on the other hand, values evidence from the natural world. It uses a hypothetico-deductive method that appeals to evidence".

We debate about true and false. You argued "I have evidence for the Big Bang", and your argument evaluates to either true or false. As your argument stands at this time of writing, since your evidence is truly "opinion", then your argument evaluates to false.

Science is discovered knowledge with acknowledgment of the Truth (John 14:6), and the scientific method reveals facts about nature, not predict nature because that is faith, but to explain things found in nature. Otherwise, science is a pointless endeavor without the Grand Creator of the universe as recorded in Genesis 1:1.

I will try again:

Objects accelerate with a given force, based on the force and their mass. That is fact. It is empirical evidence - observation without interpretation as to how it is doing that. That is evidence that can be used to support a theory of how we think things work.

Newton came up with a theory about gravity as a force. He supported his theory with the evidence that we all observe.

However, theories are not intended to determine what is "real". That is for the philosophers. Newton's theory simply is a very good model that will predict what, say, an asteroid will do when it approaches Earth. It has done its predictions very well.

But as we make more empirical obsreeations, we see that it does not always apply. We are discovering it starts to fail at the leaky margins of our later observations. For example, it fails to predict the precession of Mercury. The theory predicts Mecury's orbit poorly.

Newton observed an apple physically fall from a tree which inspired Newton to come up with a theory about gravity as a force. A fact is subsequent observations illustrate Newton's theory applies under specific physically observed conditions according to your presentation. The observed physical constraints must be considered for a particular scenario.

Key point: observe (see)

First event: apple fall;

Second event: theory;

Third event: confirmation with caveats;

Newton did not predict gravity. Newton saw the effect of gravity, so Newton produced a formulation which explained the event which he observed in nature.

Newton's theory is not the Big Bang Theory.

Newton's theory is observable under current conditions.

The Big Bang Theory is unobservable under current conditions.

So Einstein came along with a better model and theory that does explain Mercurial precession - and many other thing we now observe.

Einstein's theory of general relativity is not fact. No serious scientist would say it is "reality". It is a predictive model - and it predicts phenomena in low and high gravity situations very well.

Einstein's theory of general relativity is unobserved according to your presentation, so Einstein's theory fails to qualify as science since the scientific failure occurs because the scientific method requires hypothesis, experiment, observation, conclusion, and repeatability.

Empirical evidence is fact. Our understanding of what makes things do what they do is not fact.

Exactly, the Big Bang Theory lacks empirical evidence, so the Big Bang Theory fails to qualify as fact; therefore, the Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.

CMBR is empirical evidence. It is observed. You can doubt all you want, and go do your own experiments, and it will still be there. It is fact.

"CMBR is empirical evidence" of the existence of radiation in the cosmos which is a fact.

CMBR does not equal the Big Bang.

The Big Bang Theory explains the CMBR very well (as well as about a thousand other phenomena in our universe that we observe< it would take you a year of learning to get up to speed). But it does not claim to be "real". It will be tweaked as we learn more. "Real" is not the goal of science; predictive modeling is the goal of science.

A purpose of science is to document the observed universe. CMBR is observed. The Big Bang is not observed.

A homogeneous, constant, evenly degrading radiation coming from a homogeneous, constant, evenly distributed dot 13.8 billion years ago is a leap of faith.

CMBR detected via scientific instruments on Earth exclusively indicate local radiation levels near Earth, everything else about millions and billions of light years away and millions and billions of years in the past is a leap of faith.

The Big Bang CMB map observed structure correlates to the Earth’s orbital plane around the Sun thus indicating non-uniformity which is a breach of CMBR even putting the Milky Way solar system at the center of the universe instead of proposed galaxy HDI - 13.5 billion light years from Earth. That’s a huge dilemma for Big Bang Theory adherents.

Currently, the Big Bang Theory outstrips every other theory for the origin of our universe - by a mile. We use it to learn more, and tweak it as we do so.

You issued a statement of faith, right there.

By contrast, Young Earth is not a theory. It has zero evidence to support it. It is not predictive. Were we to take it as a theory, we might expect it predict other phenomena that, when we go looking, turn out to support it. But they do not.

