SkepticalOne wrote: Thats not a leap of faith, friend. It is an inference to the best explanation. Applying general relativity and thermodynamics in reverse, an initial hot dense state best accounts for the expansion of the universe and the cosmic microwave background.

General Relativity is a leap of faith as demonstrated in the following.

Scientists (sorcerers) promoted Einstein unseated Newton in an edge case scenario, so let’s review Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity with E=MC2 circumstances with some commentary by astronomer astrologers:

Frank Watson Dyson, Astronomer Royal of Britain, conceived the perfect experiment to test Einstein’s theory [5]. A total solar eclipse on 29 May 1919 would occur just as the Sun was crossing the bright Hyades star cluster (about 151 light-years away). Light from these stars would have to pass by the Sun’s gravitational field on its way to Earth and would be visible during the darkness of the eclipse.

Arthur Eddington photographed reference positions of the Hyades stars during January and February of 1919 from Oxford, England (51.7520°N, 1.2577°W; temp 40°F). Then, in May he went to the remote island of Principe (1.6139°N, 7.4057°E; temp 80°F) to photograph the stars’ positions during the eclipse.

Andrew Commelin went to Sobral, Brazil (3.7015°S, 7.4057°E, temp 80°F) in May to photograph the stars’ positions during the eclipse and stayed there to photograph reference positions two months after the eclipse. Both teams superimposed reference photos over the eclipse photos to see how much the Sun’s gravity may have deflected light from these stars.

Eddington’s results from Principe showed an average deflection of 1.61 arcseconds. Crommelin’s results from Sobral showed an average deflection of 1.98 arcseconds. The average of these two readings, 1.795 arcseconds, was consistent with Einstein’s prediction [6]. In his Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking says of the 1919 deflection results: “Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science” [7]. The errors in data were as large as the effect they were trying to prove, thus making these results inconclusive.

(Rowland D (2024) Mistaking Refraction for Gravity is the Error that Launched Einstein’s Career. OSP Journal of Physics and Astronomy 5: JPA-5-157)

The Solar Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein an overnight celebrity for his theory of general relativity. Both Newton and Einstein had predicted that light passing close by the Sun would be deflected slightly towards the Sun, but for different reasons. Newton’s prediction was based on refraction as light passes through the dense photosphere of the Sun. Einstein’s prediction was based on the mistaken notion that gravity can bend light. Einstein had predicted a degree of deflection that was twice as much as Newton’s prediction. The results from the 1919 Solar Eclipse appeared to support Einstein’s theory [3].

The measurements of deflection from this 1919 event were based on a statistically insignificant sample size of before-and-after readings from only five stars. The readings themselves were also questionable because of (a) errors in parallax from varying angles of measurement and atmospheric conditions at the respective points of observation, and (b) equipment failure. Results were inconclusive because the error factor was as large as the deviation the experimenters were trying to prove [3].

(Rowland D. (2020) Physics and Logic Often Conflict. OSP J Phy Astronomy 1. JPA-1-106)

Your vaunted Hawking said “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science” regarding the 1919 solar eclipse General Relativity Theory investigative team of Dyson, Eddington, and Commelin.

Rowland sufficed that team’s findings by writing “errors in parallax from varying angles of measurement and atmospheric conditions at the respective points of observation”.

Between Hawking and Rowland, that team’s findings about Einstein’s General Relativity Theory is a leap of faith.

Cosmic microwave background radiation

Please see the detailed explanation of CMBR in section “2. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)” of post #53.

CMBR tracing back in time leads to a leap of faith for the Big Bang.

SkepticalOne wrote: You didn’t answer the question (I am genuinely curious). How does your ideology explain the expanding universe?

First, you must have belief (faith) that the universe is currently expanding.

Second, if the universe is currently expanding, then the answer is that the Jesus Christ Lord and God stretches out the heavens like a curtain (Psalm 104:2)!

Rowland sufficed that team’s findings by writing “errors in parallax from varying angles of measurement and atmospheric conditions at the respective points of observation”.

Rowland is advancing the measurements of the 1919 eclipse didn't validate Relativity because the bending of light was due to the sun's atmosphere rather than gravity. This would also mean that all other instances of 'lensing' must be due to ...ugh, not gravity.

This is a problematic position refuted by many observations. The Bullet Cluster and time delay lensing represent two specific counters. Atmosphere isnt a reasonable explanation in these cases. Observations of the Bullet Galaxy Cluster reveal lensing completely separated from hot plasma. ie. gravity is responsible for the lensing rather than refraction. Even more damning for the refraction faction is time delay lensing. Distinct images with the same supernova background arrived months apart. Refraction cant explain this, but light traveling completely different gravity warped pathways through space does.

[...] Hawking said “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science” regarding the 1919 solar eclipse General Relativity Theory investigative team of Dyson, Eddington, and Commelin.

This is from Hawking's book "A brief history of time" written around the same time the Royal Greenwhich Observatory reanalysed the 1919 photographic plates and found the data selection was scientifically sound. He never integrated these findings into his opinions. As a science communicator, this was irresponsible on his part.

Regardless, Hawking accepted general relativity. His career was built on expanding General Relativity. He famously used it to show the universe must have started with the Big Bang (Penrose-Hawking theorems). So, if you agree with Hawking, you accept the Big Bang is the best explanation of the evidence.

I do not think its fair to say the big bang itself is some kinda faith thing.

Sure it can be debated about if it created life and a lot of the rest but its pretty objectively understandable that the thing did happen in some respect unless people want to argue against the basic understanding of physics.

I would generally recommend Max Tegmarks "Our Mathematical Unaversive" for skeptics. It walks through exactly how we know what we know from the size of the earth to it being round to its distance from the sun and how exactly we can measure the age of the unaversive and know that a big bang happened. Then it gets nerdy talking about the potentials of how the laws of physics could shift and how things could work in a multiverse.

But really regardless of creationism I see rejecting that there was some sort of big bang about on par with people arguing the Earth is flat. Possible ehhh.... sure... ish? But also kinda tin foil hat level of low brow takes.

