Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Big Bang Never Happened
YouTube ^ | 6/9/09 | Randall Meyers

Posted on 03/07/2011 1:44:47 PM PST by wendy1946

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-134 last
To: allmendream

I don’t. Other than that, as I mentioned, assuming God created the universe at any finite point in time, thousands or billions of years ago doesn’t even matter, why did the idea never occur to him in the infinite expanse of time prior to that point?


101 posted on 03/08/2011 11:01:28 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
So God did not create the universe in your model.

Fine if you abandon the Bible.

Do you believe the Bible?

Issiah 55:8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD.

Psalm 33:11 But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

2 Peter 3:9 the Lord is not slow in regard to the promise, as certain count slowness, but is long-suffering to us, not counselling any to be lost but all to pass on to reformation,

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

102 posted on 03/08/2011 11:14:49 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

You’ve got some sort of a Bible verse you can cite which talks in terms of billions of years? I mean, you can add up the lifespans starting from Adam and you don’t get more than a few thousand.


103 posted on 03/08/2011 11:47:29 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

You got some verse in the Bible that says there was no beginning and God didn’t create the Heavens?

Contradicted by the VERY FIRST passage, and yet you want to get all literal on counting up lifespans and count the age of the Earth or the Universe by counting generations?

Literal when counting generations, and literal on the “days” (some without a Sun) before man was created “from dust”, but not literal at all when it speaks of a “beginning” or God “creating” the universe?


104 posted on 03/08/2011 11:55:04 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Like I say, you’re looking at conundrums whatever you do. The thing I’m proposing avoids the conundrums. In general the Bible cannot be taken 100% literally. There are any number of instances, particularly in the OT, where a basic story (e.g. the flood) is believable enough but a reader can take or leave the religious interpretation which travels along with it. Again the idea of God never figuring out that he needed to create a universe until some finite point in time does not pass a basic sniff test for logic from where I’m sitting.


105 posted on 03/08/2011 12:33:58 PM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
So nevermind where in the Bible it says “beginning” that wasn't literal. There was no beginning.

Nevermind in the Bible where it says God “created” that wasn't literal. The universe always existed.

Nevermind in the Bible where it says Gods ways are not our ways, YOU know perfectly well the mind of God and align your acceptance or rejection of scientific theory upon your ‘understanding’.

Your ‘proposal’ raises a “conundrum” right from its DIRECT contradiction of the VERY FIRST LINE of the Bible.

Amusing!

106 posted on 03/08/2011 12:37:50 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
So nevermind where in the Bible it says “beginning” that wasn't literal. There was no beginning.

Yeah there was. Of OUR planet, solar system, and local environment and LIVING world, and it was more like the Bible's version of time ago. But not of the entire universe, and not of things like time, and distance. The idea of those things coming about for the first time ever in some sort of a big bang 17B years ago is junk physics.

107 posted on 03/08/2011 1:17:23 PM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.

Not just the Earth and the local environs.

Time did not exist until Space-time and mater existed.

Gods ways are not our ways.

Basing your acceptance and rejection of science based upon a bad reading of the Bible is par for the course I suppose, but your ‘reading’ is just a bit more off the reservation than most!

God the creator apparently didn't create.

In the beginning there was no beginning.

When God separated the dark from the light; that was just local? In the rest of the universe for an infinite time before that light and dark were just mixed up willy nilly?

LOL!!!!

108 posted on 03/08/2011 1:22:01 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

Thermodynamics tells us that systems will seek to equilibrate. Heat flows from high temperature to low temperature. Stars burn out. It has nothing to do with whether there was a big bang, or whether or not the universe if flying apart.

Is there a source of energy being pumped into the universe to keep it from equilibrating eventually to a very cold temperature throughout?

If the universe is going towards a very cold equilibrium, did it not then have a beginning, whether big bang or some other beginning?


109 posted on 03/09/2011 2:41:58 AM PST by Rocky (REPEAL IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

You might want to start buy simply looking up the word ‘conundrum’ in a dictionary. Simply trying to pretend that such a thing doesn’t exist isn’t really workable.


110 posted on 03/09/2011 6:07:22 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Rocky

That’s a good question and I do not have an answer to it offhand; I’ll try to find one.


111 posted on 03/09/2011 6:10:20 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

How old do you believe our planet is?


112 posted on 03/09/2011 6:18:50 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
All you'd be doing is guessing, but....

