If the Big Bang was proved false what alternatives would evolutionist have?

[Draka]

Yes, but you're forgetting about the universal standard recalibration (USR) number which is equivalent to pi (3.14) squared (9.86). When you apply the USR to the proton compression factor, taking into account the energy density of the strong-electromagnetic force, the actual number of potential layers of the universe becomes 7 to the power of 7. Many people forget this step when formulating their scientific models of the universe. When we include this crucial step, we find that the ACTUAL height of the universe is 2.8 cm, while it's length is 32 inches, and it's width is 790 trillion trillion kilometers cubed. Obviously, this seems counterintuitive until you realize that the standard 6 dimensions of our universe actually unfold into 42 dimensions when a fixed chronological time rate is included in the equation.

:bow:

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, but you're forgetting about the universal standard recalibration (USR) number which is equivalent to pi (3.14) squared (9.86). When you apply the USR to the proton compression factor, taking into account the energy density of the strong-electromagnetic force, the actual number of potential layers of the universe becomes 7 to the power of 7. Many people forget this step when formulating their scientific models of the universe. When we include this crucial step, we find that the ACTUAL height of the universe is 2.8 cm, while it's length is 32 inches, and it's width is 790 trillion trillion kilometers cubed. Obviously, this seems counterintuitive until you realize that the standard 6 dimensions of our universe actually unfold into 42 dimensions when a fixed chronological time rate is included in the equation.

Thanks for keeping it simple and logical.

I don't mind telling you, I got scared for a while there.

 

[Thief]

And a recent science documentary is moving toward the notion this universe is being 'pulled' toward another.

And the 'laws of science' might be the same there as here.

Of course, the scientist is still working on the numbers.
He has to.
The observations made so far make no sense to him.
Gotta have numbers to believe in Something Greater.

So it seems.

 

[fantome profane]

Yes, but you're forgetting about the universal standard recalibration (USR) number which is equivalent to pi (3.14) squared (9.86). When you apply the USR to the proton compression factor, taking into account the energy density of the strong-electromagnetic force, the actual number of potential layers of the universe becomes 7 to the power of 7. Many people forget this step when formulating their scientific models of the universe. When we include this crucial step, we find that the ACTUAL height of the universe is 2.8 cm, while it's length is 32 inches, and it's width is 790 trillion trillion kilometers cubed. Obviously, this seems counterintuitive until you realize that the standard 6 dimensions of our universe actually unfold into 42 dimensions when a fixed chronological time rate is included in the equation.

You make it sound so simple.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And a recent science documentary is moving toward the notion this universe is being 'pulled' toward another.

And the 'laws of science' might be the same there as here.

Of course, the scientist is still working on the numbers.
He has to.
The observations made so far make no sense to him.
Gotta have numbers to believe in Something Greater.

So it seems.

*blinks*

C'mon now...scientific method is all about what you can prove to be true, and the rigour around those methods.
If a scientist looks at something, can't explain it, and decides that means 'Something Greater' is at work, he's no longer a scientist. To look at it, realise he can't explain it, recheck, recheck again, and then try to generate a hypothesis on what might be happening, and testing it, is kinda the whole point.

If his hypothesis is that there is something greater at work (as opposed to Something Greater) then he needs to somehow determine a method for testing that something. If there is a God, that might very well be impossible, but to shrug and simply assume it is completely un-scientific.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It is common for man at the limit of his knowledge to turn to acknowledge a higher power. When done properly it can be seen as an act of humility. When done foolishly it results in the banishment of knowledge.

 

[Thief]

*blinks*

C'mon now...scientific method is all about what you can prove to be true, and the rigour around those methods.
If a scientist looks at something, can't explain it, and decides that means 'Something Greater' is at work, he's no longer a scientist. To look at it, realise he can't explain it, recheck, recheck again, and then try to generate a hypothesis on what might be happening, and testing it, is kinda the whole point.

If his hypothesis is that there is something greater at work (as opposed to Something Greater) then he needs to somehow determine a method for testing that something. If there is a God, that might very well be impossible, but to shrug and simply assume it is completely un-scientific.

Yeah...for the past couple of years.... more and more....
Science documentaries are leaning to discussion of a Force of unknown origin and cause.

Which would be difficult to express on a chalk board.

I've heard a story about Einstein in his latter years.....
Someone came into the room and did ask what he was then working on.
'I'm trying to catch God in the act'.

But I say....once more after so many times....
No photos, no fingerprints, no equations and no results of experiment.

You just have to think about it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah...for the past couple of years.... more and more....
Science documentaries are leaning to discussion of a Force of unknown origin and cause.

Which would be difficult to express on a chalk board.