Christians understand six days is not six billion years, not six weeks, not about 14 billion years, but six days that the Word of God says God made Heaven and Earth.

According to our best science, six days is 14 billion years.

I'm going to paraphrase a very interesting analysis originally presented by Gerald Scroeder, an American Physicist and Orthodox Jew.

Here is how the currently accepted cosmological theory of time, derived from the General Theory of Relativity, applies to the literal "six days' objection.

According to the General Theory of Relativity space and time are not absolute and uniform; they are relative to a frame of reference. Generally accepted cosmological theory tells us that the time/space continuum has been expanding since the creation of the universe in what we call the “Big Bang”. What this means is that the temporal frame of reference of “the beginning” is dramatically different from our temporal frame of reference. From the beginning frame of reference, which would be a creator God’s frame of reference, time has expanded exponentially since the beginning; this relationship would be inverted from our frame of reference.

The General Theory provides a mathematical framework that allows us to quantify the expansion of the space/time continuum relative to our frame of reference; it tells us that each time the universe doubled in time and space, the perception of time is halved from our frame of reference.

Therefore, current Big Bang scientific theory states that the initial moment when the relationship we refer to with the word “time” began, would have occurred when the dynamics of heat and expansion caused matter to form, that moment is commonly referred to as “quark confinement”. The General Theory calculates the initial ratio of time between our frame of reference and the frame of reference of the beginning, to be equal to the ratio between the temperature of quark confinement (10.9 times 10 to the twelfth power Kelvin) to the temperature of the universe today (2.73 degrees Kelvin). Remember that since the beginning, time is expanding exponentially from the beginning frame of reference, and as time proceeds it is contracting exponentially from our frame of reference. Utilizing the algorithmic time calculations of the General Theory we can calculate that a single twenty-four-hour day, from the frame of reference of the beginning, would have expanded in such a way that it would be measured as roughly eight billion years from today’s frame of reference. A second twenty four hour day would be measured as roughly four billion years, a third as two billion years, a fourth as one billion, a fifth as a half billion, and a sixth as a quarter billion years.

So, from the frame of reference of the beginning, six twenty-four-hour days, would have expanded in such a way that, from our frame of reference, it would be measured as roughly fifteen billion years, roughly the age of the universe as estimated by current Big Bang scientific theory.

So there you go, there is no conflict between six days and 14 billion years, it's just a matter of physics and the frame of reference.

Interesting.

Any responses to post 46?

@linate wrote: @Kermos I posted two long posts of evidence. You didnt refute a single point of it. Even if my position is said to be based on faith, that doesn’t mean all faith positions on this are equal. . I think you might be mentally ill, otherwise your position here is completely irrational and sinful.

LIBEL ALERT

Your “I think you might be mentally ill, otherwise your position here is completely irrational and sinful” is libelous. Libel is a crime, or sin.

Now, linate, pay careful attention. I was proceeding through the posts chronologically Which means I addressed your posts in the following order, your post #2 (my response post #13 link), your post #11 (my response post #25 link), your post #14 (your first post with relevant evidence) (my response post #53 link), your post #15 (my response post #58 link), your post #17 (your irrelevant evidence) (my response post #59 link), your post #18 (my response post #60 link), and your post #27 (the post to which I’m responding). Notice, that my response post #53 was posted after your post #27 (the post to which I’m responding).

linate, I showed you good evidence.

Despite the initial 1919 data being nearly inconclusive by strict modern standards, Einstein's light deflection prediction was conclusively verified by later, highly accurate radio and space-based astronomy. Very stupid people cannot review a lot of data.

Einstein's light deflection prediction was conclusively verified by modern radio and space-based astronomy, achieving a precision far exceeding the historical 1919 solar eclipse measurements.

Radio Astronomy and VLBI

1. Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) uses global networks of radio telescopes to measure the positions of distant quasars as their radio waves pass close to the Sun. [1, 2, 3]
2. High Precision: Observations using VLBI have confirmed the parameterized post-Newtonian parameter \(\gamma \) (which dictates space curvature) to a fraction of a percent (e.g., \(0.9998 \pm 0.0003\)), matching general relativity's prediction of \(1.0\). [1]

Space-Based Astrometry

1. Spacecraft Tracking: Radio signals from interplanetary spacecraft like NASA's Cassini mission provided independent, highly accurate tests of gravitational light bending and time delay. [1]
2. Optical Mapping: Space telescopes map stellar positions with micro-arcsecond precision, detecting gravitational micro-lensing events from single far-off stars and confirming Einstein's equations on stellar scales. [1, 2]

SergeantLynch wrote: @Kermos No one knows…That is a fact.

So, you admitted to a leap of faith for the nonscience Big Bang.

SergeantLynch wrote: And some of the stuff that we do know rules out the 6000 hypothesis as a universal creation event.

So, now, magically, the “fact” that “No one knows” suddenly transmuted into the “fact” that you “do know”.

SergeantLynch wrote: “Big Bang” is simply a metaphor that represents a more logical hypothesis…

So, now you downgrade the Big Bang from science to metaphor.

SergeantLynch wrote: Faith is irrelevant…

Since the Big Bang is faith based as demonstrated in post #53 about Big Bang adherents deep faith in red-shift with more and post #61 about Big Bang philosophers MASSive faith in E=MC2 error, then you wrote the Big Bang is irrelevant in essence.

SergeantLynch wrote: Whereas confidence is based on sound scientific reasoning.

You used the word “confidence” in an attempt to imply a non-faith based system for the Big Bang. The definition of confidence contains variations of belief/faith along with the tightly-coupled concept of “trust” (which is the firm belief in the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing) in every single numbered definition. Here it is:

n.

1.

a. A belief or conviction that an outcome will be favorable: I have every confidence that we can find a solution.

b. Belief in the certainty of something: The engineers determined with confidence that the ship could withstand heavy seas.

2. Belief in the effectiveness of one’s own abilities or in one’s favorable acceptance by others; self-confidence.

3. Trust or faith in a person or thing: We are placing our confidence in you to get the job done.

See Synonyms at trust.

