Skip to comments.The Big Bang Never Happened
Posted on 03/07/2011 1:44:47 PM PST by wendy1946
In nine parts on YouTube
That's simply not true. I watch it every Thursday night at 8.
The thing which is really ridiculous is that a certain number of Christians apparently including at least one pope, no sooner hear about the "big bang" idea then they think to themselves "Gee, that's GREAT! Another creation story, just a little matter of about (17,000,000,000 - 6000) years difference from ours, we ought to be able to come up with some sort of a fudge factor!!"
The problem: Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes; nothing would ever bang its way out of that.
Likewise for a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent God to suddenly figure out it would be a cool thing to do to create a universe (6000 years ago or 17,000,000,000, doesn't matter) while the idea had never occurred to him previously, is basically idiotic. Big Bang is bad physics and bad theology rolled up into a package.
What the evidence seems to suggest is that the universe is basically eternal, like God, and that the creation stories we read in ancient literature refer to the creation of our own system and local environment, and not to the entire universe. Our LIVING world, at least in its present conformation, does in fact appear to be ballpark for some sort of a 6000 - 10000 year age; the planet viewed as a collection of rocks is older than that.
This video is better than the tv show.
Perhaps. What exactly is your ping list about? And is it a high or low volume ping list?
Interesting theory, and intriguing as well.
There are a couple of problems, such as the impossibility of a concrete but infinite number of “moments” prior to now,
and the problem of “fitting” Gen 1:16 (” He also made the stars.”) into the theory.
But it was an intriguing thought nonetheless.
The problem is that people do not know their history!
The big bang theory was proposed by a priest.
Georges LeMaitre - other wise known as the House. :)
Well I guess somebody ought to tell Paris Hilton to stop looking for it.
12,000 years ~ current standard for cutting stone BTW.
This video features several interviews with Lerner.
Low volumn, mostly about evolution, Intelligent Design and the like.
bfl/pfl?? Culture gap or something...
back for later/ping for later
See, it is still all relative because....
In the central time zone it is on at 7:00.
I’m not sure including Eric Lerner and his “infinitely old universe” theory, fits your agenda.
I would like to see someone correlate the observational evidence for the theorists. Maybe Arp can get some movement.
His explanation of the cosmic microwave background being created by a “cosmic fireball” is pretty weak. You’d think in 10 years he would’ve come up with something better.
Cosmic Background isn’t any sort of a major thing in Arp’s work. He’s noted for discovering pairs of things, typically galaxies and quasars, which radically differing redshifts and yet which are very clearly joined together and are part and parcel of the same things, i.e. he’s known for destroying the idea of interpreting cosmic redshift as recession velocity and hence also as distance.
well, that dating certainly comports with the hard facts of human recorded history as we know it...yes there is a whole industry of “prehistory” but really, it all gets pretty fuzzy (understatement) about 4,000 BC. About 4,000 BC it seems like all of a sudden, we can start to see what is happening out there in the world, from a historical perspective, in terms of human action.
The Basic Non Evolution of Modern Man in case you might have missed it... More than usually interesting is Gunnar Heinsohn's claim of no evidence for Neanderthals which can be legitimately dated to anything further than about 4000 years back.
So, are you a Biblical creationist?
But I think it would be especially interesting to hear from folks who accept much of the Biblical dating, but don’t necessarily buy the whole thing. I am very open minded in that regard and eager to know what others are thinking in this fascinating world of “forbidden archaeology”.
That’s true, if the pre-bang singularity was all the matter in the universe, but since matter and energy are interchangeable, the “mother of all black holes” can also be the “mother of all energetic events” if rather than matter (which didn’t even exist until after the bang) our “singularity” was a point of unimaginable energy.
I think most scientifically minded theists can see that there was an explosion of some kind...Fundamentalist religious nuts have ignored science all through history and attacked the messenger until evidence (that the world was round, orbited the sun, was not the center of the universe, etc) was no longer deniable.
To this day there are deadly earnest people who will tell you God made the Earth a few thousand years ago pre-packaged with dinosaur fossils to sift those with lukewarm faith from the fanatics.
That said, while I regard religion with a healthy dose of mistrust, the premise that all that all of *this* simply “happened” makes atheism look even more ridiculous.
When I see a pattern of ripples on a lake, I know that something disturbed the water at its epicenter. When you see the exact same pattern in the cosmos, you can bet your last dollar that something similar happened in space.
That said, who’s really made the bigger leap of faith? The scientist so awed by Creation that he finds God at the heart of the big bang, or the one who tries to twist the numbers to fit a theory that will forever be unprovable that says it was all random chance?
Just like the fundamentalist who sees an effort by God to trick people with dinosaur bones, I’d submit that the second scientist in the example above is a zealot and a fool.
Regardless of his contributions to star theory, he was a steady-statist
until he died about a decade ago, even as new theories and data to
explain the accelerating expansion of the Universe came in.
-—Our LIVING world, at least in its present conformation, does in fact appear to be ballpark for some sort of a 6000 - 10000 year age; the planet viewed as a collection of rocks is older than that. -—
Sorry, what do you mean by ‘living’ world? Are you implying that the first life-forms appeared on earth within the last 10,000 years?
Maybe they didn't believe in marriage so all were illegitimate? : )
Haha, good one.:-)
“Hes noted for discovering pairs of things, typically galaxies and quasars, which radically differing redshifts and yet which are very clearly joined together and are part and parcel of the same things, i.e. hes known for destroying the idea of interpreting cosmic redshift as recession velocity and hence also as distance.”
He hasn’t destroyed anything. The smaller of the pairs of objects are frequently high mass, high velocity objects seen through the tail of a galaxy. The objects have a different matter distribution than the galaxy and have been id’d as distant objects. Skip Arp’s theory goes back to 1973 or 1976 I believe, and nothing, no piece of data has shown up that would give us the ability to say that redshift could occur in a (sort of) stationary object. Nada.
The 6,000 year old age of the earth was developed by James Ussher, an archbishop of the Anglican church in Ireland. Publishing this theory in 1650, he declared that the earth was created at nightfall of the day before October 23rd, 4004 BC.
Believers of this time line for earth’s creation used to be called Ussherites, but now go by the name Young Earth Creationists.
I wonder where all of these pre-human homonid skulls keep coming from....?
“The problem: Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes; nothing would ever bang its way out of that.”
The Big Bang is short hand for Big Expansion of Space and it is not an explosion but a huge increase in the dimensions of space, and by the way, time.
If you measured space, any space, a billion years ago and did so again today for the same amount of space they would measure differently. And the Expansion is acceleratiing for reasons that are not at all clear.
Museums send people out into very remote areas so nobody can see them make them then they bring them back to the museum to show.
The big bang theory and the other theory about life coming from outer space and dropping onto earth, are merely attempts to dodge around the questions of how matter was formed originally and how life started from inert matter.
Deo, I have greatly admired Wendy1946’s posts and comments here, and I asked her to ping me to things of interest to her. Obviously, she was asked to compile the list by more FReepers than just me, LOL!
This is a low-volume ping list, but worth the wait for what you get, IMO.
There are a number of fairly new Steady State theories that have been developed recently, say the last 15 years.
But most Astro-physicists see the Big Expansion as the most likely.
That idea has basically been debunked, just too many such coincidences. In other words, beyond some point, connections stop being coincidental.
Pre-production models. Test mules if you will. Any designer worth His salt will go through several iterations until He finds one that is ready for full on production.
You're prepared to prove a negative?
There are many galaxies out there, some say 100 billion and others feel that 1 trillion is not to large a number for visible galaxies. Given those numbers the juxtaposition of two or threee objects is not all unlikely and when we look at the galaxies we find that it very common.
In the 1970s a British astronomer, Fir Frederick Hoyle, calculated the probability of spontaneous generation of a single bacterium. He determined that the probability of generating the proteins necessary to form a single amoeba was one chance in 10 40,000 . To put this in perspective, if an event has the probability of one chance in 10 50 it is considered a mathematical impossibility.
"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with forty thousand naughts [zeros] after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefor have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
-Sir Frederick Hoyle.