Nope...Maybe you were trying to be factually observant, but what you presented didn't make much sense.

Debby wrote:

The Big Bang has not change the way we view life because it happened so long ago. And out belief system was already fixed when we discovered it.

The "Big Bang" is a creation theory and is unlikely to change a persons perception of their daily routine and how their daily routine dictates their lifetime...Because theoretically "it happened" long ago and the effects thereof would have long since established universal evolution and all events therein.

Further...Relatively speaking, "out/our belief" systems were made up and not necessarily fixed a short while ago...And for sure the term "Big Bang" was perhaps coined as recently as 1949, though the scientific basis is generally attributed to Hubble's Law and the work of Georges Lamaitre, 1927...As such "we" didn't "discover it", but rather, we proposed it.

There is no competing scientific theory with the Big Bang.so it appears as the only plausible explanation for a scientific creation theory backed by the actual creation story in the Bible.

@FLRW wrote in post #238: I like …snip

Mr. Scientist, I departed that site when the moderator suspended my account for me not complying with his demand that I write his lies as if they were true. That was not open debate on the subject matter, but that was censorship and tyrannical behavior, in fact, the “scientist” moderator’s behavior was proof for the Pharmakeia Principle (see post #71 for an explanation of the principle).

Now, your position is so very weak that you cannot defend against the Big Bang being a leap of faith.

Are you a coward or condescender or courageous?

I remind you of post #199 regarding the steong evidence to relegate Einstein’s Relativity with the Minkowski spacetime model to the dung heap.

C’mon MITman, YOU ARE HERE AND SO AM I, so show who you are. Respond to post #199!

Yes, "creation story" indeed...Freudian slip Debs.

I smile.

Creation story is the story of creation in the Bible. Read Genesis 1. There are also several verses on the expanding of the universe.

Both nuclear power and nuclear weapons are derived from one principle; that mass can be converted into energy, and the equation that exactly predicts that conversion is E = mc2. So what has that to do with Special Relativity? The answer is that E = mc2 is derived directly from Special Relativity. If relativity is wrong, then nuclear weapons simply wouldn't work. Any theory or point of view that opposes Special Relativity must explain where E = mc2 comes from if not relativity. Other models of relativity that contain E = mc2 exist but here we are concerned with the standard model as proposed by Einstein.

OMG, is Kermos really Jelly Roll ?

Debby wrote:

There is no competing scientific theory with the Big Bang.so it appears as the only plausible explanation for a scientific creation theory backed by the actual creation story in the Bible.

There are plenty of scientific theories that compete with Big Bang theory, the Big Bang is the most commonly accepted, but there are others.

Here is an AI summary of the most prevalent:

The Steady-State Theory is the primary historical scientific alternative to the Big Bang theory, proposing an eternal universe that maintains a constant density as it expands through the continuous creation of new matter.

Historical and Alternative Cosmologies

1. Steady-State Theory: Proposed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi, and Thomas Gold, it stated the universe had no beginning or end, creating roughly one hydrogen atom per cubic meter every billion years to keep density uniform. It lost mainstream support after the 1965 discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, which acts as the thermal afterglow of the Big Bang.
2. Cyclic and Ekpyrotic Models: These propose that the universe undergoes endless cycles of expansion and contraction, or that our universe was formed by the collision of multi-dimensional membranes (branes) in a higher-dimensional space. Roger Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) suggests an infinite succession of eons where the far-future cold state transitions into a new beginning.
3. Plasma and Electric Universe Cosmologies: Developed by figures like Hans Alfvén, these fringe models replace gravity-driven relativistic evolution with electromagnetic forces and plasma interactions as the dominant shaping mechanism of the cosmos. They lack broad empirical support and fail to accurately predict the CMB or Hubble's law.
4. Non-Standard and Extended Models: Active academic discussions explore modifications to standard cosmology rather than total rejections, such as alternative dark energy frameworks, eternal inflation leading to a multiverse, or bouncing cosmologies. You can read more about active debates on Non-standard cosmology on Wikipedia. You can also see an overview of Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory on Space.

The list you provided were all discredited. The Big Bang came out the winner.

Debby wrote:

The list you provided were all discredited. The Big Bang came out the winner.

I know that, but you said "There is no competing scientific theory" which is not true, there are several, that's all I was saying.

Yes a "story" told to kids who will believe what they are told and never forget it...Such is formative conditioning...Or brainwashing.

So tell kids that apples are burgers and the will order a cheeseapple and fries.

Ah, but stories maybe fictional or factual or both...And archaic stories based upon unverifiable data tend to be archaically naive, exaggerated and fancifully mythical.

And for sure Genesis were once a favourite band of mine.

Does that mean you have given up eating burgers?

No, I still listen to selective Genesis tracks from time to time.

And I still enjoy a burger, but these days they tend to be veggie.

I am currently very fond of the Linda McCartney brand, mozzarella quarter pounders.

@Debby wrote in post #239: @Kermos The Big Bang predicted an expanding universe which has been confirmed . There are other factors predicted as an outcome has also been confirmed. Thus gaining acceptance by the scientific community.

You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence.

Post #53 and post #82 logically demonstrates the fallacy of your opening two sentences.

Also, post #214 shows that your emotions are incorrect.

If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

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

@FLRW wrote in post #240: Did you know that Stephen Hawking accepted the scientific evidence for the physical Big Bang theory and also happily approved of and appeared on the TV show The Big Bang Theory. 

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

Look, Mr. Scientist, your post there is not an analytical response to my post #199 about which I asked whether you a coward or condescender or courageous to respond to my post. My post contains strong evidence to relegate Einstein’s Relativity with the Minkowski spacetime model to the dung heap.

As to your current post, Steven Hawking is not specific evidence for the Big Bang. He is demonstration of the application of his own words “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science” to himself.

If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

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 taught in schools around the world as the standard scientific model for the origin of the Universe. Case closed.

There is no valid scientific evidence to relegate Einstein’s Relativity or the Minkowski spacetime model to the "dung heap." Extensive experimental verification over many decades has confirmed that there is no instance of any validly conducted experiment ever registering disagreement with Einstein’s special or general theories. 

The Minkowski spacetime model is widely regarded as the correct and self-consistent geometric foundation for special relativity, providing crucial invariants and formalisms that enabled Einstein to successfully develop his general theory of relativity. While alternative algebraic formulations exist, they are designed to reproduce the same physical predictions rather than falsify the underlying spacetime framework. 

Because the universe is expanding slowly. It is hard to see the changes. But it is happening because the non visible parts confirm it.

@FLRW wrote in post #246: Both nuclear power and nuclear weapons are derived from one principle; that mass can be converted into energy, and the equation that exactly predicts that conversion is E = mc2. So what has that to do with Special Relativity? The answer is that E = mc2 is derived directly from Special Relativity. If relativity is wrong, then nuclear weapons simply wouldn’t work. Any theory or point of view that opposes Special Relativity must explain where E = mc2 comes from if not relativity. Other models of relativity that contain E = mc2 exist but here we are concerned with the standard model as proposed by Einstein. OMG, is Kermos really Jelly Roll ?

If your post is your best effort to respond to my post #199 which contains strong evidence to relegate Einstein’s Relativity with the Minkowski spacetime model to the leap of faith camp, then your best effort failed miserably and your best effort is less than remedial.

E=MC2 is not the nuclear energy formula. You should have scienced (known) this very simple basic fact, MITman.

As far as nuclear weapons,.. wait for it,.. E=MC2 is not the formula for the first atom bomb which was detonated at Trinity Site. Your MIT education should have taught you that, Mr. Scientist!

As a matter of scientific fact, you do not factually know (science) that E=MC2 is a valid representation of all physical phenomenon, and I can prove it!

Now to this proof I mentioned, back in the Big Bang related Friedmann equations section of post #149, I recorded the logical conclusion of your Friedmann equations which is that E=MC2 was not in force during a portion of the Universe time of existence.

That “mass can be converted into energy” requires not E=MC2 to be a fact; in other words, some other equation could define the process by which “mass can be converted into energy”.

Your claim “If relativity is wrong, then nuclear weapons simply wouldn’t work” is composed as a statement of fact, but that is truly your statement of faith. A factual statement is “If ‘mass can be converted into energy’ is wrong, then nuclear weapons simply wouldn’t work”.

Your claim “Any theory or point of view that opposes Special Relativity must explain where E = mc2 comes from if not relativity” is your statement of faith. You believe withiut proof (assume) E=MC2 remains fact apart from Einstein’s Special Relativity.

Coup de Grâce: Einstein’s Relativity Theories with the Minkowski Spacetime Model

You spent your post defending E=MC2 primarily as a function of relatively current human witness.

In post #199, the post #199 which I challenged you to respond to prove whether you are a coward or condescender or courageous, I spent the post #199 primarily as a function of all human witness even the purportedly before human witness.

That personal “Jelly Roll” maneuver of yours was an act of cowardice as evidenced by your deviation from any explicit mention of the Minkowski spacetime, so you failed to address post #199 in context.

Your final sentence was your insecurity manifesting as your self-perceived superiority in a state of condescension toward me, so between your exposed cowardice and condescension, you projected the Pharmakeia Principle post #71.