4. A trusting relationship: I took them into my confidence.

5.

a. That which is confided; a secret: A friend does not betray confidences.

b. A feeling of assurance that a confidant will keep a secret: I am telling you this in strict confidence.

adj.

Of, relating to, or involving a swindle or fraud: a confidence scheme; a confidence trickster.

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Obtained from www.thefreedictionary.com/confidence

The bottom line is that your use of the “confidence” concept includes faith/belief/trust in the Big Bang.

In fact, Big Bang adherents can be called confidence men. Big Bang confidence men swindle souls.

Your “confidence” in the Big Bang indicates your leap of faith, so your “sound scientific reasoning” in the Big Bang is not the scientific method!

SergeantLynch wrote: Nonetheless, in the absence of ears there wouldn’t have been a bang…Just a significant moment.So in homage to biblical mythology it’s perhaps best to say…Once upon a time there was a significant moment…No faith required…No angst necessary.

On the contrary, you do have a huge leap of faith required for your significant moment, a.k.a. Big Bang.

Something from nothing or always something...Both are magical

Initiation and evolution either way.

So intellectual primate works a few things out or intellectual primate makes a few things up.

Faith in knowledge or faith in make believe...No leaping necessary...But leap if you must.

Whereas "Big Bang" is just a theory...Neither faith nor leaping required.

So re a beginning I know not why.

And re a 6000 year old magic bloke from nowhere, I am confident that acquired knowledge debunks this particular hypothesis.

It's the best it gets Kermos.

Skipper wrote: @Kermos The Big Bang Theory does not necessarily contrast Christianity. God could have started Creation from a single point of light–in reference to the first words of the Bible–and let the universe expand from that. The BBT can still reconcile with a Young-Earth worldview. God starts the universe from a singularity and adds to it in order with the six days of Creation.

I specifically mentioned the 13,800,000,000 year old purported Big Bang in the original post because more people heard of the Big Bang expressed in that timespan as compared to the fewer who are aware of Hubble’s law V=H0D where scientists believe the Hubble (variable) constant falls in the range of H0=50 (a 10B y.o.u.) and H0=100 (a 20B y.o.u.) (where y.o.u. is “years old universe”).

I was clear about my faith in YHWH God in the original post.

Big Bang philosophers deceive by using linguistics of fact (like “this is that”), yet they mix in words of faith/belief, such as confidence and evidence, which they try to minimize the impact of faith while they try to maximize sounding authoritatively factual.

Man spends trillions on evolution religion. NASA, Caltech, SpaceX, etc place vehicles, instrumentation, and laboratories in space. The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) even reaches in people’s personal computers with SETI@home with Astropulse. Lucrative careers are built around evolution religion, and this leads into the next paragraph.

The Pharmakeia Principle holds that certain persons merge “scientific” model (illusion) and “scientific” theory (opinion) and “scientific” fact (observation and repeatability) with a potential for financial gain into what the philosophers Illegitimately call science (legitimate science is knowledge governed by Truth (John 14:6). Illusion and opinion spoil that which those philosophers call science; in fact, the philosophers defend their position with a religious zeal, yet they disclaim any religious affiliation for their belief structures. The philosophers speak in an authoritative manner. When the philosopher’s deeply held religious beliefs are exposed as fallacious in a systematic manner, then the philosophers engage in condescension or censorship or even on some occasions progressing into violent tactics toward the people who itemize the philosophers’ errors.

Hmmm, who should we believe, Kermos or Stephen Hawking?

Yes, Stephen Hawking strongly believed in the Big Bang and spent his career studying the origin of the universe. However, he worked to explain how it could happen through natural physical laws rather than a divine creator.

Well...Stephen was a visionary thinker and Kermos is a believer who delights in antagonism.

And I delight in antagonising believers...So all is good.

And is Kermos new or a reinvention?

@Double_R wrote in post #33: I didn’t ask you anything about where the ball was 13 billion years prior …snip… Now add to the analogy, imagine you discovered that there were 7 other balls also rolling in different directions and speeds, and when …snip

@Double_R wrote in post #34: @Kermos The question I asked you was whether your observation, and the information you can easily extract from it (such as its speed and direction), can be put together to determine its path before your observation began.The answer is common sense.

@SkepticalOne wrote in post #39: You’ve twisted this analogy to avoid an easy answer which is applicable to our expanding universe.I think it is telling you won’t answer my question. You have no explanation for an expanding universe do you?

@Double_R wrote in post #46: @Kermos You could, but that would be pointless since those variables were your invention, having nothing to do with the analogy you were presented with. Focus. A ball is rolling, first observed at point A, moving at 5 mph towards point B. Q1: Can you deduce the backwards path in which that ball rolled prior to your initial observation at point A? Q2: Can you calculate where in that path the ball would have been 5 seconds earlier given that you have observed both its path and its speed? These aren’t trick questions, nor are they rocket science. All you have to do is go back to fourth grade. I believe in you.

@Double_R, you engaged in doublespeak and hypocrisy.

First, @Double_R, you originally wrote “If a ball rolls across your foot and you noted what direction it was moving in and what speed it was moving, would you not be able to tell where it was 5 seconds before you first saw it?” as the entirety of your personal composition in post #10.

Second, I addressed your post #10 in scope of this thread with “You confused human observation (rolling ball) with the absence of human observation (Big Bang)” (my post #24).

Third, @Double_R, you responded to @SatanLucy with “Now add to the analogy, imagine you discovered that there were 7 other balls also rolling in different directions and speeds” (your post #33); afterward, I posted “Consider three balls in a park” (my post #35).

Fourth, @Double_R, you wrote “You could, but that would be pointless since those variables were your invention, having nothing to do with the analogy you were presented with” about my analogy extension with three balls in a park inside of your post #46, but, as is clearly evident, I added to the analogy that you added to in a manner similar to you.

Fifth, @Double_R, as is evident, you permitted yourself to expand the scenario to more than one ball, but you rejected my expansion of the scenario to more than one ball. You engaged in hypocrisy!.

