The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[YoursTrue]

Except you are flat out ignoring the explanations.
Why?
Now we need to get into the fact that not only are you ignoring the explanations, you are flat out claiming they do not exist.

Like I said, extremely difficult to take you seriously.

I don't know what explanations you're talking about.

 

[YoursTrue]

except you flat out deny the existence of explanations right in front of you...

How exactly are you 'examining' that which you not only ignore, but flat out deny exist?

I will ask you the same questions I asked another poster since the concepts and answers are relevant to the discussion. Is life on earth possible according to science without a beginning, meaning by that does the emergence of life come from non-living material?

 

[YoursTrue]

except you flat out deny the existence of explanations right in front of you...

How exactly are you 'examining' that which you not only ignore, but flat out deny exist?

There are explanations but that doesn't mean I agree with them.

 

[YoursTrue]

except you flat out deny the existence of explanations right in front of you...

How exactly are you 'examining' that which you not only ignore, but flat out deny exist?

There are explanations but that doesn't mean I agree with them as if they're true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is life on earth possible according to science without a beginning? meaning the emergence of life coming from non-living material.

Yes, abiogenesis is very possible according to science.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is life on earth possible according to science without a beginning? meaning the emergence of life coming from non-living material.

Science knows from the evidence that there was a time on earth when there was no life, and then a time on earth when there was life.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science knows from the evidence that there was a time on earth when there was no life, and then a time on earth when there was life.

No contest from me there. No questions. The moon is not quite in the same category as the earth physically speaking, but evidently (or apparently) life coming from non life did not happen there. As the Bible says, the earth was void and desolate or similar terms, before life began. Maybe kinda like Mars or the moon. Void and desolate. Lifeless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No contest from me there. No questions. The moon is not quite in the same category as the earth physically speaking, but evidently (or apparently) life coming from non life did not happen there. As the Bible says, the earth was void and desolate or similar terms, before life began. Maybe kinda like Mars or the moon. Void and desolate. Lifeless.

Lifeless, yes, but there was liquid water. There was a source of heat. Energy was flowing through the system. And the correct chemicals were there as well.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No contest from me there. No questions. The moon is not quite in the same category as the earth physically speaking, but evidently (or apparently) life coming from non life did not happen there. As the Bible says, the earth was void and desolate or similar terms, before life began. Maybe kinda like Mars or the moon. Void and desolate. Lifeless.

The moon has no water or atmosphere. Would you agree that this makes it unable to support life?

 

[YoursTrue]

The moon has no water or atmosphere. Would you agree that this makes it unable to support life?

Life as we know it, yes, I agree. On the other hand....ok later.

 

[ratiocinator]

So what was the first living thing and what features did it have?
What caused the Big Bang and where did all the finely tuned orderly laws of nature come from?

 

[ratiocinator]

Is life on earth possible according to science without a beginning, meaning by that does the emergence of life come from non-living material?

Like so many science deniers, you're missing the point. Of course we need life* for evolution to happen but evolution does not depend in any way at all on how it got there and the evidence for evolution stands regardless of how life got going.

So the first life form could be due to one of the scientific abiogenesis hypotheses or any other reason you might want to make up: god-magic, planted by aliens, manufactured by life pixies all called Eric, whatever you want. Literally anything.

The point is the evolution happened afterwards and we have endless evidence that it did that puts it way beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the start was magic, science can and does tell us what happened next.

---

* Self-replication with inheritance and variation in a limited environment.

 

[Kfox]

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

If the Big Bang were proven wrong, the person to prove it wrong would be world famous and rich beyond measure.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Like so many science deniers, you're missing the point. Of course we need life* for evolution to happen but evolution does not depend in any way at all on how it got there and the evidence for evolution stands regardless of how life got going.

So the first life form could be due to one of the scientific abiogenesis hypotheses or any other reason you might want to make up: god-magic, planted by aliens, manufactured by life pixies all called Eric, whatever you want. Literally anything.

The point is the evolution happened afterwards and we have endless evidence that it did that puts it way beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the start was magic, science can and does tell us what happened next.

---

* Self-replication with inheritance and variation in a limited environment.

Your reasoning is flawed

First, creationists are not science deniers.
We love science but reject false science like evolution and billions of years.
Without a first living creature there are no living things.
And without a second living, there are no living things today.
The same goes for next 100 living creatures.
Abiogenesis is impossible. That is why evolutionists are scared out of their minds and try so desperately to hide from abiogenesis.
But they even try to skip the first 100+ living creatures.

So what was the first living creature and what features did it have?
But if you just want to start with evolution working in living things, then you need to start with the first living creature and show what was the second living creature and what features did it have?
then the 3rd, …

 

[ratiocinator]

Your reasoning is flawed

First, creationists are not science deniers.
We love science...

...but reject false science like evolution and billions of years.

Total contradiction. You reject solid science (including evolution, cosmology, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, geology, palaeontology, archaeology, genetics, and statistics) in favour of blind faith (e.g. Statement of Faith).

Without a first living creature there are no living things.

Yet again you seem to have ignored the post you're 'replying' to. Get a grip!

Abiogenesis is impossible.

You have got nowhere near to supporting this absurd assertion. Your attempts have been comical.

That is why evolutionists are scared out of their minds and try so desperately to hide from abiogenesis.

Bearing false witness again.

Abiogenesis has been explained to you multiple times. Nobody is who understands something of the science is scared of it. Your blind repetition of the same nonsense is running away. Why do you keep running away if you're not scared?

So what was the first living creature and what features did it have?

Aren't you tired of running scared?

 

[McBell]

I don't know what explanations you're talking about.

Thank you for further demonstrating my point.

 

[McBell]

I will ask you the same questions I asked another poster since the concepts and answers are relevant to the discussion. Is life on earth possible according to science without a beginning, meaning by that does the emergence of life come from non-living material?

So instead of addressing your blatant dishonesty, you try to divert attention from it by asking questions that have already been answered and ignored?

Now I just flat out do not take you seriously.

 

[McBell]

There are explanations but that doesn't mean I agree with them.

So then why the bold face lie there are none?

 

[McBell]

If the Big Bang were proven wrong, the person to prove it wrong would be world famous and rich beyond measure.

Not only that, but Creation would still be nothing more than the wishful thinking of it proponents.

 

[McBell]

Your reasoning is flawed

First, creationists are not science deniers.

I have as yet to meet a YEC that is not.
But then, they can not be YEC unless they deny science.

We love science but reject false science like evolution and billions of years.

Actually, you only like science you think supports your beliefs.
You deny science that refutes your beliefs.
That you do not know enough about science to honestly tell the difference is a completely different ball of worms.

Without a first living creature there are no living things. And without a second living, there are no living things today.
The same goes for next 100 living creatures.

Which has nothing to do with evolution.
You not being able to understand that fact is a fault of yours, not science.

Abiogenesis is impossible.

Making the same bold empty claim over and over does not make it any truer than the first time you made the bold empty claim.

That is why evolutionists are scared out of their minds and try so desperately to hide from abiogenesis.

The only one running tail tucked in this thread is you.

So what was the first living creature and what features did it have?
But if you just want to start with evolution working in living things, then you need to start with the first living creature and show what was the second living creature and what features did it have?
then the 3rd, …

Again, your inability to understand that evolution does not require an explanation of the first living thing is your fault, not sciences.