Previously in this thread, I conveyed that believing YHWH God created all which is seen and unseen starting about 6,000 years ago is based on faith.

Are you calling "faith" a "theory"?

Rocks are older than 6000 years. Dinosaurs are older than 6000 years. Stars are older than 6000 years. Every observation we make - empirical observation - contradicts the young Earth idea. And we have a mountain of observations. It is worse than useless at informing what we will find when we next go looking.

We talk Rock - I am talking about the Rock of Ages (Isaiah 26:4) in my next post as a response to your post! Geologic rocks do not prove the Big Bang Theory! Perhaps we will discuss dinosaur remains with soft tissue intact, or we could correspond in another thread about the similarities of dinosaur fossils not having a timestamp of birth similar to Interstellar emissions not having a timestamp of creation upon arrival at Earth, or perhaps you believe dinosaurs go back to the Big Bang. Or, discourse about stars in this thread.

When people are losing a debate, they tend to demean, divert, or depart. You tried the first, and you attempt the second. The Big Bang Theory, from nothing for some scientists and a dense dot for other scientists, is a leap of faith, see the opening post.

See above.
Please try to understand the difference between evidential fact and predictive theory that explains those facts. You continue to confuse them.

And then, you go off the reservation. To-wit:

See above which shows you merge
"scientific" model (illusion) and "scientific" theory (opinion) and "scientific" fact (observation and repeatability) into what you Illegitimately call science (knowledge of Truth (John 14:6)). Illusion and opinion spoil that which you call science.

 

[Kermos]

Several times now you have cited "John. 14:6". In one of them you provided a link to BibleHub. So you are citing the Bible. That link does not work, by the way. But I did manage to find it anyway.

According to BibleHub, John 14:6 actually says this:

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.


There is no mention of science, either in, before or after that passage.


This is dishonest. You have lied. Shame.

Seek the concept of Truth of which I am honestly referring in the John 14:6 passage, and the seventh word in Lord Jesus Christ's saying is "Truth" according to the quotation you provided!

False witness is a serious crime (]url=http://biblehub.com/exodus/20-16.htm]Exodus 20:16[/url]), DaveC426913! Did you know that false witness is a form of a lie?

 

[Pinball1970]

You use the word evidence for both theory and models, both under oberved physical conditions and faith based unobserved conditions.

What on earth are you talking about? Why do you just keep repeating the same, stupid backward shit like a child? Educated people on this site have been patient with you and gave you detailed answers.
From your responses it is clear you do not want to engage because of Jesus or something.

For the first time in thread BE HONEST, you do not care about the science because you don't understand it and you don't want to because of Jesus.

Just say it, stand up for Jesus and stop lying.

 

[Kermos]

And you didn't see Jesus of Nazareth being born, walk on water, calm the storm or call himself god, so it is probably best you do not use this idiotic tactic.

Faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).

Your insult is cause for me to rejoice in the Lord Jesus Christ for He says "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matthew 5:11-12).

Pinball1970, I prefer to engage in honorable discourse. Will you?

 

[Pinball1970]

Pinball1970, I prefer to engage in honorable discourse. Will you?

Nope, you're a liar.

 

[James R]

Kermos:

How's that backlog of posts you said you were going to respond to coming along?

Why are you skipping the older posts and replying to newer ones? I thought you said you would address all the posts in chronological order. Was that a lie? Are you bearing false witness?

You need to critically examine the definition of evidence:

​

ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood​

Theories, in combination with observation and/or experimental evidence, are grounds for belief.

I mean, if we find lots of evidence that a particular theory predicts ought to be there (or ought to have certain characteristics etc.), then we have grounds to suspect that the theory that made the predictions in the first place might be correct. Right?

You wrote 'We are not talking about what is "true"' in direct relation to science (proof post #137), yet the definition of evidence clearly includes proof of what is "true".​

Is this the first time you have ever grappled with the definition of evidence, Kermos? You have quoted a standard dictionary definition, but that's about the least specific kind of definition you could find.

Do you have trouble digging down into the specifics, such as by considering what a scientist regards as evidence?