Sixth, @Double_R, as is further evident, your doublespeak appears upon your implication that your original analogy is more than your mere invention when you conveyed that mine was a “pointless” “invention” as shown in the “Fourth” paragraph, above.

I demonstrated that the ball analogy requires that someone initiated the rolling ball.

The rolling ball analogy failed as a scientific fact in support of the Big Bang just as I pointed out to you that “You confused human observation (rolling ball) with the absence of human observation (Big Bang)”.

You believe without proof (assume) that the universe is expanding as part of your Big Bang, and you conject (guess) that the one ball over foot analogy as evidence for your fantasy Big Bang.

You presented poor evidence for the Big Bang, and the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

You're saying that faith = belief. Nope. Not even Paul says that in Hebrews. He is saying faith is substance. He is saying we may have more than 5 senses to interpret our world and its universe. Belief entertains none of this because it does not have to demonstrate anything. No demands are placed on belief, whereas the world, and more is demanded of faith. Faith expects acting on whatever one has faith in. There's a common Christian claim that both faith and works are not necessary; that faith, alone, suffices. Paul does not say that, anywhere [including Hebrews]. I know Jesus is the Christ, so I am not coming from an agnostic or atheist perspective.

6,000 years? The Bible has gaps in its chronology, it is not a continuous record from Genesis to Revelation. Just in Genesis, we see a gap, and even a regression. We're basically told the creation story in Genesis 1. But Genesis 2 begins saying there is nothing on the earth, and tells the story, again. What's that about? I think I know, but that is grist for another time. And the "day'of Genesis is not 24 hours, because the sun, which now rises in the morning, and rises again some 24 hours later, as demonstrated even by the ancient Greeks, at least, is not even created until the 4th day, 60% into the "6 days'" of creation.

"Day" in Hebrew ["Yom'] is not a specific period of time. Creation itself was much longer than 144 hours, my friend. Maybe billions of our years, now. What is time to God? Does it matter? Not to Him. So, 6,000 years cannot be justified. Is Moses confused between Genesis 1 and 2? Did Elijah halt the sun for a period of time? Why do we not encounter Mary, the mother of Jesus, again in the biblical record after his crucifixion and resurrection? Joseph, her husband, by the way, [an unimportant character, after all?] disappears from the record after they find Jesus in the temple when Jesus is 12. Where did he go? Why? Will you insist that Jesus ignored his own mother once he resurrected? Or, is the Bible great advice, in fact, the best, as far as it goes, but is an imperfect and incomplete record as we have it, today? Like, earth being around longer than 6,000 years? And why do some Christians insist the Old Testament is unnecessary today [so do not print it], so should be ignored today? Christ said he fulfilled the Law, not ignored it. He references it multiple times, so it must still have relevance, even though Christ, himself, replaced the 1o commandments [in fact, the whole of the Torah] with 2. Those two, alone, take care of the rest, but that does not mean the history should be ignored. I'm suspicious that the first set of commandments given to Moses on Sinai may have been just the two, but it was obvious the Israelites were not yet ready for that level of devotion, let alone trust to/in God.

I am a devoted Christian, by the way, just not deluded by a 6,000-year chronology of Earth, and accepting that the Bible is not infallible. God did not write it, did

He?

You presented poor evidence for the Big Bang

No, I didn’t. I presented a very simple analogy designed to establish a very simple logical principal; given an object’s speed and path, we can reconstruct that object’s trajectory prior to our initial observation.

Then, in a later post, I expanded with the additional balls to establish that when combining the backwards trajectory of the balls, a source hypothesis, and an experiment to test that hypothesis, you can reach a reasonable conclusion as to what caused the balls to start rolling. That’s not faith.

So no, I didn’t set out to prove the big bang. I set out to prove that your claim - that the evidence for the big bang doesn’t reasonably prove that it occurred - to be based on a complete misunderstanding of how the evidence for it works.

And no, it’s not hypocrisy to expand on my own analogy while criticizing your expansion of my analogy. I wasn’t objecting to the act of you expanding it, I was criticizing the fact that the variables you would later invoke as the basis for the analogy collapsing, were your own variables that you injected into it and which had nothing to do with my point. If you’re going to attack my point, do so by responding to what I actually said.

And no, your demonstration of the fact that my initial rolling ball analogy requires that someone (you forgot to include the possibility that some thing) started the ball rolling doesn’t refute anything I said because figuring out what that someone or something was takes further work. In logic, we address one proposition at a time. You are demanding that we address multiple propositions simultaneously and claiming victory when we attempt to show you that this isn’t how logic works.

So now let’s run this test again. Were you listening in good faith? Demonstrate this by answering the following questions which you have thus far avoided:

Q1: Can you deduce the backwards path in which that ball rolled prior to your initial observation at point A?

Q2: Can you calculate where in that path the ball would have been 5 seconds earlier given that you have observed both its path and its speed?

Once you address these two simple questions, then we can move the conversation forward instead of me having to explain to you what words mean.

@Skipper wrote in post #51: What made you change your mind?

The Living God Jesus Christ’s work in me (Ephesians 2:8-10) changes not that the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Let’s take a look at the evolutionist’s belief system. Moral relativism forms a defining factor of evolutionism. For example, Big Bang philosophers believe their Big Bang proves there is no God, so they think that they may disregard God’s Commandments without consequence, such Commandments as when Jesus said “‘You will not murder, you will not commit adultery, you will not steal, you will not bear false witness, honor your father and your mother, and you will love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Matthew 19:18-19) and do not forget the foremost and greatest commandment “You will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37), but God’s Commandments do govern every evolutionist, and this Grand Creator God’s everlasting justice is certainly meted out on His creatures.

@FLRW wrote in post #54: Redshift is a valid and tested scientific method …snip

I’m introducing you to the Pharmakeia Principle, as introduced here in post #71, because you practice the principle in your post by failing to address the scientific facts laid out in post #53’s:

1. RED-SHIFT … RED-SPECTRAL
2. Redshift collapses under the Scientific Method
3. Waveforms, it gets worse for red-shift conjecturers
4. Astronomical Observations, red shift sinks further into the abyss
5. History, red-shift rapidly morphs into blue-shift
6. Conclusion for your pillar of red-shift

I would be happy to engage in debate with you in this forum, but you will need to intelligently respond to the arguments.

