Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith

@FLRW wrote in post #169: The Sun has been shining for 4.6 billion years.

Your statement is faith, not scientific fact.

@FLRW wrote in post #169: Considerable hydrogen has been converted to helium in the core, where the burning is most rapid.

Your statement is a leap of faith. You have NO idea of the Sun’s core.

@FLRW wrote in post #169: The helium remains there, where it absorbs radiation more readily than hydrogen. This raises the central temperature and increases the brightness.

Your statement is speculative faith, not the scientific method about the Sun’s center.

@FLRW wrote in post #169: Model calculations conclude that the Sun becomes 10 percent brighter every billion years;

Your magical, mystical math calculations are your belief system, not a scientific method explanation, so astronomer astrologers deceiving vulnerable people. It’s akin to the scientific method (detailed) versus unscientific confirmation of error example of William and Valdemar recorded in post #118.

@FLRW wrote in post #169: hence it must now be at least 40 percent brighter than at the time of planet formation.

You disguise your faith as fact in your statement, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #169: This would produce an increase in Earth’s temperature, but no such effect appears in the fossil record. There were probably compensating thermostatic effects in the atmosphere of Earth, such as the greenhouse effect and cloudiness. The young Sun may also have been more massive, and thus more luminous, and would have lost its early mass through the solar wind. The increase in solar brightness can be expected to continue as the hydrogen in the core is depleted and the region of nuclear burning moves outward. At least as important for the future of Earth is the fact that tidal friction will slow down Earth’s rotation until, in four billion years, its rotation will match that of the Moon, turning once in 30 of our present days.

You speculate, followed by more speculation, with interjections of non big bang argument, extended by more conjecture, expanded by your magical, mystical arts of astronomer astrologers.

You have no scientific proof of the Sun’s internals. The Sun is the closest star to Earth, and you science (know) nothing about the Sun’s core; therefore, your claims about the Sun are leaps of faith.

You don’t know what elements are inside of the Sun, at a mere 8 light minutes from Earth, so you have absolutely no idea of all the elements that could be in the Magellanic Clouds.

I remind you of your astrophysicist Stephen Hawking’s “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”.

The Big Bang is nothing more than a leap of faith. Try as you may, try as you might, you meander in mythical Big Bang mindset.

We put faith in science; and you put your faith in a deceptive God.

So, what? Why is that such a big deal to you.

Are you saying your faith in a deceptive God is better than our faith in science?

I notice you still use science's computers and internet, does that mean you are cheating on the God of deception?

Isn't in hypocritical for you to reject science but accept its gifts?

Computers and the internet were created by humans. Just like the universe was created by God. Science just explains how things function.

To Sidewalker:

a deceptive God.

Why do you think God is deceptive? Has He told you such? I'm sure other people have, but what is their source for that opinion? Other people? And their source?

Truth must be able to be demonstrated by empirical evidence. Science, to date, recognizes only 5 sources of information reception: our five senses. I have said in this thread, and others, that I am certain that other senses are available to us that science, one day, will acknowledge. What, then? Still a deceptive God?

See https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsnr/article/76/1/155/48389/The-1919-eclipse-results-that-verified-general

Abstract

Einstein became world famous on 7 November 1919, following press publication of a meeting held in London on 6 November 1919 where the results were announced of two British expeditions led by Eddington, Dyson and Davidson to measure how much background starlight is bent as it passes the Sun. Three data sets were obtained: two showed the measured deflection matched the theoretical prediction of Einstein's 1915 Theory of General Relativity, and became the official result; the third was discarded as defective.

At the time, the experimental result was accepted by the expert astronomical community. However, in 1980 a study by philosophers of science Earman and Glymour claimed that the data selection in the 1919 analysis was flawed and that the discarded data set was fully valid and was not consistent with the Einstein prediction, and that, therefore, the overall result did not verify General Relativity. This claim, and the resulting accusation of Eddington's bias, was repeated with exaggeration in later literature and has become ubiquitous.

The 1919 and 1980 analyses of the same data provide two discordant conclusions. We reanalyze the 1919 data, and identify the error that undermines the conclusions of Earman and Glymour.

fauxlaw wrote:

To Sidewalker:

a deceptive God.

Why do you think God is deceptive?

I don't, but that is what Kermos is selling.

Early in this thread, his argument was that God created Man with a rational mind, a sense of wonder, and a seeking intellect capable of developing things like logic, mathematics, technology, and science, while placed that Man into a six-thousand-year-old universe that has the appearance of great age along with fake evidence and the like. I'm not buying his idea of a God that creates the Universe as a lie.

