The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[Subduction Zone]

Prove an infinity of space and an eternity of time.
But even then abiogenesis is still impossible.

Prove that abiogenesis is impossible. You need something a lot stronger than poor math using false assumptions.

 

[Alekdar]

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?

The Big Bang Theory-A Scientific Critique [Part I] [Whole] - Apologetics Press

Galaxy Making Stars at the Edge of the Universe and Other “Surprises”

https://act.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf1171/files/a9r1o5g11h_6viqvc_3u4_0.pdf

The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang - LPP Fusion

Quasar with enormous redshift found embedded in nearby spiral galaxy with far lower redshift

The Big Bang Bust-Up

The Big Bang Never Happened: A Conclusive Argument

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

I have a few problems with the articles i checked, i'm not against links and citing sources, but i'd really like to know your understanding of the matter.
In the introduction of "BigBang never happened" says: Every variation of big bang theory suggests that somehow the universe spontaneously created itself from nothing.
This is quite incorrect, if the universe began to exist, we think it was in a very dense, very hot state, imagine a phenome like a black hole, but not that.
Certainly JamesWebb Telescope is giving us a lot of great info, it's capabilities to observe the faintest lights makes us consider that the universe could be older, younger, that some key steps of the universe from it's origin to now may have happened at vastly different speeds from what we thought, regardless, background radiation is still there, when we look far away, we see old stuff, and we recently started to "hear" gravitational waves
Keep in mind Science is not a definitive thing, science is a tool, like math, or language, a tool made of tools, in constant change, we use science to understand the world and deal with it, and while it works, we use it and accept it, but of course, if it would start failing, it couldnt stay, new science needs to occupy this new need, with new information.
I understand the origin of the universe as science proposes sounds unlikely to you, or at least less likely that some alternative you may have? Would u like to share what and why you think so?
Cheers!

 

[Polymath257]

Well the universe has not always existed as the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves.

This is false. The second law is not a fundamental law, but a statistical law. it is, ultimately, probabilistic and is *guaranteed* to be violated given enough time.

And I have shown that it is only about 6000 years old .

Not even close. Give *one* reliable dating method that gives such an age.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not even close. Give *one* reliable dating method that gives such an age.

The Holey Babble? Or is that "Wholly Babble"? They both work the same.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Make 2024 a year to stop responding to opinions disguised as "fact." We have much more important things to do.

 

[YoursTrue]

I was asking for evidence of your claim.....



Soon as you respond to my question I will attempt to respond to yours. That's how discussions work.

I do not believe that life is the result, as you likely believe, of the process of mindless evolution. I do believe that life comes from God. And so I believe life is the evidence of God.
Further, that humans appeared as a result of interbreeding, etc., and they do not know to this day what the "Common Ancestor" is, again -- at this point in my life it is unbelievable (that's the best word I can think of now) that humans evolved. If I or you were not here, I am convinced we would not know there is a life and we also wouldn't wonder if God exists. (At least I wouldn't, because I would not be. Reminding me of Descartes phrase -- he thinks, therefore he is. )

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not believe that life is the result, as you likely believe, of the process of mindless evolution. I do believe that life comes from God. And so I believe life is the evidence of God.

Then you do not understand the concept of evidence. Do you want to go over that concept?

You can prove yourself that it is not evidence of God. What reasonable test could possibly refute the existence of God?

 

[YoursTrue]

First, the opposite of design is NOT chance.

ok...

The opposite of design is undesigned. For example, the formation of a star happens via processes that are understood, that we see happening today, and that do not involve intelligent intervention. This is a process that is not designed, but it is also not 'by chance'. The simple action of gravity is enough to make it happen.

I'll say the opposite of design is chaos. Which may be something undesigned. Although I don't think a lake or ocean is chaotic, but possibly one can assign that term to it.

Second, you *claim* it is unlikely to happen without design, but since we don't know the process for it to happen, we don't know that it would require intelligent intervention. Furthermore, there are no likely intelligent agents that have been verified to be around at that time, so the likelihood of an intelligent intervention is very, very low.