Look, for simplicity - because this all seems to be a bit of a struggle for you - let's run with your definition for now: that "evidence" tends to show that the thing evidenced is likely to be true.

Good enough for you?

​

Let's visit the definition of science as a continuation of the above. I recall one of you explaining to me "Science, on the other hand, values evidence from the natural world. It uses a hypothetico-deductive method that appeals to evidence".

We debate about true and false. You argued "I have evidence for the Big Bang", and your argument evaluates to either true or false.

I addressed this in a post above. I'll wait for you to catch up. No need to repeat. Spoiler: my argument evaluates to "true", in case you're wondering.

As your argument stands at this time of writing, since your evidence is truly "opinion", then your argument evaluates to false.

Evidence for the big bang theory is not opinion. I explained previously. Catch up.

Science is discovered knowledge with acknowledgment of the Truth (John 14:6)...

I previously explained that scientists don't require your bible or your John 14:6 to do science. Catch up.

... and the scientific method reveals facts about nature...

If you say so. In this case, the scientific method reveals that there was a big bang.

... not predict nature because that is faith...

I previously explained to you what is meant by a predictive theory in science. Catch up. It is not like your religious faith.

... but to explain things found in nature.

Like the big bang. Yes.

Otherwise, science is a pointless endeavor without the Grand Creator of the universe as recorded in Genesis 1:1.

Scientists do not consider it to be so. Mostly, it's just religious fundamentalists who have their heads in the sand. Are you a religious fundamentalist with your head in the sand, Kermos?

Newton observed an apple physically fall from a tree which inspired Newton to come up with a theory about gravity as a force. A fact is subsequent observations illustrate Newton's theory applies under specific physically observed conditions according to your presentation. The observed physical constraints must be considered for a particular scenario.

Key point: observe (see)

First event: apple fall;

Second event: theory;

Third event: confirmation with caveats;

Newton did not predict gravity.

He invented a theory of gravity. The theory makes predictions that can be tested by observation and experiment. Those observations and experiments confirm (to a high degree of accuracy), the quantitative predictions of the theory. Because they do that, scientists have high confidence in Newton's theory of gravity. I should add the caveat that, these days, we know that Newton's theory is an approximation to a better theory of gravity under particular restrictions, but it is still incredibly useful and powerful nonetheless.

The big bang theory works the same way. It makes quantitative predictions that have been tests by observation and experiment. The observations and experiments confirm (to a high degree of accuracy), the quantitative predictions of the theory. Because they do that, scientists have high confidence that there was a big bang. Unlike in the case of Newton's gravitational theory, however, we do not have a better theory than the big bang with anything like the same explanatory power.

Newton saw the effect of gravity, so Newton produced a formulation which explained the event which he observed in nature.

That's called coming up with a hypotheis.

Newton's theory is not the Big Bang Theory.

Well spotted!

Newton's theory is observable under current conditions.

The Big Bang Theory is unobservable under current conditions.

Actually, both theories are conceptual, so neither theory is directly observable. Instead, we can go and look for evidence for or against each theory. Turns that that there's lots of evidence for both theories, and some evidence against Newton's theory of gravity. The evidence against Newtonian gravity is what allows us to say, with confidence, that the General Theory of Relativity is a better theory of gravity. We haven't found any evidence against General Relativity, yet.

Einstein's theory of general relativity is unobserved according to your presentation, so Einstein's theory fails to qualify as science since the scientific failure occurs because the scientific method requires hypothesis, experiment, observation, conclusion, and repeatability.

General relativity passes all your tests with flying colours. It makes hypotheses. It can be tested by experiments and observations. It has so far passed all such tests and observations. The experiments and observations can be repeated.

What's the problem, then? All your criteria are satisfied.

Exactly, the Big Bang Theory lacks empirical evidence...

I told you about some of the empirical evidence in previous posts. Catch up.

"CMBR is empirical evidence" of the existence of radiation in the cosmos which is a fact.

The existence of radiation predicted by the big bang theory is evidence for the big bang theory.

Your bible never predicted the existence of the CMBR, so the CMBR is not evidence for the truth of your bible.