His concept of a deceptive God is very hard to accept; it strikes me as a much greater challenge to Christianity than any damage the concept of evolution could ever hope to do. He thinks he is denigrating the Big Bang theory, but he isn't, he's denigrating God.

Truth must be able to be demonstrated by empirical evidence.

Yeah, but that doesn't work if a trickster God is planting fake evidence.

Science, to date, recognizes only 5 sources of information reception: our five senses. I have said in this thread, and others, that I am certain that other senses are available to us that science, one day, will acknowledge. What, then? Still a deceptive God?

I think it was Aristotle that said there were five maybe, in any event, I think science recognizes around thirty senses now, and I think there's even more than that. There is experiential evidence that is available to those who want to orient their thinking along the lines of faith. People who say there is no evidence for God don't accept the age-old contention of every faith, that it requires a specific way of looking,

Matthew 7:8

For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

Debby wrote:

Computers and the internet were created by humans.

Created by humans using science, I think if yiu want to reject science that's fine, but if you do, you shouldn't use the things science gives us.

Rejecting science on a computer is hypocritical.

Scientist were looking for an alternate theory of creation besides the Bible. It concluded the universe was created suddenly with a Big Bang. That doesn’t differ from the creation in the Bible when God created the universe.

Debby wrote:

Scientist were looking for an alternate theory of creation besides the Bible. It concluded the universe was created suddenly with a Big Bang. That doesn’t differ from the creation in the Bible when God created the universe.

Essentially, Genesis and current cosmological theory say the same thing. It was a Belgian priest and physicist named Georges Lemaître who first saw in Einstein's equations that the universe had a beginning. In 1927, he used Albert Einstein’s equations of General Relativity to show the universe was expanding, and in 1931 he advanced the "primeval atom" idea—which is the foundation of the Big Bang theory. Einstein couldn't believe it and added the cosmological constant to keep the universe static and dismiss Lemaître’s expanding model. He later accepted it and removed the constant after Edwin Hubble provided observational evidence that the universe was indeed expanding.

It was the Judeo-Christian world view that changed the world's conception of time itself, prior to that the predominant view was of a cyclical universe, the Ancient Greeks thought Socrates drank the Hemlock at exactly the same moment every cycle. The Christian idea that time had a beginning and progresses linearly fundamentally changed the way we think about time, and it was a Priest that recognized that Einstein's equations confirmed the Judeo-Christian theory over three thousand years later. Science doesn't just concur with Genesis in the sense of time having a beginning, it has developed a theory of the evolution of the universe that corresponds to Genesis 1 almost perfectly. Genesis 1 recapitulates the story of the creation of external reality in only thirty-one sentences listing 14 major events in the same order as current scientific theory orders them. These 14 events could have been ordered in over 87 billion different ways, Genesis puts forth the scientifically correct sequence beginning with Light first and Man last, which has now (3500 years later) been shown to exactly match the sequence that modern science accepts.

Genesis represented the birth of something new in mankind’s intellectual growth, a new beginning that expanded our awareness and enlarge our perception, a generating of a new mental life, new opportunities, new potential, and new fecundity in the collective mind of humanity. It is more than just interesting that 3500 years later, science has arrived at the very same picture of reality. There is little doubt that science confirms rather than denies the imaging of reality that was presented by Genesis 3500 years ago.

We shall not cease from exploration

And the end of all our exploring

Will be to arrive where we started

And know the place for the first time.

T. S. Eliot

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #170: @Debby, @FLRW, @Kermos Nice data FLRW.

FLRW produced faith based data, not scientific method based data as shown in post #181, so you complimented FLRW’s Big Bang Belief.

You lack scientific method derived fact about the element distribution in the Universe, and you lack fact about the Big Bang, so you are in a Big Bang leap of faith.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #170: And …snip

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

The BigBang theory is not an act of faith because it is backed by science. Just like God’s. creation of the world is backed by the Bible. Both theories use time to determine the elements of creation.

@Magoroth wrote in post #172: @Kermos I don’t see what either of these points mean, you could just both be wrong …snip

@Magoroth wrote in post #173: snip… I’ll take any claim that we discovered how the UNIVERSE came to be with a grain of salt …snip

@Magoroth wrote in post #174: 6,000 year old theory is just bigotry …snip

@Magoroth wrote in post #175: As an aside, even if belief in the Big Bang requires faith, it could still be correct and you would be wrong, faith notwothstanding.

@Magoroth wrote in post #176: Like much of what you said regarding evidence for the Big Bang is probably true, it doesn’t prove you right. …snip

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

The Big Bang theory is not a leap of faith because it relies on mathematical models, testable predictions, and hard physical evidence. Unlike faith, which accepts unproven beliefs, the scientific model of the universe changes and updates when new data arrives. Isn't children dying from leukemia proof of no God.