OK, that's how you think. I no longer do. And I remember for some reason (I don't know why unless the boys thought I was kind of cute) elected to put me in what was called the "intellectual club." I had no idea whatsoever what they were talking about but it did get me involved in some intellectual stuff, some of which I never thought about before. At the time I knew very little about the Bible, only holidays and stuff like that and chanting things in my family's house of worship they attended. I had no real belief that God existed and made the world. But I remember they were discussing things like space between atoms and cells. And I thought -- hmmm, that means that a piece of furniture has lots of space we can't see between the atoms and cells. And I wondered, hmm? Well, now I guess some would attribute that holding power to gravity? Not being a scientist and all.

Third, the original life was NOT life 'as we see it' today. For one thing, it was ALL single celled. It was also anaerobic: oxygen was actually poison to early life. But since there was very little oxygen in the atmosphere at that time, this was not a problem for the life that existed then. It wasn't for another 2 billion years or so that more complex cells developed that produced oxygen in abundance (causing a massive die off of previous forms of life). Only after that did plants, animals, and eventually humans develop.

I'm sorry, but at this point it would be hard to convince me that the first, second, or third cells came up from something without a designer.

 

[John53]

I do not believe that life is the result, as you likely believe, of the process of mindless evolution. I do believe that life comes from God. And so I believe life is the evidence of God.
Further, that humans appeared as a result of interbreeding, etc., and they do not know to this day what the "Common Ancestor" is, again -- at this point in my life it is unbelievable (that's the best word I can think of now) that humans evolved. If I or you were not here, I am convinced we would not know there is a life and we also wouldn't wonder if God exists. (At least I wouldn't, because I would not be. Reminding me of Descartes phrase -- he thinks, therefore he is. )

So no evidence... got it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do not believe that life is the result, as you likely believe, of the process of mindless evolution.

Life is not the result of evolution. A fact that has been related to you numerous times and yet here we are.

I do believe that life comes from God.

I believe that, but I don't go so far as you and others claiming to know how it was done or being able to dismiss hypothesis without review or testing.

And so I believe life is the evidence of God.

You can believe that, but from a scientific, objective standpoint there is no evidence.

Further, that humans appeared as a result of interbreeding, etc., and they do not know to this day what the "Common Ancestor" is, again -- at this point in my life it is unbelievable (that's the best word I can think of now) that humans evolved.

The common ancestor of humans and modern apes seems to both vex and confound you, yet not knowing it specifically does not mean it is refuted or didn't exist. Again, more information routinely made available to you.

If I or you were not here, I am convinced we would not know there is a life and we also wouldn't wonder if God exists. (At least I wouldn't, because I would not be. Reminding me of Descartes phrase -- he thinks, therefore he is. )

I too am convinced that people that do not exist don't present evidence of anything. I'm equally convinced that objects or conditions that do not exist cannot be evidence of anything.

I'm still unclear why you persist in all of this and continue to engage in the debates and discussions given that you have on more than one occasion claimed that no amount of evidence and explanation will convince you. It seems that you must have some other motive.

 

[John53]

The common ancestor of humans and modern apes seems to both vex and confound you, yet not knowing it specifically does not mean it is refuted or didn't exist. Again, more information routinely made available to you.

It seems to me the problem for some people is they think they are somehow better or more important than the other primates.

I'd rather be related to the other primates than some humans I've met.

 

[YoursTrue]

Life is not the result of evolution. A fact that has been related to you numerous times and yet here we are.

I believe that, but I don't go so far as you and others claiming to know how it was done or being able to dismiss hypothesis without review or testing.

You can believe that, but from a scientific, objective standpoint there is no evidence.

The common ancestor of humans and modern apes seems to both vex and confound you, yet not knowing it specifically does not mean it is refuted or didn't exist. Again, more information routinely made available to you.

I too am convinced that people that do not exist don't present evidence of anything. I'm equally convinced that objects or conditions that do not exist cannot be evidence of anything.

I'm still unclear why you persist in all of this and continue to engage in the debates and discussions given that you have on more than one occasion claimed that no amount of evidence and explanation will convince you. It seems that you must have some other motive.