I've heard a story about Einstein in his latter years.....
Someone came into the room and did ask what he was then working on.
'I'm trying to catch God in the act'.

But I say....once more after so many times....
No photos, no fingerprints, no equations and no results of experiment.

You just have to think about it.

Discussing a force of unknown origin and cause I can understand. Labeling it God is a bridge too far (in my opinion), since that indicates some form of understanding of it. From a scientific viewpoint (as opposed to a theological/faith-based viewpoint) that is not justifiable.

No photos, no fingerprints, no equations no results of experiment equates to no SCIENTIFIC proof of God. Hence I'm an atheist. I suppose people need to decide what other proofs they find compelling, but my argument has always been that even if we could 100% determine a single sentient being, we would know nothing of that being. Religion (to me) seems extremely self-indulgent. Which is not to say without purpose or benefit, although I'd argue it causes more harm than good. Separate topic though.

 

[29qr63]

Scientifically the big bang is disproved. So my original question remains: What alternatives do secular scientist have to the big-bang?

The only one that makes sense; an eternal universe. Maybe someday they'll finally get it.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Science has a specific structure, and a specific aim. Just because you say something is 'science', doesn't mean that it is. We allow our own views and beliefs to sometimes get in the way of what's real. However, this doesn't change the structure of science, just because we don't want it to be true. We can hope until we're blue in the face that the sky is green and the grass is pink because our religion or book teaches so, this doesn't make it true. Does science change? Yes, this is part of it's fundamental nature. Science changes as new data comes in. Religious beliefs and words of prophets and just plain ramblings, these are not new data.

Science also uses it's own terminology, and sometimes uses words that we also incorporate into common parlance, but oftentimes they're used in complete different ways. And unless we understand the way in which science uses a word, we oftentimes can get confused about certain ideas in science, and have wrong views in regard to these.

There's a reason specializing in something takes so much time and effort. Scientists go to college for up to twelve years in order to gain approval and acceptance in their field. I can pretend to be a biologist all day long, but at the end of the day, I've not been trained in biology, and I have no specific desire to be. Sure, I can read a few things about biology, but this doesn't make me a biologist, and it certainly doesn't mean I know more than those who've had years of specific training in the field.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Science has a specific structure, and a specific aim. Just because you say something is 'science', doesn't mean that it is. We allow our own views and beliefs to sometimes get in the way of what's real. However, this doesn't change the structure of science, just because we don't want it to be true. We can hope until we're blue in the face that the sky is green and the grass is pink because our religion or book teaches so, this doesn't make it true. Does science change? Yes, this is part of it's fundamental nature. Science changes as new data comes in. Religious beliefs and words of prophets and just plain ramblings, these are not new data.

Science also uses it's own terminology, and sometimes uses words that we also incorporate into common parlance, but oftentimes they're used in complete different ways. And unless we understand the way in which science uses a word, we oftentimes can get confused about certain ideas in science, and have wrong views in regard to these.

There's a reason specializing in something takes so much time and effort. Scientists go to college for up to twelve years in order to gain approval and acceptance in their field. I can pretend to be a biologist all day long, but at the end of the day, I've not been trained in biology, and I have no specific desire to be. Sure, I can read a few things about biology, but this doesn't make me a biologist, and it certainly doesn't mean I know more than those who've had years of specific training in the field.

Shhh don't tell people that.

Imagine...if people actually went to school to learn things and actually went out their way to practice them their whole lives and give these explanations?

Why would you believe them?

I mean sure you'll trust the person who went to theology school for years.

Sure you'll trust the doctor who is giving you medication.

Sure you'll trust the sales person selling you that bridge.

But never...never the Godless scientist.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In light of the Electric Universe world-view which states that Energy is Matter and Matter is Energy and they are both Electricity and that Gravity does not exist separate from Magnetic Attraction as Gravity really is just the weakest kind of magnetic attraction.

If you understand all this you would understand the fundamental flaws inherit in the big bang theory, in fact due to laws of physics the big bang is actually impossible

What in reality is perceived is a growing Universe, this is often times called expansion but we know that nothing expands unless matter is constantly being added and we know that Neutrons make up 100% of the Mass in the Universe and Electricity also known as Electrons make up 100% of the Structure of the Universe. That is to say Electrons give Neutrons form and function and Neutrons give Electrons a Canvas to work on. Electrons CAN create Neutrons but Neutrons CAN NOT create Electrons.

Understanding this Laws of Nature what viable options do Evolutionist honestly have without the big bang being viable?

A Great Read: EU View | holoscience.com | The Electric Universe

It wouldn't affect evolution at all.