Just because God is not mentioned in the Big Bang does not mean he had no hand in it.

@Debby wrote in post #178: @Kermos Belief in the creation of the world billions or thousands of years ago by God or the Big Bang is both an act of faith because no one actually witnessed it.

Please reread this message to you.

Every Big Bang believer is against Christ.

I remind you of your writing “Scientists are still sorting out the inconsistencies in the BigBang theory. Use the Bible to fill in the gaps.” recorded in post #159, so you represented yourself as a Big Bang believer.

You failed to “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”, again.

The Big Bang theory is not a leap of faith because there are no other theories competing with it. The Bible also says the universe was created spread over time. The Big Bang supports the Bible story of creation because there are no universe came from nothing.

@Sidewalker wrote in post #182: @Kermos We put faith in science …snip

You do not put your faith in scientific fact regarding the Big Bang.

Do you recall writing “The universe is expanding - this is a verifiable fact. Trace this expansion back in time and you get to a single dense beginning 13.8 billion years ago” in your post #5?

In effect, you convey that you believe your faith is fact in the combination of your two quotations above. Your mind melds what you call science with faith, but you are wrong.

I demonstrated that your Big Bang expansion of the universe is a leap of faith in post #53, post #61, post #87, and post #93.

You are a Big Bang philosopher. Your faith is not in science. Your faith is in the Big Bang Philosophy.

You confuse science and philosophy.

You have a false god in your Big Bang Conjecture, and your Big Bang priests are leading you toward everlasting torment.

You failed to “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory. Science is not based on faith but evidence.

@FLRW wrote in post #185: @Kermos See ht …snip… Abstract Einstein became world famous …snip… We reanalyze the 1919 data, and identify the error that undermines the conclusions of Earman and Glymour.

You provide no scientific data from your article link. By the way, neither Earman nor Glymour are named Rowland. I quoted detailed scientific data from Rowland’s article in post #61 which culminated with Rowland writing about Eddington, Dyson, and Commelin’s 1919 demonstrated in the provided quote to be sloppy work “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]”.

Notice the closing [3] reference in that quote which is the “What Einstein did Not Consider about Gravity” in which Rowland detailed:

In 1908, attempting to better explain his former student’s theory of special relativity (E=mc2), mathematics professor Hermann Minkowski expressed it in terms of a mathematical model that fused time and the three dimensions of space into a single four-dimensional continuum (later known as Minkowski spacetime). Notice two things about this model:  Figure 1: Hypothetical Minkowski 4-D Spacetime

1. It is not possible to assign co-ordinates to the hypothetical time axis; and
2. Because E = mc2 does not include any time variable, there is nowhere said equation fits into this four-dimensional model.

Source of Figure 1: Wikipedia [9].

That’s just a small portion of the logic and rational reasoning in Rowland’s article.

Essentially, Einstein’s General Relativity, Einstein’s Special Relativity, Minkowski spacetime, and related gravitational lensing are fictional fantasy faith, not fact, just faith.

Therefore, your E=MC2 is a leap of faith as support for the Big Bang.

You see, I placed detailed scientific data supported by source link right in front of you, again, but you post nonscience abstract with a source link. Your debate skills are abysmal.

It appears to me that your data is so patheticly paltry that you hide behind your paper’s abstract.

The Big Bang Theory fails to adhere to the Scientific Method. The Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Kermos wrote:

@FLRW wrote in post #185: @Kermos See ht …snip… Abstract Einstein became world famous …snip… We reanalyze the 1919 data, and identify the error that undermines the conclusions of Earman and Glymour.

You provide no scientific data from your article link. By the way, neither Earman nor Glymour are named Rowland. I quoted detailed scientific data from Rowland’s article in post #61 which culminated with Rowland writing about Eddington, Dyson, and Commelin’s 1919 demonstrated in the provided quote to be sloppy work “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]”.

Notice the closing [3] reference in that quote which is the “What Einstein did Not Consider about Gravity” in which Rowland detailed:

In 1908, attempting to better explain his former student’s theory of special relativity (E=mc2), mathematics professor Hermann Minkowski expressed it in terms of a mathematical model that fused time and the three dimensions of space into a single four-dimensional continuum (later known as Minkowski spacetime). Notice two things about this model:  Figure 1: Hypothetical Minkowski 4-D Spacetime

1. It is not possible to assign co-ordinates to the hypothetical time axis; and
2. Because E = mc2 does not include any time variable, there is nowhere said equation fits into this four-dimensional model.