Your state aa a matter of fact that which is truly faith for you and GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) for your AI (abased intelligence).

Using red-shift to estimate cosmic distance is a core part of modern astronomy rooted in the Hubble-Lemaître Law, where the stretching of light wavelengths correlates with the expansion of space. While it is a valid and tested scientific method, converting red-shift into an exact distance involves complex cosmological models rather than a simple, direct ruler.

Ok, let's start with this. What college degrees do you have?

Kermos wrote:

@Skipper wrote in post #51: What made you change your mind?

The Living God Jesus Christ’s work in me (Ephesians 2:8-10) changes not that the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Ephesians 2:8-10 has nothing whatsoever to do with the Big Bang.

Let’s take a look at the evolutionist’s belief system. Moral relativism forms a defining factor of evolutionism.

Nope, moral relativism has nothing to do with evolution.

For example, Big Bang philosophers believe their Big Bang proves there is no God,

Nonsense, you made that up, and it is not true, which is to say that you bear false witness.

so they think that they may disregard God’s Commandments without consequence, such Commandments as when Jesus said “‘You will not murder, you will not commit adultery, you will not steal, you will not bear false witness,

You already told us that God broke the ninth commandment, you are pushing a deceptive God that bears false witness by dishonestly filling the earth with fake evidence for evolution.  You are not making an argument against the Big Bang theory; you are making an argument for abandoning Christianity.

honor your father and your mother, and you will love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Matthew 19:18-19) and do not forget the foremost and greatest commandment “You will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37), but God’s Commandments do govern every evolutionist, and this Grand Creator God’s everlasting justice is certainly meted out on His creatures.

You clearly violate the commandment to love God by disparaging God, calling God dishonest is a blasphemous desecration conflicting with Proverbs 12:22. 

Repent sinner, before it’s too late.

@linate wrote in post #55: @Kermos Thank you …snip… However, I don’t think your objections actually overturn the evidence for the Big Bang or require belief in a 6,000-year-old Earth. …snip

Thank you for coming back with what apoears to be your own words.

Please notice the difference between the thread title “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith” versus that you wrote “overturn the evidence for the Big Bang”. I’m making the case that the Big Bang is a belief, not fact.

1. Redshift is merely an untested assumption.

The Doppler effect for light is specifically for light. Scientists teach that light is massless thing called a photon which travels at 186,000 miles per second without anything exceeding that speed.

Review your writing for a massless thing called “light” being affected by the Doppler effect for light in “…snip…The Doppler effect for light has been tested countless times in laboratories. We routinely measure Doppler shifts from moving atoms, lasers, satellites, spacecraft, police radar, binary stars, and galaxies. Modern GPS systems even require relativistic corrections involving frequency shifts.” Binary stars and galaxies must be removed from the list as they are under scrutiny as the debated matter (you inserted them into your argument as if they are in fact red-shift):

1. “atoms” are not massless, so atoms are excluded as proof of the Doppler effect for light.
2. “lasers”, or more specifically, laser is an acronym for “light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation”, and they are “Any of several devices that emit highly amplified and coherent radiation of one or more discrete wavelengths. One of the most common lasers makes use of atoms in a metastable energy state, which, as they decay to a lower energy level, stimulate others to decay, resulting in a cascade of emitted radiation.” (See American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. on www.thefreedictionary.com/laser, so a red laser radiates red light as per an instrument’s calibration, but lasers are not emmitting light that is the Doppler effect of light. Lasers are excluded as proof of the Doppler effect for light.
3. “satellites” measure not the Doppler effect for light. You failed to show your work as support for your belief, so satellites are excluded as proof of the Doppler effect for light.
4. “spacecraft” measure not the Doppler effect for light. You failed to show your work as support for your belief, so spacecraft are excluded as proof of the Doppler effect for light.
5. “police radar”, or more generically radar is an acronym for “radio detection and ranging”, so they measure not the Doppler effect for light. You failed to show your work as support for your belief, so police radar are excluded as proof of the Doppler effect for light.
6. “Modern GPS systems”, or as class of device, GPS is an acronym for “global positioning system”, so they measure terrestrial locations not the Doppler effect for light. You failed to show your work as support for your belief, so Modern GPS systems are excluded as proof of the Doppler effect for light.

I showed my work in section “1. RED-SHIFT … RED-SPECTRAL” of it’s second subsection “Waveforms, it gets worse for red-shift conjecturers” of post #53 which demonstrates that red shift is merely red spectral.

All of your enumerated proofs failed to manifest the Doppler effect for light, so you have shown that Redshift is merely an untested belief without proof (assumption).

You neglected to address section “1. RED-SHIFT … RED-SPECTRAL” of it’s first subsection “Redshift collapses under the Scientific Method” in post #53.

You wrote “…snip…Furthermore, the cosmological redshift is not simply “the Doppler effect.” General Relativity predicts that as space itself expands, the wavelength of light stretches. That prediction matches observations extremely well”, so I point you to post #61 which demonstrates - even according to Stephen Hawking - the error of General Relativity based observations.

In your writing of “…snip…You also mention a quasar apparently embedded in a nearby galaxy…snip…none has overturned the overall redshift-distance relationship that is supported by millions of galaxies rather than one disputed example…snip…If one bridge has a crack, that doesn’t prove every bridge in the world is unsafe”, you convey as distinct “fact” (please see the Pharmakeia Principle outlined in post #71) there is only one such quasar, but the authoring team of “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper including Geoffrey Burbidge, noted professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, discreetly enumerated far greater number of such quasars in the referenced paper than your one such quasar.

It’s not one bridge that has a crack for the Big Bang, @linate, your bridges are riddled with cracks and collapsed. The red-shift cracks. The CMBR cracks. The quasar-galaxy bridge is a thing according to astronomer and astrophysicist astrologers.