We actually do have the one planet (Venus) in our system which actually is ballpark for some sort of a 6000 - 20000 year age like you'd get from Bible chronologies and Venus LOOKS like that: 900 F surface temperatures, major thermal imbalance, major upwards ir flux, 90-bar CO2 atmosphere, statistically random cratering etc. etc. etc. Since Earth and Mars do not look like that in any way, shape, or fashion, you have to assume that they are much older than that, but not billions of years old.

Bob Bass, one of America's best mathematicians over the last century, once redid Lord Kelvin's heat equations for the Earth WITH a maximal possible figure for radioactive elements, and came up with an upper bound of about 200M years which I would take as an absolute upper bound. If I had to put money on such a guess I'd say more like a few hundred thousand to a few million years.

That is of course, viewing our planet as a pile of rocks. Our living world in its present conformation is likely more like five or ten thousand years old as per the Bible. For that matter there are easily recognizable pictures of known dinosaur types in Amerind petroglyphs and other art work and descriptions of dinosaurs both in Midrashim and in Amerind oral traditions so that you assume there were leftover dinosaurs walking around at a time just prior to the flood, but I would assume the real age of dinosaurs would be more like a few tens of thousands of years back.

113 posted on 03/09/2011 6:47:22 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

The problem is that every known measure of the mass of the universe indicates that it is much too low for gravity to arrest the expansion and draw everything back together for another cycle.


114 posted on 03/09/2011 7:16:27 AM PST by cycleoflife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
How do you account for the presence of trans-uranic daughter elements in all of our Uranium ore consistent with billions of years of decay?

I'll grant it's possible for a given sample to have formed with all the necessary daughter elements in the mix to give a false representation of age, but it's irrational to believe that they all did.

If the Earth is, at most, a few million years old, then we shouldn't be finding Uranium ore with more than a few million years worth of accumulation of the daughter elements, but we consistently find it with accumulations indicating a much longer period of decay.

115 posted on 03/09/2011 7:19:23 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
Our living world in its present conformation

What exactly is that? Is that a biological, tectonic, or some other taxonomy?

116 posted on 03/09/2011 7:22:28 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Biological.


117 posted on 03/09/2011 7:30:35 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
How do you account for the presence of trans-uranic daughter elements in all of our Uranium ore consistent with billions of years of decay?

I'll grant it's possible for a given sample to have formed with all the necessary daughter elements in the mix to give a false representation of age, but it's irrational to believe that they all did.

If the Earth is, at most, a few million years old, then we shouldn't be finding Uranium ore with more than a few million years worth of accumulation of the daughter elements, but we consistently find it with accumulations indicating a much longer period of decay.

If the Earth actually arose from swirling masses of solar material 4B years ago as we read in our public school Earth science books, then why are there any heavy metals anywhere near the surface at all? Shouldn't they be at or near the planet's core??

There are two possibilities: Either heavy metals arrived here via impact events or they were formed here by plasma-physics style events (electrical arc discharges between Earth and other bodies), either way they have not been sitting around here for billions of years.

118 posted on 03/09/2011 7:35:51 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

You might want to start “buy” looking up a word in a dictionary?

LOL!

If that is not both ignorance and arrogance on parade I don’t know what is!

Your universe had no beginning and your god was not a creator, thus I don’t see how that god cold be the God who “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth”.

The God of the Bible is also inscrutable (you might want to look that word up) yet you insist you can interpret HIS motives and interpret scripture accurately thereby?

Ignorance and arrogance on parade!


119 posted on 03/09/2011 7:42:58 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
If the Earth actually arose from swirling masses of solar material 4B years ago as we read in our public school Earth science books, then why are there any heavy metals anywhere near the surface at all? Shouldn't they be at or near the planet's core??

There's this thing called "vulcanism" that causes molten material from the core to be ejected to the surface.

There are two possibilities: Either heavy metals arrived here via impact events or they were formed here by plasma-physics style events (electrical arc discharges between Earth and other bodies), either way they have not been sitting around here for billions of years.

Which one are you positing actually happened, and on what evidence? If it was plasma-physics, you're talking about nuclear fusion. Did your 200 Million year recalculation of Kelvin's work take that into consideration? If it was impact events, the impacts would have been on the surface, and account for the presence of those elements there.

120 posted on 03/09/2011 7:51:36 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
There are two possibilities: Either heavy metals arrived here via impact events or they were formed here by plasma-physics style events (electrical arc discharges between Earth and other bodies), either way they have not been sitting around here for billions of years.

