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

The Big Bang’s Cosmic Distance Ladder never achieved the scientific method, as shown in the following:

1. Comprehensive Scientific Fact That The Big Bang Is A Leap Of Faith
2. RED-SHIFT … RED-SPECTRAL
3. Redshift collapses under the Scientific Method
4. Waveforms, it gets worse for red-shift conjecturers
5. Astronomical Observations, red shift sinks further into the abyss
6. History, red-shift rapidly morphs into blue-shift
7. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)
8. Scientist’s, er, philosopher’s public
9. CMBR deception
10. CMBR UnSETtling Theory
11. CMBR Average Disformity
12. CMBR Logical Conclusion
13. Prideful man sees light in the heavens and says to himself, “there is no god”
14. Galaxies change
15. The Zenith Model
16. The Cosmic Distance Ladder is a poorly formed faith
17. The Episcopic Model
18. (See post #53 for the details of the above items)
19. Einstein’s Theories Destroy And Are Destroyed By The Big Bang
20. The 1919 Solar Eclipse “Proof” For Einstein’s General Relativity Had A Data Error Range Equivalent To The Effect They Were Measuring
21. (See post #61 for the details of the above item)
22. Orthodox Jew Gerald Scroeder Didn’t Prove The Big Bang Using Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity
23. (See post #87 for the details of the above item)
24. Einstein And His Successors VLBI (Very Long Baseline Interferometry) Is Very Short Baseline Inferometry (VSBI)
25. (See post #93 for the details of the above item)
26. Einstein’s Teacher’s Minkowski Spacetime Added A Fantasy Fourth Dimension Into The Three Dimensions Of Height, Width, And Depth
27. (See post #199 for the details of the above item)
28. Einstein’s “Mass Can Be Converted Into Energy” Concept Requires Not E=MC2
29. (See post #258 for the details of the above item)
30. Energy Displacement Inside Einstein’s E=MC2 Regarding The Doppler Effect For Light A.K.A. Red-shift Which Requires Energy (E) To Decrease While Increasing The Speed Of Light (C) Thus Light Exceeds Astronomers Universal Speed Limit Of Light
31. (See post #301 for the details of the above item)
32. FLRW Spacetime Is Self-contradictory
33. (See post #325 for the details of the above item)
34. Cepheid Variable Star Seer Henrietta Swan Leavitt Had Visions Of Star Luminosity At The Star Without Visiting The Star
35. (See post #82 for the details of the above item)
36. Big Bang Adherents Avoid The Scientific Method
37. Red-shift Fails The Hypothesis Phase Because Of The Absence Of A Natural Phenomenon
38. The Big Bang Fails The Hypothesis Phase Because Of The Absence Of A Natural Phenomenon
39. (See post #296 for the details of the above items)

Every Big Bang Philosopher engages in a leap of faith. They cry foul, but it is faith.

@Debby wrote in post #326: @Kermos No other theory has replaced the Big Bang theory. Which proves how well it stands in the scientific community.

@Debby wrote in post #328: @Kermos Major space agencies like NASA and European Space Agency support the Big Bang Theory.

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted communally generalized emotion at the expense of specific scientific method evidence. If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

Lord Jesus says “the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it” (Matthew 7:13), and the Big Bang way is definitely broad!

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

The case has already been made by others with links provided. You just repeat your position without responding to the evidence provided. The Big Bang is taught in schools throughout the world as established science.

Kermos presents a stupid question, which nonetheless elicits 12 pages of unnecessary reaction...They have achieved their purpose.

In responding you are simply playing along with their whimsical game...I suggest that you ignore.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #329: @Kermos @Kermos I argue that the premise is a fundamentally flawed contradiction…Extensive science knowledge is irrelevant.

I wrote that you don’t have the science (knowledge) to refute my post #301 nor it’s associated post #325, do you?

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #329: Scientific theory does not require belief…The clue is in the word “theory”.

The dictionary definition for the word “theory” helps right about now:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

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 thefreedictionary.com/theory

In definition 1, “accepted” is a synonym for “believed”, so you arrived at “widely believed” which is faith, not fact.

By definition, a scientific theory is belief/faith.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #329: Therefore “Leap of Faith” is an irrelevant secondary epithet that contradicts to the primary epithet “Big Bang Theory”. …snip

Your linguistical ineptitude is on full display in your writing.

You are in fantasy land with your Big Bang leap of faith.