2. The Cosmic Microwave Background was not predicted

You wrote “…snip…The Cosmic Microwave Background was predicted before it was discovered” about your original words of “In 1965, astronomers accidentally discovered faint microwave radiation coming from every direction in space”, yet McKellar documented (potentially discovered (there may have been someone before McKellar)) the microwave radiation in 1941 before Gamow before Penzias and Wilson in 1965. You are doubling down on the false “fact” that, in your words, “…snip…A prediction being made before an observation is exactly what scientists hope for”.

The section “2. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)” of it’s first subsection “Scientist’s, er, philosopher’s public CMBR deception” stands intact as previously demonstrated here and in post #53.

3. The McKellar measurements were measurements of the CMB

Read this first sentence of the abstract from “A Review of the 1941 to 1961 CMBR Temperature Measurements” (by Patrick Bruskiewich of the Vancouver Institute for Advanced Studies)

In this paper I will review the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) Temperature Measurements collected by the Canadian Astronomer Dr. McKellar in 1941

You dismissed through salacious statements like “…snip…The McKellar measurements were not measurements of the CMB…snip…Comparing those numbers as though they were repeated measurements of the same thing is not valid…snip…sets doesn’t tell us whether two experiments measured the same physical quantity” reveal your belief is errant because McKellar measured the same thing, CMBR, as Penzias and Wilson. By the way, Dicke et al (1965) were the party who claimed to calculate the existence of the unknown known (scienced) CMBR (you call their work “prediction”).

The section “2. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)” of it’s second subsection “CMBR UnSETtling Theory” stands intact as previously demonstrated here and in post #53.

Your wrongful dismissal of McKellar’s CMBR work leads to you neglecting to address section “2. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)” of it’s third subsection “CMBR Average Disformity” in post #53.

You neglected to address section “2. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)” of it’s fourth subsection “CMBR Logical Conclusion” in post #53.

Your CMBR decreasing in temperature over time is disproven by the data leaving you with a leap of faith for your Big Bang.

4. Linguistics: two mutually exclusive types (1) of truth (2) of deception

Scientists abnormally use words in order to sound authoritative as well as to project their beliefs as scientific fact.

The word predict is composed of the prefix “pre” meaning before and the root “dict” meaning speak. The technical basic meaning for the word “predict” is “speak before”. The normal definition of predict is:

v.tr.

To state, tell about, or make known in advance, especially on the basis of special knowledge: predicted an active hurricane season because of warmer ocean-surface temperatures.

*v.intr."

To foretell something

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. on www.thefreedictionary.com/predict

Scientists do not “foretell” (predict) a past event. Your dinosaur bone location example is akin to the hurricane formation prediction example in the definition of predict. Both are based on existing human witness of a thing (thing=dinosaur aka dragon aka behemoth aka Loch Ness monster footprints) (thing=warm ocean) and the potential future human witness of a related artifact (artifact=bones) (artifact=hurricane). The 13.8 billion year past Big Bang fails to qualify for prediction (foretell) because the Big Bang is not a future event.

You wrote ‘…snip…“Prediction” is not limited to future events’ which is a false statement and abnormal linguistically, and you extended your Pharmakeia Principle (see post #71) exhibition with your “…snip…Likewise, cosmologists predicted that if the universe began in a hot dense state, then today we should observe a microwave background with specific properties. That prediction was later confirmed” which, by definition, is not a prediction.

Your whole ‘4. “Prediction” is not limited to future events.’ section is your display of the Pharmakeia Principle (see post #71).

5. Your broad Scientific Method description converges in faith/belief

Your “…snip…You repeatedly state that because nobody can recreate the Big Bang in a laboratory, it isn’t science” is not what I have written. Please do not misrepresent my writings. I distinguish between the Pharmakeia Principle (see post #71) grandiose term “science” and the scientific method.

Distinguishing between historical conjecture and the scientific method.

A person either believes or disbelieves the historical record of human witness; in other words, one either believes a historian or not. Where there is no human witness, there is historical conjecture. Things in the classification of historical conjecture are not the scientific method. The Big Bang is in the historical conjecture (guesswork) class because no human observed a natural phenomenon called the Big Bang.

The scientific method’s first phase is a hypothesis. A hypothesis requires an observed natural phenomenon as part of the hypothesis. The original post’s reference to LiveScience indicates as such even going so far, in essence, to exclude belief/faith. Without that human witness, you have a belief/faith which is specifically disallowed for the scientific method.

Your objections in your “5. The Scientific Method is broader than your description” section are outside the Big Bang as belief scope of this thread with the potential exceptions of “…snip…astronomy” and “…snip…supernova”, so I discard your other objection points.

If you want to delve into a detailed explanation of your objections embedded as per your “astronomy” and “supernova” arguments, then you will need to elaborate to me.

As it currently stands, your complaint that “if this is true, then that is broken” fails to show that your red-shift is anything more than red-spectral and fails to show that your CMBR was a lesser temperature in 1941 as compared to 1965.

In a similar vein, you claiming “…snip…The Big Bang has survived many such tests” lacks scientific fact explanatory support from you in this thread. You making an unsupported claim does not make the claim a scientific fact.

6. The amount of data and the amount of time are important

Your detective case disected

Crucially, the entirety of your detective example is in human witness timeframe.

Whether a murder victim corpse was found makes a difference. Two competing alternatives exist:

1. with a corpse: identification of perpetrator(s) may proceed through investigation of means, morive, and opportunity, but the original detective(s) didn’t build a case with all the evidence 20 years prior, and the vast majority of cold cases remain unsolved.
2. without a corpse: qualifies as a missing person case. Again, the original detective(s) didn’t build a case with all the evidence 20 years prior, and the vast majority of cold cases remain unsolved.

The “with a corpse” bullet point represents a realistic scenario.

The “without a corpse” bullet point is closer to the Big Bang Theory, but the second bullet point represents you making an unsubstantiated claim.

