SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
But they measured the expansion rate of space by measuring the speed of recession of the galaxies in that space.
RIP Big Bang, evolution, abiogenesis and billions of years.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
RIP Big Bang, evolution, abiogenesis and billions of years.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
You don't say..
What is the problem with my analogy?
The brain is like hardware, in as much as it's a material piece of kit.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How does your inability to understand the Big Bang refute billions of years?
Here is your problem that you do not seem to understand. Even if the Big Bang is wrong we still know that the universe is billions of years old at the least. In fact if you "disprove" the Big Bang you only make it worse for yourself. The alternative is that the universe is much older than the date from the Big Bang.
You sure do like to shoot yourself in the foot. But then I have not met a creationist that does not do so.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Well if you have no theory that makes sense since it is impossible.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Again, even if they are wrong about the rate of recession, and I need to remind you that you have demonstrated that you cannot do even the simplest of math, that would only mean that the universe was older than its present accepted age. It does not mean that it would be infinitely younger.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That would be you. Your inability to understand an idea does not mean that it makes no sense. Do not blame others for your flaws.
By the way, do you realize how you have just been shooting yourself in the foot? The Big Bang theory explains those distant stars, and again that is a projected distance, it is not the distance when the light left those stars. Another concept that you cannot understand
The "known universe" would be a bit smaller, but it would still be far older than what the Big Bang says that it is if the Big Bang is wrong.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Rubbish. You bought that nonsense. Amazing.
Where did the laws of nature come from?
Where did all matter come from? Where did antimatter?
Where did all energy come from?
Where did all the protons come from? neutrons? photons? neutrinos? All the quarks? Gluons? Muons? All the anti-particles?
Where did the gravitation force come from? The strong force? The weak force? The electromagnetic force?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
It sidesteps my question about your claim.You don't say..
What is the problem with my analogy?
The brain is like hardware, in as much as it's a material piece of kit.
Don't you think it's weird that you can't just answer it and had to come up with an analogy to respond to instead?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Yes, they did. That's how I know you're simply wrong. The speeds are proportional to distances, exactly as predicted by the theory. Hence, galaxies that are far enough away will be travelling at more than light speed.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Dude, every time you ask your silly questions that way you only tell others that you cannot reason rationally. How is that a "win" for you?
You need to be able to justify all of the questions that you ask. You cannot justify any of them because you simply do not understand logic.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
As opposed to your silly theory.
If you believe the redshift con job, the universe, space itself, has been expanding a lot less than the speed of light for billions of years. And even the space where the most distant galaxies exist, is expanding less than the speed of light and they were the earliest.
It is a failure of the Big Bang model. The size of the universe is supposedly 94 billion light years, and the universe is supposedly 13.7 billion years old. The universe, and thus space itself, is expanding at a rate less the speed of light. The space itself is expanding less that the speed of light. How could the universe be 7x larger in light years than its age? In 13.7 billion years it should have expanded less than 13.7 billion light years vs 94 billion light years.
In fact, many are now finding irrefutable proof that the redshift theory is false, that the universe is not expanding at all, and that there was no Big Bang. Many are refuting the Big Bang, and they are not just YEC scientists.
Now Inflation is just the Big Fudge Factors so they can try to fine tune their theory to explain major contradictions to the Big Hoax of the Big Bang. So, if inflation is true, answer these required questions.
When did inflation start? The exact timing is crucial as it must meet ALL the facts.
What caused it to start? Of course, this violates cause and effect.
When did inflation end? The exact timing is crucial as it must meet ALL the facts.
What caused it to end? Of course, this violates cause and effect.
Please provide a graph of the acceleration due to inflation vs time graph, as it must meet ALL the facts.
What is the mass energy of the inflation particle or is it 2 particles, one to start and one to end?
Why have they not found the inflation particle yet?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Where did any supposed god come from?
Although some of the questions you ask do have answers, the concept you seem to be grappling with is a basic misunderstanding. According to the best theories we have, the whole space-time, and all its contents, are a four-dimensional manifold. Time is just a direction through it (an observer dependant direction, actually). Asking where the manifold "came from" is nonsensical as it is not itself embedded in time. The whole thing 'just is'.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
No matter how often you assert this, it is still false.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Just repeating this, when you've been given the explanation, makes you look dim. You need to either address the explanations or stop repeating it.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The Big Hoax of the Big Bang has been replaced and went out with a whimper.