See how this works?

CMBR does not equal the Big Bang.

Well spotted, again! Some may say "That Kermos, he's a bit slow on the uptake", but you get there eventually! I have confidence in you.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

A purpose of science is to document the observed universe. CMBR is observed. The Big Bang is not observed.

I explained previously some reasons why the big bang is inferred. Catch up.

It is not observed that the same force that caused Newton's apple to fall from the tree is the same force that keeps the Moon in orbit around the Earth. It is, however, inferred.

I can explain the difference again if you're finding this difficult to understand. Let me know.

A homogeneous, constant, evenly degrading radiation coming from a homogeneous, constant, evenly distributed dot 13.8 billion years ago is a leap of faith.

Not a dot, exactly. The entire universe.

CMBR detected via scientific instruments on Earth exclusively indicate local radiation levels near Earth...

That's a claim you are making. What evidence do you have, if any, in support of that claim?
What is the source of this "local radiation", according to you? And how can you tell where the source is, since the radiation carries no time stamp or stamp that indicates its place of origin, according to you?

The Big Bang CMB map observed structure correlates to the Earth’s orbital plane around the Sun...

Please explain. Correlates in what way? What is correlated with what, exactly?

... thus indicating non-uniformity which is a breach of CMBR...

Which features of the CMBR are non-uniform? Be specific.

.... even putting the Milky Way solar system at the center of the universe...

There's no problem with that.

Do you think there is a centre of the universe? If so, where do you think it is? And why?

... instead of proposed galaxy HDI - 13.5 billion light years from Earth.

What makes you think that your proposed galaxy HDI is at the centre of the universe?

That’s a huge dilemma for Big Bang Theory adherents.

The only dilemma I can see, so far, is the question of whether you're just making this stuff up yourself or whether you're parroting it from some pre-existing Creationist literature that made the mistake elsewhere. Which is it? Your mistake, or somebody else's?

You issued a statement of faith, right there.

Faith as in "confidence", certainly.

Do you claim to have a better theory than the big bang theory, then, Kermos? What is it? How does it explain the CMBR?

Previously in this thread, I conveyed that believing YHWH God created all which is seen and unseen starting about 6,000 years ago is based on faith.

Previously, I said that this is not useful for scientists. Catch up.

Are you calling "faith" a "theory"?

I'll let DaveC answer this one for himself. I can tell you that I don't confuse faith with scientific theories. Do you?

Geologic rocks do not prove the Big Bang Theory!

The geological rocks must have got there somehow. How do you think they got there? What theory do you use? Do you have a better one than the big bang theory?

You're the guy who ignores all the geological evidence that shows that the Earth is far older than the 6000 year lie that your preachers told you.

Let me guess. Your theory is that God magicked up the rocks 6000 years ago. Correct? And your scientific evidence for that is... what?

Perhaps we will discuss dinosaur remains with soft tissue intact...

That might be another interesting topic for a different thread. It doesn't have anything to do with the big bang theory, as far as I can tell.

... or we could correspond in another thread about the similarities of dinosaur fossils not having a timestamp of birth...

Did you know that fossils are found in layers of sediment, Kermos? Older fossils are found in older layers.

Have you heard of radiometric dating? That's a kind of timestamp. You might be surprised to learn that we can use it to date rocks as well as dinosaur fossils.

... perhaps you believe dinosaurs go back to the Big Bang.

No. The Earth's only 4.5 billion years old, and the dinosaurs are only a few hundred million years old. Look it up, if you're interested. It's all standard, accepted, well-evidenced science.

When people are losing a debate, they tend to demean, divert, or depart.

What are you planning to do? One of the above, or all three?

I can see signs that you're already trying to divert. I mean: dinosaurs, anybody? What have they got to do with the big bang theory?

I thought you said you were an honest Christian who came here looking to discuss things in good faith. Is that not the case any more? What changed? Or is it that you lied from the start?

"scientific" model (illusion)

You don't know what a scientific model is? Hint: not an illusion.

... and "scientific" theory (opinion)

You don't know what the word "theory" means in science? Hint: not an opinion.