 

[vtunie]

The answer is surely yes to whichever side. For somewhere in there must be a false assumption to be taken as axiomatic with everything else, and thus the implication (any implication) is logically true, for the conclusion (any conclusion) proceeds from a premise in the aggregate false.

Which is just the high-falutin weary-way of saying none of it is of much importance in the end.

 

[Thief]

Discussing a force of unknown origin and cause I can understand. Labeling it God is a bridge too far (in my opinion), since that indicates some form of understanding of it. From a scientific viewpoint (as opposed to a theological/faith-based viewpoint) that is not justifiable.

No photos, no fingerprints, no equations no results of experiment equates to no SCIENTIFIC proof of God. Hence I'm an atheist. I suppose people need to decide what other proofs they find compelling, but my argument has always been that even if we could 100% determine a single sentient being, we would know nothing of that being. Religion (to me) seems extremely self-indulgent. Which is not to say without purpose or benefit, although I'd argue it causes more harm than good. Separate topic though.

A bridge too far?....not even close enough to see it?
I think you are.

A force of unknown origin (Genesis) and it has a Name.
What's so hard about that?
The Force with intelligence would create with form and integrity.
Without the form, you would have the .....void.
See Genesis.

The universe (the one word) would be evidence of a Creator.
Want to be sure of what God might be?
Study all things as much as you can.
(that's what your here for anyway)

A creation is a reflection of it's Creator.

That's my take on it.

 

[LuisDantas]

A force of unknown origin (Genesis) and it has a Name.
What's so hard about that?

Nothing.

The trouble is not that "God did it" is hard, but rather that it is a provisional answer at best. It has no usefulness for prediction, explanation or advancing of knowledge.

It is just a mystery with a name that is often mistaken for an explanation.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

A bridge too far?....not even close enough to see it?
I think you are.

A force of unknown origin (Genesis) and it has a Name.
What's so hard about that?
The Force with intelligence would create with form and integrity.
Without the form, you would have the .....void.
See Genesis.

The universe (the one word) would be evidence of a Creator.
Want to be sure of what God might be?
Study all things as much as you can.
(that's what your here for anyway)

A creation is a reflection of it's Creator.

That's my take on it.

Luis said pretty much what I was thinking. There's nothing technically wrong or hard about it. But religion doesn't require scientific evidence in order to accept something as doctrine. Some people need rational and/or logical evidence before they accept something as fact: what's wrong with this? I don't find anything wrong with someone wanting an idea to be able to stand the test of the scientific method before they accept it as true. Many, many ideas within religion don't pass this test. This doesn't automatically mean they are wrong or false, but it does mean that people who don't accept anything without some sort of evidence will reject it. What's wrong with this? Nothing.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

A bridge too far?....not even close enough to see it?
I think you are.

A force of unknown origin (Genesis) and it has a Name.
What's so hard about that?
The Force with intelligence would create with form and integrity.
Without the form, you would have the .....void.
See Genesis.

The universe (the one word) would be evidence of a Creator.
Want to be sure of what God might be?
Study all things as much as you can.
(that's what your here for anyway)

A creation is a reflection of it's Creator.

That's my take on it.

Actually, I don't really have an issue with your take on it. But in my post I was very careful to label it a bridge too far from a scientific standpoint, NOT from a theological/philosophical standpoint.

My only claim is that it's a bridge too far from a scientific standpoint, which I stand by.

 

[Thief]

Nothing.

The trouble is not that "God did it" is hard, but rather that it is a provisional answer at best. It has no usefulness for prediction, explanation or advancing of knowledge.

It is just a mystery with a name that is often mistaken for an explanation.

And the presence of Man on this planet is a complete mystery without resolve....
without God.

Prediction?
Only one comes to mind at this moment.
Disbelief defaults to dust.

 

[Thief]

Luis said pretty much what I was thinking. There's nothing technically wrong or hard about it. But religion doesn't require scientific evidence in order to accept something as doctrine. Some people need rational and/or logical evidence before they accept something as fact: what's wrong with this? I don't find anything wrong with someone wanting an idea to be able to stand the test of the scientific method before they accept it as true. Many, many ideas within religion don't pass this test. This doesn't automatically mean they are wrong or false, but it does mean that people who don't accept anything without some sort of evidence will reject it. What's wrong with this? Nothing.

There will be no experiment.

Logic is used.
You can 'know' without doing a test.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There will be no experiment.

Logic is used.
You can 'know' without doing a test.

As stated, you're welcome to believe as you will. But nothing in anything you've said is SCIENTIFIC. I am not suggesting that it's the only measure of things, but it has a clear and definitive meaning, and what you are talking about doesn't meet it.