Nonetheless, both bullet points are in human witness period, so both bullet points are substantively divergent from the Big Bang.

Your statement “…snip…Every distant galaxy is effectively another data point” applies to belief. I believe every galaxy points to God. You believe every galaxy points to the Big Bang.

The Zenith Model of post #53 remains intact.

7. Your faith-based cosmic distance ladder

This current post’s first few sections demonstrated your error regarding the nonsense nonscience red-shift as well as your CMBR deception of decreasing temperature as time progresses; in other words, major rungs of your cosmic distance ladder are broken thus a leap of faith, but it gets worse for you!

I provided triangulation angle deficiency for parallax over purportedly massive distances in the Episcopic Model of post #53.

Now, the debate moves on to yet another rung of the cosmic distance ladder, and this shows the rung is missing.

Cepheid variable; faith not fact

Astronomers believe Polaris is the nearest Cepheid variable star to Earth, at 445.5 light years (2,673,000,000,000,000 miles). Polaris is commonly referred to as the North Star.

Polaris’ minimum and maximum diameter in miles at Polaris is unobserved by astronomers, and any temperature change for Polaris is not measurable at Polaris by astronomers.

Astronomers possess no luminosity data at the source for Polaris, but astronomers do possess brightness data at Earth.

And, finally, astronomers never accurately measured the distance from Polaris to Earth - see the Episcopic Model (spatial limitations, too vast a visage) in post #53.

Astronomers do not collect sufficient, complete, and accurate data at 2,673,000,000,000,000 miles (2.6 quadrillion miles) from Polaris, the nearest Cepheid variable star, nor any other Cepheid star for comparative parallax measurements which astronomers believe are more distant from Earth.

Astronomer Henrietta Swan Leavitt published a 21-page account of her work “1777 Variables in the Magellanic Clouds” in 1908 with more astronomical work before her death in 1925. She believed that observing a Cepheid star’s pulsation period results in astronomers knowing the luminosity at a Cepheid star thus astronomers believe they possess sufficient information to determine fantastic Interstellar distances. Based on Leavitt’s work, astronomers believe they can use the luminosity of a Cepheid star in the inverse square law, which requires knowing either the distance or the luminosity at source, to determine the distance to Cepheid variable stars, and they further believe that they can hopscotch hugely gargantuan distances using these “known” (truly unknown) luminosity (of a star at the star) illogically based on observed brightness (of a star at Earth) calibrated with parallax distance to Polaris (or another Cepheid star with a “known” distance from Earth) which results in the distance to another star.

Cepheid variable nonsense nonscience is your prophetess Leavitt and her progeny preaching the abundance of light and parallax of your star bible’s millions and billions of light years away with millions and billions of years in the past.

Rewind to the foundational star bible contribution by Leavitt in which astronomers use an unobserved luminosity to calculate a star’s distance. Astronomer astrologers cannot determine the luminosity, which requires measurement at the source star, of a Cepheid by observing the change in the star’s brightness, which is a measurement at Earth - such brightness-to-luminosity extrapolation is a leap of faith.

Your cosmic distance ladder bullet list is a bust list

Your bullet list contains several points that range from duplication to absurdly fictitious (i.e. “Radar inside the Solar System” - radar is a man-made instrument); furthermore, you wrote “…snip…If one rung failed, the ladder could collapse”, and I have shown multiple failed rungs (red-spectral, CMBR increase, Cepheid light error), so the cosmic distance ladder collapsed into a leap of faith for the Big Bang - the cosmic distance ladder is busted.

8. The Big Bang is evolution religion

Please stop changing my words to “science” and “cosmology”.

Big Bang adherents have a god that they call universe.

I heard people say “it’s what the universe wanted”.

You and others dogmatically push your god named universe.

9. Jesus Christ is Maker of all the Heavens and Earth and all that is in them, seen and unseen

In your closing paragraph, you started with “…snip…As Christians, we”.

If you are a Christian, then you believe that all occurrences of six days in the fourth Commandment exclusively refer to 24 hour per day literal six days. Lord Jesus Christ is the Word of God (John 1:14), and the Word of God commands:

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

(Exodus 20:8-11)

If you are a Christian, then you believe that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation when the six days of making all the stars and planets and Earth culminated with God creating man. Lord Jesus Christ is the Word of God (John 1:14), and the Word of God declares:

He who created them from the beginning “made them male and female”

(Matthew 19:4).

@FLRW wrote in post #56: Key Facts About CMBR …snip… Formed about 380,000 years after the Big Bang …snip

You continue to exhibit the Pharmakeia Principle (explained in post #71) by your absolute declaration that CMBR is a scientific “Fact”; furthermore, you practice the principle in your post by failing to address the scientific facts laid out in post #53’s:

1. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)

1. Scientist’s, er, philosopher’s public
2. CMBR deception
3. CMBR UnSETtling Theory
4. CMBR Average Disformity
5. CMBR Logical Conclusion

I would be happy to engage in debate with you in this forum, but you will need to intelligently respond to the arguments of post #53.

In the meantime, you leave the Big Bang in a state of faith.

@SkepticalOne wrote in post #62: Rowland is advancing the measurements of the 1919 eclipse didn’t validate Relativity because the bending of light was due to the sun’s atmosphere rather than gravity.

I appreciate you taking the time to partially disect the post #61 which I addressed to you.

With your writing of …snip….“The Bullet Cluster and time delay lensing represent two specific counters”, you convey “gravitational lensing proves gravitational lensing, so Rowland is wrong”; therefore, your conclusion is built on a circular reasoning premise which you stated as a matter of scientific fact thus exhibiting the Pharmakeia Principle (explained in post #71).

Your conveyance manifests in a manner similar to Hawking’s star bible contribution with his “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”.

Astronomer astrologers believe:

The Bullet Cluster (1E 0657-56) consists of two colliding clusters of galaxies. Strictly speaking, the name Bullet Cluster refers to the smaller subcluster, moving away from the larger one. It is at a comoving radial distance of 1.141 Gpc (3.72 billion light-years).[2]

(from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster)

As I relatedly demonstrated in the Episcopic Model (post #53), that Bullet Cluster with it’s purported 19,620,000,000,000,000,000,000 mile distance from Earth is seriously a leap of faith for General Relativity’s gravitational lens measurements into your Big Bang belief!