Source of Figure 1: Wikipedia [9].

That’s just a small portion of the logic and rational reasoning in Rowland’s article.

Essentially, Einstein’s General Relativity, Einstein’s Special Relativity, Minkowski spacetime, and related gravitational lensing are fictional fantasy faith, not fact, just faith.

Therefore, your E=MC2 is a leap of faith as support for the Big Bang.

You see, I placed detailed scientific data supported by source link right in front of you, again, but you post nonscience abstract with a source link. Your debate skills are abysmal.

It appears to me that your data is so patheticly paltry that you hide behind your paper’s abstract.

The Big Bang Theory fails to adhere to the Scientific Method. The Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Wtf does relativity have to do with anything?

If relativity is just fictional fantasy why is it that it explains the motion of planets better than Newton’s theory of gravity?

Also energy-matter equivalence is not a myth you can literally turn energy into matter or vice versa.

Kermos wrote:

@Magoroth wrote in post #172: @Kermos I don’t see what either of these points mean, you could just both be wrong …snip

@Magoroth wrote in post #173: snip… I’ll take any claim that we discovered how the UNIVERSE came to be with a grain of salt …snip

@Magoroth wrote in post #174: 6,000 year old theory is just bigotry …snip

@Magoroth wrote in post #175: As an aside, even if belief in the Big Bang requires faith, it could still be correct and you would be wrong, faith notwothstanding.

@Magoroth wrote in post #176: Like much of what you said regarding evidence for the Big Bang is probably true, it doesn’t prove you right. …snip

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

What’s the point in you posting any of this if you’re wrong?

He concluded it was fake and a leap of faith. Even Einstein’s Relativity Theory according to him did not meet scientific standards.

Well, it does not make sense for him to post all he did if it turns out he’s wrong. What does it matter if people’s belief in the Big Bang is an act of faith, if his belief in the Universe being 6,000 years old turns out to be wrong?

No religion promotes the Big Bang Theory, so they are not asking for faith in the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang is a scientific theory . Even here scientist are not asking for faith in it.

Kermos wrote:

The Big Bang Theory fails to adhere to the Scientific Method. The Big Bang is a leap of faith.

LOGIC HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You failed to address the thread topic with logic, reason, or anything resembling knowledge of the subject matter.

The Big Bang is not part of Christian theology.

Debby wrote:

No religion promotes the Big Bang Theory, so they are not asking for faith in the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang is a scientific theory . Even here scientist are not asking for faith in it.

I guess he does have a point in that it comes down to faith, both the Big Bang Theory and the idea that the Earth was created 6000 years ago are based on faith. It’s just that

1) One being wrong does not imply the other is correct, which is what he seems to be missing

2) The belief that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago has even less support than the Big Bang, which is impressive when you think about it because we’re basically just monkeys talking about things that happened THIRTEEN BILLION YEARS AGO (and supposedly at the beginning of the world), which is like protozoa debating nuclear physics.

The Big Bang is a scientific theory, scientific theories are based on empirical evidence, observation and testability rather than religious or unverified faith.

In your #181, you criticized FLRW: "Your magical, mystical math calculations are your belief system, not a scientific method explanation, so astronomer astrologers deceiving vulnerable people."  Magical, mystical math is a curious accusation, but then you go off the rails with "astronomer astrologers." Show me, please, a present-day-practicing astrronomer astrologer. It is well known that some astronomers of the past practiced astrology, producing charts and other paraphernalia of astrology, such as Johannes Kepler and Tycho Brahe produced horoscopes, but today? No. I suppose anything is possible, but the practical fact is that no well-educated astronomer today is known to practice astrology except in a theoretical closet. That one takes away any credibility you've been trying to establish in this thread.

I have a stool in a corner, and you have a double-cone illustration one can print and give you to roll into that shape and wear...

Either that, or have some proper respect for science and religion.

Debby:

The Big Bang is not part of Christian theology.

Curious that it was a Roman Catholic priest who proposed the concept of an ever-expanding universe in 1927, which became the kernel of the eventual theory of the Big Bang, so you ought to be careful about what you claim without taking a bit of time to research. It's so easy to ask questions and obtain scholarly support for your theories. What's a priest doing asking questions of universal theory? Father LeMaitre must have been a guy unafraid of answers. Who says anyone can't ask questions? You might take a hint and stop expecting that if it isn't in the Bible, it must not exist. By contrast, I even ask questions about what the Bible contains, and what it doesn't, because it is not and should not be a singular source, even though I have read the whole thing more than once, and am currently engaged in a fifth read.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Georges-Lemaitre