General theories explain why and how things happen. But ins Jen r a scientific theory is the highest level of understanding.It is a well tested deeply verified explanation for a broad range of observation back by mountains of hard data.

See above...I rest my case.

@Debby wrote in post #333: You just repeat your position without responding to the evidence provided.

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 are demonstrably a liar based on my response in post #53 and post #93 as just a couple of examples of me responding to Big Bang adherents poor evidence in this thread.

You are a hypocrite because you repeat yourself with your “The Big Bang is taught in schools throughout the world as established science” while you provide no scientific method evidence for the Big Bang. Lord Jesus says “woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves” (Matthew 23:13), and you repeat your preaching of your Big Bang belief instead of the Word of God. I pointed this out the distinction to you in post #214 (which includes another example of me responding to poor (or lack of) evidence for the Big Bang).

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 similar to the creation theory in the Bible. Both had a beginning, both developed over time and both are expanding. Because creation has a scientific explanation in the BigBang, it no longer takes an act of faith. This is why the Big Bang theory is taught in schools throughout the world because it meets the high standards of education.

Suggest an alternate theory if you disagree.

@Debby wrote in post #336: @Kermos General theories explain why and how things happen. But ins Jen r a scientific theory is the highest level of understanding.It is a well tested deeply verified explanation for a broad range of observation back by mountains of hard data.

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 belief, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

What is “ins Jen r a scientific theory”? Your “It is a well tested deeply verified explanation for a broad range of observation back by mountains of hard data” is not you presenting scientific method developed evidence in this thread.

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

Hmmmm, the direct opposite of taking a "leap of faith" is exercising extreme caution, empirical proof, or complete distrust . A "leap of faith" means making a choice or taking a big risk without hard proof, relying only on trust. Its exact opposites depend on whether you look at it through action, attitude, or logic:

The main evidence for the Big Bang.

The expanding universe.Galaxies move away from us in all directions. This means everything was closer to us in the past.

Cosmic Microwave background. Scientists found a faint glow of microwave radiation everywhere in space . This leftover heat is the sign of a very hot early universe.

Light elements. The amount of hydrogen and helium found in space match what the Big Bang match predicts.

The Hubble space telescope has helped scientists test and support the Big Bang Theory by measuring the expansion rate and age of the universe with high precision.

There are evidence that support the Big Bang too like the creation story in the Bible. The universe had a beginning, developed in time and continues to expand.

Debby wrote:

The main evidence for the Big Bang.

The expanding universe.Galaxies move away from us in all directions. This means everything was closer to us in the past.

Cosmic Microwave background. Scientists found a faint glow of microwave radiation everywhere in space . This leftover heat is the sign of a very hot early universe.

Light elements. The amount of hydrogen and helium found in space match what the Big Bang match predicts.

The Hubble space telescope has helped scientists test and support the Big Bang Theory by measuring the expansion rate and age of the universe with high precision.

There are evidence that support the Big Bang too like the creation story in the Bible. The universe had a beginning, developed in time and continues to expand.

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT.

Perhaps we should all wear pink hats emblazoned with THAA.

Not accepting the Big Bang theory and believing the universe was not created is a leap of faith into nothingness.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #337: See above…I rest my case.

Excellent, you concede the Big Bang theory is a leap of faith as I demonstrated in post #331 above. I explained to you that you don’t have the science (knowledge) to refute my post #301 nor it’s associated post #325.

See above in my post #335 to you in which your confusion about the concept for the word “theory” is on full display.

By definition, the Big Bang theory is the Big Bang belief/faith.

Even your champion, scientist @FLRW, fails to respond with scientific method evidentiary based fact for the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Why is the Big Bang theory a leap of faith for you? Do you have other theories you are struggling with.?

Kermos learned to debate at the Argument Clinic.

Argument Clinic | Monty Python (Official Sketch)

The Big Bang theory is supported by massive empirical evidence gathered through the scientific method, proving that the universe originated from an extremely hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since.

Main Evidentiary Pillars

1. Hubble-Lemaître Law (Expansion of the Universe): In 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that distant galaxies move away from us, with speed proportional to distance, showing space itself expands.
2. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation: Detected in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, this faint microwave glow fills all space and matches the exact predicted cooling afterglow of a hot early universe.
3. Abundance of Light Elements: Observations of primordial nucleosynthesis confirm that the amounts of hydrogen, helium, and lithium in space match calculations of reactions in the early universe.
4. Age of Oldest Objects: Stellar ages and white dwarf cooling rates measure out to roughly 13.5 to 13.8 billion years, aligning tightly with calculated cosmological timelines.