Your high priest Hawking’s star bible contribution is a self-inflicted indictment of astronomer astrologer’s Big Bang, even against Einstein’s General Relativity Theory, even against your citation of “the Big Bang (Penrose-Hawking theorems)”.

My prior post #61 to you, to which you were responding, remains intact.

You continue in the Big Bang faith zone.

With your writing of …snip….“The Bullet Cluster and time delay lensing represent two specific counters”, you convey “gravitational lensing proves gravitational lensing, so Rowland is wrong”; therefore, your conclusion is built on a circular reasoning premise which you stated as a matter of scientific fact thus exhibiting the Pharmakeia Principle (explained in post

The Bullet Cluster shows offset dark matter mass, while time delay lensing measures cosmic expansion rates and mass profiles via light travel times. It is a matter of empirical testing, not circular reasoning.

@Helz wrote in post #63: I do not think its fair to say the big bang itself is some kinda faith thing. …snip… work in a multiverse. But really regardless of creationism I see rejecting that there was some sort of big bang about on par with people arguing the Earth is flat. Possible ehhh…. sure… ish? But also kinda tin foil hat level of low brow takes.

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

I didn’t ask whether you think it’s fair, Helz. Your post deviated from the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”. You asserting that “you know what you know” is poor evidence for a 13.8 bn year old Big Bang because you don’t know (science) based on your own word “potentials” which indicates your Big Bang leap of faith.

@Sidewalker wrote in post #64: @Kermos According to our best science, six days is 14 billion years.

14 billion years is 5,110,000,000,000 days (not adjusting for anomalies such as a quarter second every four years).

Your best knowledge (science) is that 6 days is 5,110,000,000,000 days.

Your best science is garbage, and I detail the reason in this paragraph. Your word “is” translates into the mathematical symbol “=”; therefore, your best science arrives at the false equation of:

6=5,110,000,000,000

The equation of:

6<5,110,000,000,000

represents Truth (John 14:6).

Your best science of 6=5,110,000,000,000 and my best science of 6≠5,110,000,000,000 are two different knowledge bases. Your knowledge (science) is incorrect, and my knowledge (science) is correct.

@Sidewalker wrote in post #64: I’m going to paraphrase a very interesting analysis originally presented by Gerald Scroeder, an American Physicist and Orthodox Jew.

I want to make clear that I applied no effort to research your “Gerald Scroeder”, so my references to him are contingent upon your writing which may be entirely false about him; in other words, I’m treating your Gerald Scroeder as merely an example guy that you made up as far as I’m concerned.

Do not be unaware that an “Orthodox Jew” is not the same as a “Messianic Jew”. The word “Christ” arrives in English from the Hebrew word “מָשִׁיחַ” (Messiah) which means Anointed One. King Jesus is the Anointed One. The Christ in Christian is what makes one a Christian. A Messianic Jew is a Christian, but an Orthodox Jew is not a Christian. Orthodox Jews are against the Son of God Jesus Christ and Christians as recorded in the beating on John and Peter (Acts 4:1-22 and [Acts 5:17-42](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+5%3A17-42&version=NASB1995%3BKJV%3BYLT

Lord Jesus Christ made abundantly clear about people like your Gerald Scroeder “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44).

The obscurement of 6 days by your Orthodox Jew is a deliberate dark enemy deception against the Light Jesus Christ. The Word of God spoke through the prophet Isaiah (46:10) telling us that He revealed the end from the beginning, so before we turn to “In the beginning, God…” in Genesis 1, let’s keep in mind these points about God’s perspective on time. With the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day (2 Peter 3:8, see also Psalm 90:4). That is not your “single twenty-four-hour day, from the frame of reference of the beginning, would have expanded in such a way that it would be measured as roughly eight billion years from today’s frame of reference”, but it is written “in Your sight a thousand years are but a day” (Psalm 90:4) about God; therefore, your Orthodox Jew witness is wickedly wrong. The Orthodox Jews knew about Jesus the Christ, but they rejected Him to their own destruction. Jesus the Lamb of God was prophecied (predicted) to atone for man’s sins in the 5th day, that is, the 4,000-4,999 year range (Genesis 1:18 and Exodus 12:6 among many other passages), and the prophecy was fulfilled about 2 thousand years ago. We are in the last days for Jesus says “I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course” (Luke 13:32 and see Hosea 6:2). See that “today and tomorrow” are years 4,000-5,999 which lands at the year 2000AD-ish when oppositions of science falsely so called: (1 Timothy 6:20) run rampant as part of man’s crimes against God unto everlasting punishment for such men (John 3:36).

Your Orthodox Jew Gerald Scroeder disbelieved the Word of God declaration of six days for creation (Exodus 20:8-11 and Genesis 1:1-31).

So there you go, there is distinct conflict between 6 days and 14 billion years, the Big Bang is just a matter of faith, not fact, but a leap of faith.

I get it, you don't understand science or Christianity.

Point made.

@Double_R wrote in post #65: @Kermos Any responses to post 46?

Thanks for your interest. I diligently proceed through the posts chronologically, so I responded to your Big Bang poor evidence post 46 in my post #74 in which I delineated in chronologically factual event detail precisely the process of you engaging in hypocrisy over analogy presentation instead of you addressing the ball analogy as a contributing debate argument about the Big Bang as a leap of faith.

A. "Big Bang" is a theory based upon known scientific principles...Wherein the search for proof is ongoing and therefore "faith" is irrelevant.

B. Religion is a hypothesis based upon make believe...Wherein "faith" arrogantly doesn't bother about the need for proof.

Big Bang" itself, is simply an epithet or nickname for an unknown cause of a universal event.

Attempting to denigrate A. by drawing inappropriate comparisons with the B. is a facile strategy.

And the trouble with popular nicknames such as Big Bang or God, is their popularity.