Big Bang is dead.
Redshift anomalies and other things that invalidate the Big Bang expansion
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ft_Data_and_the_Myth_of_Cosmological_Distance
Click on see the full text.
Anomalies in the count of low red shift quasars.
Anomalies in the Counts of Low Redshift Quasars
https://assa.saao.ac.za/wp-content/...liffe-A-review-of-anomalous-redshift-data.pdf
Redshift Anomalies and the Big Bang – Anthony Beckett
Is a new anomaly affecting the entire Universe?
Galaxies and the Universe - Alternate Approaches and the Redshift Controversy
These two shows that today’s age estimate is a farce. The very exact number may be off by 100%. Of course if 100% is the error, then -100% puts it at about 6000 years.
'Tired light' might make the universe twice as old as we thought
Scientists have revisited the disproven light ageing hypothesis, which suggests the universe has been around for almost 27 billion years
More problems with the Big Bang Theory and the redshift explanation.
Plasma Cosmology .net
Exploring Cosmic Voids and Anomalies: The Mystery of the Cold Spot
Large Scale Cosmological Anomalies and Inhomogeneous Dark Energy
What if the Universe Is NOT Expanding?
https://apologeticspress.org/the-big-bang-theory-a-scientific-critique-part-i-whole-1453/
https://www.i-sis.org.uk/Galaxy_making_stars_at_the_edge_of_the_universe.php
https://act.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf1171/files/a9r1o5g11h_6viqvc_3u4_0.pdf
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/c...mology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/
https://creation.com/quasar-with-en...-nearby-spiral-galaxy-with-far-lower-redshift
https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-bust-up-auid-2253
https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/the-big-bang-never-happened-a-conclusive-argument-14111.html
https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10338699
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18625061-800-did-the-big-bang-really-happen/
https://darkmattercrisis.wordpress.com/category/cosmology/mond/
https://www.sci.news/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
https://www.quantamagazine.org/astronomers-get-their-wish-and-the-hubble-crisis-gets-worse-20201217/
https://physicsworld.com/a/are-giant-galaxy-clusters-defying-standard-cosmology/
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html
Web telescope
Too many spiral galaxies in the early universe.
James Webb telescope spots thousands of Milky Way lookalikes that 'shouldn't exist' swarming across the early universe
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/james-webb-telescope-spots-thousands-173000173.html
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh my, this should be middle school math. There is no one "expanding a lot less than the speed of light". I explained this to you yesterday. Do you not understand that the further away an object is the faster it will be moving on an expanding surface. The rate of expansion has always been great enough that if an object is far enough away from you it will be receding at a speed faster than the speed of light?
No, it is a failure of you to understand an idea that is beyond you. And you will not let yourself learn so that the idea will always be beyond you. If you can control your fears you can learn.
No, that is simply not true. All that you can find are old refuted claims. You probably do not even know how to search properly. You need to ask unbiased questions to find out how many support or oppose an idea.
When it comes to the average person quite a few do not accept the theory. But so what? They are not qualified to judge it. Of those that do over 99.9% of all astronomers accept the Big Bang theory. You have been listening to Liars For Jesus again, haven't you?
A Majority of Americans Still Aren't Sure About the Big Bang
A new poll confirms what has long been true: A majority of Americans aren't convinced the Big Bang is a scientific fact.
Nope, it is not a fudge factor. I need to remind you that you cannot do the math.
And there you go refuting your God again by using poor logic. How many holes have you shot in your foot just today? Is it 20 already?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
A mish mash of old refuted stuff and things that have nothing to do with the Big Bang.
Try again.
There really should be a rule against Gishing here.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
A mish mash of old refuted stuff and things that have nothing to do with the Big Bang.
Try again.
There really should be a rule against Gishing here.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
An non answer can never refute the infallible truths that I have presented.
In fact, there are many things in living things that are irreducibly complex. Please explain how any of them evolved.
The science seems to have identified mitochondrial Eve and the recent origin of x chromosome Adam. This matches recent creation and destroys evolution. Why?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Just the phrase "infallible truths" indicates scientific illiteracy.