Niether of those explains why the Uranium ore we find consistently has daughter elements present consistent with billions of years of decay.

121 posted on 03/09/2011 7:56:18 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

From under the Earth’s crust, not from the core.


122 posted on 03/09/2011 8:16:37 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
From under the Earth’s crust, not from the core.

Where did "What's under the Earth's crust" come from? Why are there heavy elements present in magma? Shouldn't it be composed of only the very lightest of elements?

123 posted on 03/09/2011 8:31:56 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

Still waiting for an explanation of why all the uranium ore has all the required daughter elements, in just the right proportions to be consistent with billions of years of decay, after only a few million years.


124 posted on 03/09/2011 8:35:35 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

A very concise summary of the past 30 years or so since I’ve been following this, beginning with my college astronomy classes. It was great to see so many of the astronomers and physicists I’ve read about all together in this presentation. Some day some folks making rude comments on this thread (who, strangely, seem to be the usual suspects known for snide pooh-poohing) will perhaps come back to the core of science, which is making observations and then devising testable explanations for those observations. I think one of the speakers who criticized the American post-doc system as aggravating the problem of entrenched orthodoxy was exactly right.


125 posted on 03/09/2011 11:49:43 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #126 Removed by Moderator

To: wendy1946

Mammoths, Mastodons, Sabre Tooth Tigers, Great Deer and Elk are not dinosaurs, they are mammals which died out about 10,000 years ago due to the retreat of the glaciers after the last ice age. they are the ones you see in petroglyphs and cave walls.

The last of these to die out was a population of small mammoths that died out in about 3500 BC on an island in the Arctic.


127 posted on 03/09/2011 4:12:43 PM PST by texmexis best
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

That’s about right. I see a lot of what is called physics today going away within the next ten or fifteen years.


128 posted on 03/09/2011 5:11:16 PM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: texmexis best
No mammoth or mastodon ever had dorsal spikes or a spiked tail (yeah, I know stegosaurs didn't have horns either, the horns were added centuries later by Amerind touchup artists).


129 posted on 03/09/2011 5:18:18 PM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: TheOldLady; wendy1946
It TOL says it's a good ping, then I opt in. (please).

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

130 posted on 03/09/2011 6:25:24 PM PST by Cyber Ninja
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Ninja; wendy1946

Welcome. :-)


131 posted on 03/09/2011 7:04:56 PM PST by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946; allmendream
I have listened to folks who say God is "outside" of time.
That time is a construct of our existence.

What say you?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

132 posted on 03/09/2011 7:12:36 PM PST by Cyber Ninja
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Ninja
To the extent I've ever been able to discern from a number of study areas, God works entirely within the laws of physics. If you really want miracles and violations of the basic laws of mathematics and probability in wholesale lots, you need to be talking to the evolutionites, they specialize in that sort of thing.

There is a curious analogy you could make to the idea of God wanting or having reasons for obeying the basic laws of physics. Genghis Khan saw at an early age that the peoples he forged into his empire had developed military capabilities beyond anything the rest of the world had but remained poor and divided precisely for lack of any sort of organization which could be defended logically, or a basic set of laws which could create order amongst them. Thus the Yasaq, or great Mongol legal code and system, was his most major work in life. He also saw that such a system could only work, if EVERYBODY including himself and his family and everybody else in leadership echelons obeyed it and agreed to be bound by it every bit as much as the lowliest person in the empire and after creating the Yasaq, he obeyed it at all times himself.

That arrangement held together for about 100 years, three or four generations, which is about as long as the empire itself held together, before starting to unravel. I believe that the situation with God and the laws of physics has to be similar, and that God will never violate those laws.

I generally do not see things I'd view as supernatural in the Bible. I see PARANORMAL things, and things outside the realm of our present experience, but they all work within the confines of physical laws.

133 posted on 03/09/2011 8:12:24 PM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; bvw; callisto; ckilmer; dandelion; ganeshpuri89; gobucks; KevinDavis; Las Vegas Dave; ...
Note: this topic is from 3/07/2011. Wendy1946 got the zot late last year, but I'm pretty sure he or she has been back under at least one new nick'.

· String Theory Ping List ·
Sorry we re open
· Join · Bookmark · Topics · Google ·
· View or Post in 'blog · post a topic · subscribe ·


134 posted on 07/25/2012 3:55:21 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-134 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson