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

@SkepticalOne wrote in post #85: 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.

In effect, you wrote “gravitational lensing proves gravitational lensing, so Rowland is wrong” which is circular reasoning, and you perform circular reasoning through:

1. your faith-based “dark matter” as gravitational lensing age and distance data point,
2. your disputed “time delay lensing” as gravitational lensing age and distance data point,
3. your debatable “cosmic expansion” as gravitational lensing age and distance data point,
4. your unknown “light travel times” as gravitational lensing age and distance data point.

Not one of your points is supported by the scientific method. Your Bullet Cluster “empirical testing” is devoid of the “testing” component.

My prior post #84 to you, to which you were responding, remains intact.

You continue in the Big Bang faith zone.

To think it took humans billions of years to learn how to read, write and communicate just doesn’t make sense.

Modern humans (Homo sapiens) have been on Earth for about 300,000 years. However, the broader human family tree—including early human ancestors who walked upright—stretches back roughly 6 million years.

Einstein's prediction that gravity bends light is an established scientific fact. Formulated in his General Theory of Relativity, it was famously verified during the 1919 solar eclipse by Arthur Eddington, and is now routinely observed through modern phenomena like gravitational lensing.

@Sidewalker wrote in post #88: @Kermos I get it, you don’t understand science or Christianity. Point made.

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

Since you falter in this debate, then you resort to personal attack against your debate opponent, just as I delineated in the Pharmakeia Principle explained in post #71.

Wisdom leads me (1 Corinthians 1:24). I RAISE A HALLELUJAH TO MY ARMOR PROVIDER, THE LIVING KING JESUS!

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

Kermos wrote:

@Sidewalker wrote in post #88: @Kermos I get it, you don’t understand science or Christianity. Point made.

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

Since you falter in this debate, then you resort to personal attack against your debate opponent, just as I delineated in the Pharmakeia Principle explained in post #71.

Wisdom leads me (1 Corinthians 1:24). I RAISE A HALLELUJAH TO MY ARMOR PROVIDER, THE LIVING KING JESUS!

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

I'm sorry Pumpkin, but your argument that God is dishonest is just not convincing. Don't fret, there are a lot of posters here that will join you in disparaging Christianity, I'm just not one of them.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #90: A. “Big Bang” is a theory

A theory inherently indicates belief/faith as per the dictionary definition provided in post #20.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #90: based upon known scientific principles…

The Big Bang fails to adhere to the scientific method as demonstrated in:

1. post #53
2. RED-SHIFT … RED-SPECTRAL
3. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)
4. Prideful man sees light in the heavens and says to himself, “there is no god”
5. Galaxies change
6. The Cosmic Distance Ladder is a poorly formed faith
7. post #61 General Relativity Unreliability
8. post #82 Cepheid delusion
9. post #93 Very Long Baseline Interferometry is Very Short Baseline Inferometry

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #90: Wherein the search for proof is ongoing and therefore “faith” is irrelevant.

Your confusion exposes in your closing words of your post’s part A conflicting with your opening words of your post’s part A. This isn’t the first time you admitted the Big Bang is a leap of faith because I recorded your previous admission in post #69:.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #90: B. Religion is a hypothesis based upon make believe…Wherein “faith” arrogantly doesn’t bother about the need for proof.

You described Big Bang adherents, right there. You own no scientific method proof for the Big Bang!

A is B.

Not a single one of you Big Bang adherents provided proven scientific fact regarding your venerated Big Bang, so you Big Bang adherents leap in religious faith!

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT [from you #125

This is at least the second time you have lodged this complaint. It is unwarranted. This is an open forum, meaning that, short of personal attack, commentary by members is supposed to be accepted with wisdom and restraint, and specifically, "...argue in good faith rather than seek insulation from challenge." [from conclusion of CofC]

"Open" forum means something. Look it up. I've already suggested this to you when you threw this at me in this thread

@fauxlaw wrote in post #94: @Kermos Your #1 post refers to Hebrews 11

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”.