Opinions are mixed regarding the absolute origin of singularities versus alternative models like eternal inflation, though observations heavily favor the standard hot Big Bang framework.

Hmmmm, poor thinking or cognitive changes can sometimes be a sign of a brain tumor or a side effect of cancer and its treatments (often called "chemo brain" or brain fog),

@Debby wrote in post #339: @Kermos The Big Bang theory is similar to the creation theory in the Bible.

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 believe your astronomer astrologer Roman Catholic Church priest Georges Lemaître’s preaching the Big Bang with Edwin Hubble’s redshift universe expansion as detailed in post #313, but red-shift is merely red-spectral, yet you, self-described Scientist, believe Lemaître’s nonsense nonscience instead of you believing Jesus Christ as detailed in post #214 which means you are not a Christian. You, as a person, who in your heart publicly nullifies the Word of God, you disqualify yourself from being a person with the Wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24).

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

Even Einstein changed his original position and accepted the expanding universe. The Big Bang is universally accepted by the scientific community.

You doubting it is a leap of faith. But you are not going to far. You have not provided an alternate theory and just continue to deny facts.

Well stated.

Still going I see. I never did get a response to my post 140. Pasted it below for your convenience:

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.

He has no alternate theory so all he is doing is denying known facts about the Big Bang Theory.

Debby wrote:

He has no alternate theory so all he is doing is denying known facts about the Big Bang Theory.

Hmmmm...I would suggest that the Big Bang Theory whilst perhaps employing "known facts" is itself not a known fact but a theory.

Fast forwards a few billion years and some crazy Abe dude in a fit of altitude sickness and hallucinogen fuelled psychosis came up with an even better theory.

The Mountain Magic Man Theory

Faith leapers indeed.

I would suggest that the Big Bang Theory whilst perhaps employing "known facts" is itself not a known fact but a theory.

You do know what a theory is in science right?

A scientific theory is different from just a theory. It has to meet the standards of science.

@Debby wrote in post #342: @Kermos The main evidence for the Big Bang. The expanding universe.Galaxies move away from us in all directions. This means everything was closer to us in the past. Cosmic Microwave background. Scientists found a faint glow of microwave radiation everywhere in space . This leftover heat is the sign of a very hot early universe. Light elements. The amount of hydrogen and helium found in space match what the Big Bang match predicts. The Hubble space telescope has helped scientists test and support the Big Bang Theory by measuring the expansion rate and age of the universe with high precision. …snip

If you read the linked content for the first eighteen points of my post #331 (not too far above your post 342), then you would science (know) that your points have been covered. As it is, you demonstrated your lack of science (knowledge).

The Big Bang is a leap of faith.

@Sidewalker wrote in post #347: Kermos learned to debate at the Argument Clinic. Argument Clinic | Monty Python (Official Sketch)

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 describe your own debate inability as demonstrated in post #20. Do try to remain on topic.

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 #341: Hmmmm, the direct opposite of taking a “leap of faith” is exercising extreme caution, empirical proof, or complete distrust . A “leap of faith” means making a choice or taking a big risk without hard proof, relying only on trust. Its exact opposites depend on whether you look at it through action, attitude, or logic:

The point of this thread is that the Big Bang is a leap of faith. Your Big Bang is absent of hard proof that you place on your astronomer astrologers.

Your “empirical proof” is not the complete scientific method. The Scientific Method comprises much more as outlined in the original post, post #53, post #118 (to you), and post #296 (also to you), yet you ignore this logical fact over and over and over again, even in your subsequent post #347 in which you state grounds for belief (assumptions, see post #53 for the dictionary definition) instead of scientific method based evidence.

Oh, and I noticed you concluded your post #341 with a colon, so you indicated your continuation, so I interpret that as you linking your post #341 to post #347. My post #53 addresses your post #347, but your science (knowledge) abysmally ignored my post #53 which shows your lack of scientific “action, attitude, or logic”. Your science (knowledge) deficiency manifests in your failure to respond with the scientific method.

I started composing my response to your post #347, but, in the meantime, my next post restores to you that the logical application of E=MC2 in the “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section demonstrates several of the Big Bang “Main Evidentiary Pillars” are a leap of faith.