... and "scientific" fact (observation and repeatability) into what you Illegitimately call science (knowledge of Truth (John 14:6)).

It's only you who thinks that science has something to do with John 14:6. Hint: it doesn't need your bible.

Illusion and opinion spoil that which you call science.

Do illusion and opinion spoil that which you call Christianity, too?

 

[James R]

False witness is a serious crime (]url=http://biblehub.com/exodus/20-16.htm]Exodus 20:16[/url]), DaveC426913! Did you know that false witness is a form of a lie?

Let's hope that you don't bear false witness, then! It sound like your God won't be happy if you do!

Faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).

That really doesn't make sense, for a number of reasons.

To learn more, you might like to read the following discussion thread:

Is faith a reliable path to knowledge?

Most believers in God, when asked, will say that their belief is based in part on certain types of evidence that they trust, and in part on faith. The weight given to evidence and faith varies from person to person, but with a little pushing the honest believer will usually admit that God's...

www.sciforums.com

 

[Kermos]

As an amateur astronomer, knowing fields of view, parallax and stellar distance is kind of familiar. I don't really need a primer.

But your impression of how astronomy works is revealing.

You seem to think there is one and only one way to calcuate distances. You seem to think that "parallax of distant objects = X, therefore Big Bang equals 13.8By".

This is astonishingly naive for someone who tries to argue the point.

There is absolutely no way that a forum discussion can teach you the basics of astronomy - let alone cosmology - to get you where you have the slightest idea what you're arguing about.

I don't think you're a troll. I do think you are profoundly uninformed on the subject. As I said, you apparently don't even know what the cosmic ladder is. That's like arguing about highway traffic control without having encountered a speedometer. Or arguing about baking, whiole thinking the only way to bake a cake is over hot coals, having enver head of a modern oven.

Please, until you've done quie a bit of reading, stay in your lane.

You are in demean mode, here, DaveC426913. Will you engage in scientific discourse?

I quoted an astrophysicist who believed the Big Bang occurred about 13.8 billion years ago in the post to which you replied, yet you reduced all that down to your malrepresentation of "parallax of distant objects = X, therefore Big Bang equals 13.8By".

I admitted that believing the Earth is about 6,000 years old is belief in the Word of God, and I pointed out evidence, yet you omitted mention of this in your reply.

I presented astronomer's proposed galaxy HDI very near the Big Bang about 13.5 billion years ago/away conflicting with the CMB map representing the Earth's solar orbital plane as the center of the universe, yet you neglected to intelligently respond to this reasonable observation. I distinguished between your faith there and my faith that God "stretches out the heavens like a curtain" (Psalm 104:2).

Instead of contending about the frailties and inability to triangulate and collect data over such a vast cosmic distance and enormous timespan (see the Episcopic Model post #113 and Zenith Model post #111), you demeaned me by dismissively omitting a reasonable argument in favor of your belief meanwhile you expended serious effort in attacking me.

You intentionally joined this dialog about "Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith" thread, so please commit the resources to gainfully engage!

And, don't be too quick to dismiss yourself as just an amateur astronomer. Credentials are only as valuable as the imprinted paper. Ability matters. Resource utilization matters. The way each of us utilizes talents given to us manifests our individual compositions - this explains the One and Only Master of the Universe, Jesus Christ (Matthew 25:14-30).

 

[DaveC426913]

I can see signs that you're already trying to divert. I mean: dinosaurs, anybody? What have they got to do with the big bang theory?

< Point of order >
I brought up dinosaurs, not as direct evidence of the Big Bang, but as one line of evidence among many that the OP seems to be ingoring that tells us the world is older - much older - than 6000 years.

It's relevant because the OP's claim - as they reveal more and more of their agenda - is not merely "The Big Bang didn't happen". It's not even "the universe is less than 13 billion years old" - it's "the unverse is less than 6000 years old".

All the evidence we have in many, many independent fields of study point to falsifying the OP's ideas - not only of the age of the universe, but also the OP's idea about what constitutes science in the first place. And this seems to be the core issue. How can they possibly grasp a universe more than 6000 years old if they don't even understand what science and the scientific method is? OP outright rejects anything not witnessed by a currently-living person with their own eyeballs.