@FLRW wrote in post #97: @Kermos See: ht…snip…

No, I’m not following your faulty titled article link. If you want to correspond about that information, then you ascertain how to legally bring the information into this thread contingent upon the information being directly relevant to “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”, or, better yet, you bring the author(s) here.

In case you missed it, I recorded SergeantLynch’s writing ‘“Big Bang” is a theory’ in post #126 just a few posts up from here, and a theory fundamentally conveys faith as per the dictionary definition provided in post #20; in other words, your faulty titled article link concealed the Big Bang faith component while simultaneously denying the Big Bang faith component which is typical astronomer astrologer doublespeak.

@FLRW wrote in post #97: …snip…FYI, I have a degree from MIT in Nuclear Engineering Science.

Well, Mr. Scientist, then, with all of your learning, why haven’t you produced a single, detailed scientific method evidence explanation that conforms to “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith” up to this point in the thread?

You're hung up on "BIG BANG"...It's just a descriptive term for a theoretical creation event...No faith required...Get over it.

From: https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker-archive/incomplete-big-bang-explanations-lead-pe/

The Big Bang — a rapid expansion of all the universe's matter from a single point about 13.8 billion years ago — is predicted by theoretical physics, a field that uses math to create consistent theories that explain the physical world we see around us.

The amounts of different elements in the universe matches what's predicted by the theory. Because the theory specifies what sorts of elements were created — and in what proportions — moments after the Big Bang, it makes predictions about what elements we'll see in the universe around us.

When we've measured the amount of these elements (hydrogen, helium, and lithium), they match the predictions nicely.

There are two equations which describe the evolution of the Universe as a whole, and they are called the Friedmann equations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations

Solving the equations gives the size of the Universe as a function of time. At time=0 the Universe was at zero size!

Did you graduate from high school?

@FLRW wrote in post #105: @Kermos Do you ever …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”.

@Debby wrote in post #106: The Big Bang is a fake theory. To think it took humans …snip

Hi Debby,

I understand your sentiment.

Big Bang adherents give model names, such as red-shift or Cepheid variable, but the model names represent hollow models.

It’s like a hollow chocolate egg.

After the veneer of nonsense nonscience Big Bang assumptions is exposed, there is no substance for a Big Bang adherent, so the Big Bang believer rages and scoffs (Proverbs 29:9).

Please, Debby, restrict your arguments against evolutionism to the Big Bang in this thread.

Regards,

Kermos

Did you graduate from high school?

He graduated from Trump University, where they teach you that science is fake, and you should instead, worship deception.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #107: @Kermos Human ignorance is simple

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

Since you falter in this debate, then you resort to personal attack against your debate opponent, just as I delineated in the Pharmakeia Principle explained in post #71. You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

@Double_R wrote in post #113: @Kermos Let’s recap. …snip…. 89: Your response to 65, as if 74 came before 65 and as if 76 didn’t exist …snip

Would you rationally explain how you arrived at your irrationally convoluted post #89 explanation?

Here is chronological clarification to remedy your confusion. My post #74 came before my post #89, so I rationally referenced my post #74 in my post #89. Since my post #89 was my response to your post #65, then I had not yet proceeded chronologically through posts 66 - 75 in order to arrive at your post #76. Let me be abundantly clear, your “as if 74 came before 65” is confusion.

Here is more chronological clarification to remedy your confusion. Your post #46 incompletely reproduced your single ball analogy from your post #10. Your chronology inaccurately placed your originating single ball analogy which is deeper confusion on your part.

Because of your chronology confusion above, I am not surprised that you believe an increasing CMBR temperature going forward in time means that CMBR temperature going backward in time increases. Your broken logic leads to a broken Big Bang - your leap of faith.

Scientists are still sorting out the inconsistencies in the BigBang theory. Use the Bible to fill in the gaps.

Yep...And once the inconsistencies in the Bible are sorted we can then move on to string theory followed by quantum entanglement.

They are all recognized by AI.

You most certainly did present poor evidence for the Big Bang.

And around we go.

An analogy designed to highlight a logical principal applicable to the current evidence is not poor evidence, it’s not evidence at all, because it’s not supposed to be.

Do you understand that when you are evaluating evidence, the tool you are using to do so is called logic?

Do you understand that logic transcends substance? In other words, the logic that you apply to one set of facts can be transferred to a different set of facts as a way of testing its validity?

I really don’t think you do.

Your hypocrisy lies in your desire for me to repeat my logically reasoned response to your analogy, again, without you producing a logically reasoned response to my analogy.

There is no reason for me to respond to your analogy when your analogy only served to present a strawman of mine.

Again, if you’re going to criticize an analogy you don’t do so by creating a new analogy. The parts of your analogy that didn’t work are the very parts you added to it. That’s not a response, that’s evasion, and there’s no reason for me to chase you down that rabbit hole.

This isn’t rocket science. my analogy was designed to establish a very simple fact; given minimal observations, we can in fact trace the backwards trajectory of an object. That’s it. That’s all. Everything else you added were just strawman’s you set up so you could knock them down.

It is faith without human witness

Yes or No, are all jury verdicts merely expressions of faith?

If you respond to nothing else I wrote, answer that question.

@fauxlaw wrote in post #115: @Kermos https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct I don’t see …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”.

@FLRW wrote in post #123: @Kermos Einstein’s prediction that gravity bends light is an established scientific fact. Formulated in his General Theory of Relativity, it was famously verified during the 1919 solar eclipse by Arthur Eddington, and is now routinely observed through modern phenomena like gravitational lensing.

Come on, Mr. Scientist, use your observational skills to read post #61 which dismantled the faulty 1919 eclipse General Relativity Theory work of Dyson, Eddington, and Commelin in detail; furthermore, you saying “we see gravitational lensing” doesn’t make it a fact. After he cited data, Rowland wrote “The errors in data were as large as the effect they were trying to prove, thus making these results inconclusive”; in other words, Dyson et al believed without proof (assumed) that they saw gravity affecting the massless photon, and they swindled their way into the history books with people like you conveying “Einstein’s theory is a scientific fact” which is your belief, not scientific fact.

You make broad generalizations without specifics. You don’t show scientific method work because you have no scientific method work to show.

The 1919 solar eclipse Dyson et al measurements were insufficient to unseat Newton while exalting Einstein. Dyson et al’s angles were compromised by error, so their conclusions were compromised by error.

You confusedly equated a “Theory” with a “scientific fact”. Einstein’s theory is not an established scientific fact! As a Nuclear Engineering Scientist with a degree from MIT, you should know this.

I demonstrated the gravitational lensing mass(ive) collapse in post #93.

Your Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.

It might have more credibility if backed by the Bible and God as creator.

@Sidewalker wrote in post #125: @Kermos I’m sorry Pumpkin …snip

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

Since you are losing in this debate, then you resort to condescending personal attack against your debate opponent, just as I delineated in the Pharmakeia Principle explained in post #71.

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

Your statement that redshift is merely an untested assumption is incorrect; while the interpretation of redshift as evidence for cosmic expansion is a theoretical model, the phenomenon of redshift itself is a rigorously tested and observed fact. 

1. Observed Phenomenon: Redshift is the measurable increase in the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. It is confirmed by spectroscopy, which matches observed spectral lines to known atomic structures, proving the shift is real and not an artifact of measurement. 
2. Testing and Validation: The relationship between redshift and distance (Hubble’s Law) is supported by extensive observational data.  While there are ongoing debates about the Hubble tension and potential systematic biases, the redshift data itself has been replicated and verified by thousands of scientists over decades. 
3. Interpretation vs. Observation: The primary scientific debate centers on the cause of redshift. The standard cosmological model attributes it to the expansion of space (cosmological redshift), while alternative views suggest it may be caused by light attenuation (tired light) or other mechanisms.  However, even critics acknowledge the redshift measurement is accurate, disputing only its implication for universal expansion. 

In summary, redshift is a well-established empirical observation, not an untested assumption.  The controversy lies in whether it is primarily due to Doppler motion, gravitational effects, or the stretching of spacetime. 

@fauxlaw wrote in post #127: @Kermos This is at least the second time you have lodged this complaint. …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”.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #130: @Kermos You’re hung up on “BIG BANG”…It’s just a descriptive term for a theoretical creation event…No faith required…Get over it.

Your term “theoretical” fundamentally indicates faith/belief just as shown in the dictionary definition of the word theory recorded in post #20. Faith is required for your Big Bang.

SergeantLynch, your word “creation” carries the need for a Creator, and I’m proclaiming to you that the Grand Creator’s name is Jesus Christ!

You fail to present scientific method fact regarding your Big Bang. The Big Bang is a leap of faith, and you can’t do anything about it. You exhibit very defensive behavior about your Big Bang. Your leap of faith in the Big Bang apoears to be eating you from the inside out.

The Big Bang was an attempt to end the discussion on creation. But obviously it failed.

@FLRW wrote in post #131: @Kermos From: ht …snip… The Big Bang — a rapid expansion of all the universe’s matter from a single point about 13.8 billion years ago — is predicted

Your post starts with your belief that you have “predicted” a 13,800,000,000 year old past purported event called the Big Bang, but you believe you did the impossible of foretelling that 13,800,000,000 year old past event (see the dictionary definition of predict in post #82). A past prediction is a ludicrously inane oxymoron for your 13,800,000,000 year old purported event.

Your “rapid expansion of all the universe” is your unsubstantiated belief because I presented astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, noted professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, with an international team who produced the “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper which your statement directly contradicts. You have faith that the universe is expanding, yet your faith opposes astrophysicist Burbidge’s faith.

@FLRW wrote in post #131: by theoretical physics,

Where is your scientific method work, Mr. Scientist? Don’t forget astrophysicist Burbidge with his work in The Astrophysical Journal, issue 1, volume 620 mentioned above! You don’t have scientific fact, but you do have belief per your use of the concept “theoretical” fundamentally indicating faith/belief just as shown in the dictionary definition of the word theory recorded in post #20.

@FLRW wrote in post #131: a field that uses math to create consistent theories that explain the physical world we see around us.

Nobody saw the Big Bang, so your Big Bang Theory is inconsistent with the physical world. I demonstrated the broken rungs of your cosmic distance ladder in post #53, yet you come back with hollow comments unsubstantiated by scientific fact regarding the Big Bang, so you sit there with your faith based prognostications without scientific method facts!

By the way, post #118 demonstrated the scientific method (detailed) versus unscientific confirmation of error (William and Valdemar). You mentioned math, but that math remains unsubstantiated by you!

@FLRW wrote in post #131: The amounts of different elements in the universe matches what’s predicted by the theory.

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”.

@FLRW wrote in post #131: Because the theory specifies what sorts of elements were created — and in what proportions — moments after the Big Bang, it makes predictions about what elements we’ll see in the universe around us. When we’ve measured the amount of these elements (hydrogen, helium, and lithium), they match the predictions nicely.

Your calculations are designed with the end result in mind. Again, see the William and Valdemar example in post #118. Again, your calculations are similar to the scenario encapsulated in your high priest Hawking’s proverb.

@FLRW wrote in post #131: There are two equations which describe the evolution of the Universe as a whole, and they are called the Friedmann equations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations Solving the equations gives the size of the Universe as a function of time. At time=0 the Universe was at zero size! …snip

Again, Friedmann sets up 2 equations that maps to his belief system. Again, see your high priest Hawking’s star bible contribution, above.

Mr. Scientist, FLRW, I would like to introduce you to your own intellect of “At time=0 the Universe was at zero size” which means that you believe NOTHING became EVERYTHING.

Don’t bother to theorize what I mean because I’m spelling it out for you. You admitted the universe wasn’t even a small, hot dot in the beginning. You admitted the universe exploded without any detonation accelerants, no TNT, no fission, no fusion.

You have a mystical, magical beginning of all things called the Big Bang. You have entered the faith zone.

I believe YHWH God created everything from nothing about six thousand years ago.

You believe your Big Bang god created everything from nothing about thirteen billion, eight hundred million years ago.

Besides no one heard the sound of the Big Bang. The most obvious case against it.