What I say is correct. Believe or not, is upto you.
Brilliant Blunders: How the Big Bang Beat Out the Steady State Universe - The Nature of Reality — The Nature of Reality | PBS
-
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 the BB proponents have no answers for.
Brilliant Blunders: How the Big Bang Beat Out the Steady State Universe - The Nature of Reality — The Nature of Reality | PBS
leibowde84
Veteran Member
First, I think you have the meanings of "laws" and "theories" a bit wrong. Theories aren't less reliable than laws. And, laws cannot be thought of as absolutes as laws have been found to be incorrect in the past.
- Law. A statement describing how some phenomenon of nature behaves. Laws are generalizations from data. They express regularities and patterns in the data. A law is usually limited in scope, to describe a particular process of nature.
- Theory. A model (usually mathematical) that links and unifies a broader range of phenomena, and that links and synthesizes the laws that describe those phenomena. In science we do not grant an idea the status of theory until its consequences have been very well tested and are generally accepted as correct by knowledgeable scientists. This meaning is very different from colloquial use of the word. (Uses and Misuses of Logic.)
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I do not believe that anything "created" the universe. My only belief on the subject is that we don't know yet. But, I also think that there is absolutely no evidence that should lead us to even consider a supernatural force. There isn't any piece of evidence that any supernatural force created anything, so to jump to the conclusion that some magical force is responsible seems like jumping the gun.
Again, I in no way believe that God does not exist or did not create the universe. There just isn't evidence that suggests that God exists much less was responsible for the creation of everything. The only evidence I've ever seen rests on arguments from ignorance (God of the gaps). It seems like an affront to science to just inject supernatural forces when we don't have a natural explanation.
Then you choose to believe in what is false.
Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models
The Big Bang Model
Once again this includes the Big Bang theory in it and extends it to before the Big Bang.
This is a crackpot website and all its claims about BB are false. I can show this explicitly. Do you want me to? For example it says that dark matter in the galaxies have not been found. On the contrary,
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170803120620.htm
Reports about the lonely effort of two scientists on a eccentric theory for decades that has no evidence and has convinced no one.
This article actually tells the evidence that led to the widespread rejection of steady state theory.
McBell
Unbound
**crickets chirping**
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
I don't exactly understand your point here. Science has not answered these questions. So what? Not knowing doesn't translate to "God did it." If I understand you correctly you are simply trying to arrive at the "God of the Gaps" argument, which is a fallacy.
Typical fundamentalist double talk
1 when you can prove god dun it wiv god magic then come back and moan about the lack of proof regarding events PRIOR to the beginning of the universe.
2 there are at last 28 theories of how the universe began and you have to cite the one that is mathematically feasible because it sounds so outrageous to someone who hgas no comprehension of quantum mechanics and vacuum bubbles
A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
3 I've told you trillions of times not to exaggerate...;-) its approximately 13.8 billion years since the universe began so please explain your "billlllions and billllions of years"
2 there are at last 28 theories of how the universe began and you have to cite the one that is mathematically feasible because it sounds so outrageous to someone who hgas no comprehension of quantum mechanics and vacuum bubbles
A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
3 I've told you trillions of times not to exaggerate...;-) its approximately 13.8 billion years since the universe began so please explain your "billlllions and billllions of years"
Can you quote me ever suggesting that I can prove that God "dun it"? No, I did not think so. I am not the one claiming, in essence, that in the beginning there was nothing and then nothing exploded and over billllions and billllions of years, the universe and all it contains was created. Therefore, since I am not the one making that claim, it is not my responsibility to prove it true, is it? Where is your proof?
Can you actually point out to a person making such a claim? I certainly didn't see any such claims. All i see is you not understanding the subject matter.
Seriously. Must be aggravating debating with you when you put words into peoples' mouth like this and argue that instead of what they actually write.
Which agrees with what I have said: quantum corrections may do away with the singularity. The Big Bang, however, that the universe is expanding from an initial hot dense condition where nuclear reactions happened, is still the case.
By the way, you do realize this is speculation and has not been tested empirically, right?
This site has multiple falsehoods. For example, dark matter has not only been discovered, it has been mapped out. Particle accelerators have not detec
Two historical descriptions of why we now know the BB happened rather than the Steady State.
Except, of course, that Einstein's *theory* is in the form of an equation that tells us what things will do. So, by your definition of the terms, it would be a law.
And, while Newton's formula, it is wrong in detail even though it is a 'law'.
Yes, of course it can be tested, observed, and *aspects* duplicated. That is precisely what scientists do all the time.
We *observe* the background radiation, the distribution of galaxies, the distribution of light elements, the red shifts of galaxies.
We *test* our description from Einstein's formulas against those observations.
And we *duplicate* the conditions of the early universe in particle accelerators, etc.
We don't have to re-create a universe in order to test the model.
And none of them have the empirical evidence to back them up that the BB description has. The Big Bounce is a possibility, but is an *extension* of the BB, as is the Ekpyriotic model (allowing for cyclic universes). The steady state model simply fails because of the background radiation and its characteristics. The plasma model is contradicted by observations of the quantity and nature of the plasmas we see.
Extending the BB model isn't denying it.
Which is NOT the BB model. It is a delusional idea that you have latched onto that has *nothing* to do with what actual scientists are claiming.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
After @Ted Evans claimed people here were presenting origin of the universe scenarios as "fact", I asked him to identify who was doing that. He ran away.
I swear I see this sort of thing so many times from Christian creationists.....
"You evolutionists always say X"
Where did anyone say that?
<sounds of Christian feet running>
Where did anyone say that?
<sounds of Christian feet running>
It must be something they teach in Sunday School.
So you are saying no god exists?
You are demanding evidence their does not exist yet are unwilling to defend your own faith because you know you have nothing.
Nor am i making that suggestion, you are imposing that claim on me.
However that it is a mathematically feasible possibility, among 28 other mathematically feasible possibilities.
Not one of those mathematically feasible possibilities include a requirement for god.
How many times have I posted in this group that I cannot and would not even attempt to prove God by empirical science, it is my belief? Of course, anyone with average intelligence recognizes the fact when the believers of the BB theory cannot answer questions when asked, they try their darndest to deflect to the Christian's belief even though we say up front that it is a belief, not provable with empirical science.
I am not the one making dogmatic statements as if scientific fact about the creation of the universe, you are. You meaning the ones that believe in the BB theory. Say what can be proven with empirical evidence and that will be accepted, otherwise, admit that what you cannot prove with empirical evidence is your belief, just like I admit to my beliefs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes we know you cannot prove god. Your point is what?
No i am not making dogmatic statements, you are imagining them based on deliberate ignorance. How can offering 28 choices possibly be dogmatic? Please explain your thinking here, i would be fascinated at the projection.
And there you go again making dogmatic statements that are not only not factual, they have no inkling of truth, you must be Christian. No educated person would lie about what can be and what can't be proven with empirical evidence. That's why we are not hyping bronze age myth magic as the answer to what we don't understand.
When the answers are available you will one of the first 2 or 3 billion faithful to deny it without review. And it is very possible the answer will come. During my interest, knowledge has advanced from 10e-32 of a second after the bb to 10e-43, getting closer, closer, closer
Hate god, more humour??? That is like saying we hate Harry Potter.
The point is, why do you continue to bring it up when I have repeatedly stated that I would not even try to prove my belief? Deflection perhaps for the questions that you cannot answer defending your beliefs? That is my belief.