Their core complaint is a house of cards. And, as with any scientific procedure, multiple lines of evidence will dismantle it more effetively than just one.

</ Point of order >

 

[Kermos]

No, over 100 years of published literature in reputable scientific journals. Repeatable, testable verified science. The stuff that provides the technology for the world you live in, the science that you have zero understanding of. Of course you know that though right? Because you are not interested in the actual science, please stop lying.

You say that you have "100 years of published literature in reputable scientific journals" as proof of the unobserved Big Bang Theory.

The Pharmakeia Principle holds that certain persons merge "scientific" model (illusion) and "scientific" theory (opinion) and "scientific" fact (observation and repeatability) with a potential for financial gain into what the philosophers Illegitimately call science (knowledge of Truth (John 14:6)). Illusion and opinion spoil that which those philosophers call science; in fact, the philosophers defend their position with a religious zeal, yet they disclaim any religious affiliation for their belief structures. The philosophers speak in an authoritative manner. When the philosopher's deeply held religious beliefs are exposed as fallacious in a systematic manner, then the philosophers engage in condescension, even on some occasions progressing into violent tactics toward the people who itemize the philosophers' errors. A related article can be found at "Why Have Vaccines Become a Religion?", A Midwestern Doctor, 11/16/25, a domain on Substack.

You presented no scientific method evidence to support your accusation of me "lying", and you unfoundedly wrote "you are not interested in the actual science", so you exhibit the Pharmakeia Principle.

 

[James R]

DaveC:

< Point of order >
I brought up dinosaurs, not as direct evidence of the Big Bang, but as one line of evidence among many that the OP seems to be ingoring that tells us the world is older - much older - than 6000 years.

It's relevant because the OP's claim - as they reveal more and more of their agenda - is not merely "The Big Bang didn't happen". It's not even "the universe is less than 13 billion years old" - it's "the unverse is less than 6000 years old".

Okay.

What I want to try to prevent here is more Gish Galloping from our friend, Kermos. To that end, I'd like to keep the focus in this thread squarely on the big bang theory and on whatever alternative it is that Kermos wants to put up against it - he hasn't come up with any viable alternative theory so far.

We can tackle Kermos's dishonesty about evolution, including the dinosaurs, in a different thread. The same goes for trying to educate him about the basics of geology.

You have to realise that it's very difficult for a Creationist like Kermos to fight science on any one of the fronts that he needs to fight it on: physics, biology, geology, history, archaelogy, paleontology, etc. So, a lot of Creationists like to try to overwhelm discussions just by throwing lots of mud at the wall, hoping that some of it will stick. When they get cornered into revealing that they know very little about the science they with was wrong - or they get caught in telling lies about what the science says - they often decide that it's easier to try to send the discussion off onto a different topic altogether.

It's ironic that these self-identifying Christians just ignore their God's commandment against telling lies. If God actually existed, I don't think he'd approve of their dishonesty. But, for some reason, that doesn't seem to bother them. Maybe it's that they aren't the True Christians they claim to be.

How can they possibly grasp a universe more than 6000 years old if they don't even understand what science and the scientific method is?

There are really only two types of creationists. Type 1 is the Creationist who is so ignorant of science that they have managed to be sucked into being persuaded by a false religious dogma. Type 2 is the Creationist who knows enough science to understand why Creationism is untenable as science but who is willing to tell knowing lies in a misguided belief that this somehow will make his religion look good.

The type 1 Creationist can be educated. The type 2 Creationist is invariably an incorrigible liar whose God would send him to Hell in a heartbeat if the God was real.

If you don't want to waste your time, the first step in any discussion with a Creationist is to try to determine whether they are a Type 1 or a Type 2. If they expose themselves as a type 2, which usually happens quite quickly because the liars are often little men who are angry at the world, there's not much point in continuing with them. Don't feed the trolls.

Their core complaint is a house of cards.

The only "argument" they have in support of their "faith" is that God must have didit, because it says so in the bible. How do they know the bible is correct? Because it says so in the bible. A hopelessly circular argument.