Evolution is said to have come as a result of abiogenesis, is that not so?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution is said to have come as a result of abiogenesis, is that not so?

That is not so.

Evolution occurs when there is heritable variation in populations of already existing living things. Abiogenesis is the name applied to living things coming into existence through natural processes.

Evolution does not require that life arise naturally, just that it reproduces with variation.

I know for a fact that this information has been provided to you many times in the past on RF.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems to me the problem for some people is they think they are somehow better or more important than the other primates.

I'd rather be related to the other primates than some humans I've met.

I know what you mean.

 

[YoursTrue]

Life is not the result of evolution. A fact that has been related to you numerous times and yet here we are.

I believe that, but I don't go so far as you and others claiming to know how it was done or being able to dismiss hypothesis without review or testing.

You can believe that, but from a scientific, objective standpoint there is no evidence.

The common ancestor of humans and modern apes seems to both vex and confound you, yet not knowing it specifically does not mean it is refuted or didn't exist. Again, more information routinely made available to you.

I too am convinced that people that do not exist don't present evidence of anything. I'm equally convinced that objects or conditions that do not exist cannot be evidence of anything.

I'm still unclear why you persist in all of this and continue to engage in the debates and discussions given that you have on more than one occasion claimed that no amount of evidence and explanation will convince you. It seems that you must have some other motive.

I do not recall that I ever said I know precisely how it was done.
As you know, precise details were not given in the biblical account. No scientific studies were taken by men and explained in the book of Genesis. I believe now that it did not happened by...chance meeting from somewhere, falling from above or bubbling up from a soupy mass by unintelligent force.
I now believe there is an Intelligent Designer who also has relayed knowledge about the future. It makes sense to me now. As I have said I did not always believe in God or that He made the heavens and the earth. Even though I sang beautiful songs in church. Great pieces of music. Now I do believe in God and do not believe life on earth happened without a Grand Intelligent Designer.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not so.

Evolution occurs when there is heritable variation in populations of already existing living things. Abiogenesis is the name applied to living things coming into existence through natural processes.

Evolution does not require that life arise naturally, just that it reproduces with variation.

I know for a fact that this information has been provided to you many times in the past on RF.

All right. Is abiogenesis proposed to have led to evolution? If not, what did? Maybe I didn't read what has been said scientifically about abiogenesis.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Dan From Smithville I looked up the word abiogenesis. Here's what the Oxford Dictionary says...

1. the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
   "to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"
   
   
2. 2.
   HISTORICAL
   old term for spontaneous generation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do not recall that I ever said I know precisely how it was done.

Many have told you what the science says.

As you know, precise details were not given in the biblical account. No scientific studies were taken by men and explained in the book of Genesis. I believe now that it did not happened by...chance meeting from somewhere, falling from above or bubbling up from a soupy mass by unintelligent force.

That is your choice to believe as you choose, but if you are claiming that belief is a fact, you need the evidence and sound argument to present it that way.

I now believe there is an Intelligent Drsigner who also has relayed knowledge about the future. It makes sense to me now. As I have said I did not always believe in God or that He made the heavens and the earth. Even though I sang beautiful songs in church. Great pieces of music. Now I do believe in God and do not believe life on earth happened without a Grand Intelligent Designer.

Again, what you believe to be is your business and is not science and has no evidence.

What I believe without evidence is irrelevant to what can be demonstrated and explained with evidence as is what you believe by the same token.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All right. Is abiogenesis proposed to have led to evolution? If not, what did? Maybe I didn't read what has been said scientifically about abiogenesis.

This has been asked and answered probably 100s of times by now. What is there to give me confidence this will be recognized now and that we will not see this question come up another 100 times as if it had never been asked or answered?

As I see it we are at the game stage where it is just knock the pieces over and keep asking the same questions already answered. Are you claiming never to have asked this and never gotten an answer?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville I looked up the word abiogenesis. Here's what the Oxford Dictionary says...

1. the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
   "to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"
   
   
2. 2.
   HISTORICAL
   old term for spontaneous generation.

You are wrong. You are mincing words. You have gotten the answer many times. I'm not going to play this game further.