You have shown your real “degree from MIT in Nuclear Engineering Science” colors, there Mr. Scientist.

You really emMITted error and faith in your response to my post #199, so I remind you that I declared to you, “your position is so very weak that you cannot defend against the Big Bang being a leap of faith”.

Gravitational lensing is a leap of faith

You seem easily distracted, so I remind you that since Einstein’s Relativity theories with the Minkowski spacetime model are leaps of faith, then your gravitational lensing regarding the Big Bang is a leap of faith. Do know (science) that predecessor posts on this matter are post #61, post #87, post #93, and post #199.

You preach that you know (science) massive stellar distances while determining extremely ancient stellar objects because you know (science) gravitational lensing works; however, the above discussion proves that your pillar (Einstein’s Relativity theories with the Minkowski spacetime model) is not established fact for gravitational lensing; therefore, you are left with the residual fact that you are in a leap of faith for the Big Bang.

The Big Bang Theory originated in the scientific community and has remained so. The Big Bang Theory is taught around the world in schools as a scientific model for the origin of the universe. Education does not depend on a leap of faith but tried and true methods.

Hmmmm, Mass turns into energy whenever a system loses bound energy or particles vanish into radiation.

1. Nuclear Fission: When heavy atoms like uranium split apart in power plants or atomic bombs, the remaining pieces weigh slightly less than the original atom. That missing mass becomes heat and radiation.
2. Nuclear Fusion: When light atoms like hydrogen fuse together to form helium inside the Sun, the resulting helium nucleus has less mass than the separate hydrogen parts. The difference turns into sunlight and heat.

Does anyone else think that Kermos has a cross on his right cheek?

@Debby wrote in post #255: @Kermos The Big Bang theory is taught in schools around the world as the standard scientific model for the origin of the Universe. Case closed.

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence.

If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

The Big Bang is a leap of faith.

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

@FLRW wrote in post #256: There is no valid scientific evidence to relegate Einstein’s Relativity or the Minkowski spacetime model to the “dung heap.” …snip

There is valid scientific evidence to relegate Einstein’s Relativity with the Minkowski spacetime model to the “dung heap”, and I presented the evidence in post #199, yet you spent the duration of your entire post #256 conveying “I state fact because I state fact”, yet your fact is truly faith, so you provided no scientifically strong evidence to discredit Rowland’s propositions recorded in post #199.

You and your Big Bang high priests being wrong over the decades does not make you right. You act like William and Valdemar as exemplified in post #118.

I remind you that I declared to you, “your position is so very weak that you cannot defend against the Big Bang being a leap of faith”.

Hmmmm, No. The big bang theory is a scientific theory, you see. Christianity is faith-based. It is a religion.

@Debby wrote in post #259: The Big Bang Theory originated in the scientific community and has remained so. The Big Bang Theory is taught around the world in schools as a scientific model for the origin of the universe. Education does not depend on a leap of faith but tried and true methods.

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence.

If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

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

@FLRW wrote in post #260: Hmmmm, Mass turns into energy whenever a system loses bound energy or particles vanish into radiation. 1. Nuclear Fission: When heavy atoms like uranium split apart in power plants or atomic bombs, the remaining pieces weigh slightly less than the original atom. That missing mass becomes heat and radiation. 2. Nuclear Fusion: When light atoms like hydrogen fuse together to form helium inside the Sun, the resulting helium nucleus has less mass than the separate hydrogen parts. The difference turns into sunlight and heat.

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted generalization about nuclear physics at the expense of specification regarding the Big Bang.

You remain in a Big Bang Einstein’s Relativity theories with the Minkowski spacetime model leap of faith as demonstrated in post #199 and post #258.

If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

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

@FLRW wrote in post #261: Does anyone else think that Kermos has a cross on his right cheek?

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence.

You exhibited the Pharmakeia Principle post #71. I told you that “your position is so very weak that you cannot defend against the Big Bang being a leap of faith”.

You remain in a Big Bang Einstein’s Relativity theories with the Minkowski spacetime model leap of faith as demonstrated in post #199 and post #258.

If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

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

For those who are not good at science, the scientific theory the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

@FLRW wrote in post #264: Hmmmm, No. The big bang theory is a scientific theory, you see. Christianity is faith-based. It is a religion.

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence.

The Big Bang Conjecture is not of the scientific method, so the Big Bang is not scientific. The Big Bang is evolution religion. The Big Bang is faith based.

You remain in a Big Bang Einstein’s Relativity theories with the Minkowski spacetime model leap of faith as demonstrated in post #199 and post #258.

If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

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

@Debby wrote in post #268: @Kermos For those who are not good at science, the scientific theory the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence.

Your Big Bang is your leap of faith.

If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

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