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

@Magoroth wrote in post #589: But you refute yourself.

I didn’t conjure Einstein’s E=MC2, and I use your science against you, so your conclusion is false.

@Magoroth wrote in post #589: How can E=MC^2 ever be in equilibrium for a photon when its mass is 0? Its energy is not zero as you admit, so obviously the formula does not apply to the photon.

Einstein’s E=MC2 most certainly applies to the photon because the speed of light (C) includes a photon with the photon’s frequency and wavelength; otherwise, you end up with the Magoroth Model (post #567) where you redesign Einstein’s E=MC2 as E=M.

The equilibrium of Einstein’s E=MC2 is not my problem. The disequilibrium of Einstein’s E=MC2 is your problem.

I am familiar with your E=MC2 no mass dilemma for your Big Bang. In effect, you disproved Einstein’s E=MC2 on your own. The secondary effect is that you disproved red-shift because red-shift is immensely dependent upon Einstein’s E=MC2.

You advocate for red-shift as fact, so you need Einstein’s E=MC2 formula to be a fact, yet you placed Einstein’s E=MC2 formula squarely into the faith zone with your “photon when its mass is 0”.

@Magoroth wrote in post #589: Again, I literally linked studies that tested REDSHIFT on EARTH using manmade objects, in 1907, using motors on a mirror.

You didn’t supply a link to a red-shift mirror study. You mentioned it. I explained about the study’s faith based condition.

@Magoroth wrote in post #589: ”Light has never been tested at 6,0000,000000,000 miles from Earth” 1. This is an unreasonable demand.

My “Light has never been tested at 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles from Earth” statement (post #584) is a reasonable observation about the state of your science.

For the record, you quoting my post #584 to you is evidence that you are responding to my post #584 to you. This makes it easier to trace your errors.

You believe that you know (science) for a fact that the maximum speed of light is 186,000 miles per second at 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles from Earth per your writing’s “matter of fact” structure in various places in this thread which you recognize as your own unreasonable thoughts as indicated by your response to me, but you call me unreasonable for calling out the fact that you don’t know.

@Magoroth wrote in post #589: 2. You complain that redshift has never been tested on Earth/its immediate environs

You confuse “complain” with “expose”. As I wrote, I use your science (knowledge) against you. I expose your “matter of fact” statements as the “matter of faith” statements which they truly are.

@Magoroth wrote in post #589: No, but they are photons of longer wavelength and thus lower energy, so thus they should travel more slowly according to you

Redshifted light versus nonredshifted light

Your statement is patently false. I exclusively refer to photons in reference to Einstein’s E=MC2 with red-shift in “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” (see post #584); at the same time, I am not referring to non-doppler affected light in “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift”. For example,. I am not referring to photons that start out as violet (h = 380 nm & f = 788.9 THz & 3.263 eV & 186,000 mps) and travel as violet (h = 380 nm & f = 788.9 THz & 3.263 eV & 186,000 mps) and are received as violet (h = 380 nm & f = 788.9 THz & 3.263 eV & 186,000 mps) or just keep traveling as violet (h = 380 nm & f = 788.9 THz & 3.263 eV & 186,000 mps). The photonic attributes in parentheses immediately adjacent to the photon color name are as follows per the physics field: h is wavelength; f is frequency; eV is electronvolt for energy; and mps is miles per second for speed. As a further, correlated example, I am not referring to photons like red photons which emit from source as red (h = 780 nm & f = 384.3 THz & 1.590 eV & 186,000 mps) and traverses a medium as red (h = 780 nm & f = 384.3 THz & 1.590 eV & 186,000 mps) and potentially is intercepted at a destination as red (h = 780 nm & f = 384.3 THz & 1.590 eV & 186,000 mps). This has been very clear in “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” (see post #361).

@Magoroth wrote in post #589: ”There is no redshift involved in radio waves” No, but they are photons of longer wavelength and thus lower energy, so thus they should travel more slowly according to you, which doesn’t happen. Again, this refutes your theory.

See the “Redshifted light versus nonredshifted light” section, above, for the relevant concept showing your dishonest representation of my writing. Just move the examples to the radio wave part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

@Magoroth wrote in post #589: Same goes for gamma rays.

See the “Redshifted light versus nonredshifted light” section, above, but shift the examples to the gamma ray range of the electromagnetic spectrum.

@Magoroth wrote in post #589: The point of me bringing up gold was to show that relativity and the value of the speed of light has direct influence on everyday life, it is not just a theory about spacetime and astronomy. Denial of the speed of light makes a lot of nuclear processes and just the physical behaviour of certain substances change radically, quite possibly making life as we know it impossible.

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”.

@Magoroth wrote in post #589: It ignores E=MC^2 because it has nothing to do with this formula. Again, this formula cannot apply to photons or other massless particles because they have nothing mass yet they do have energy. You cannot have 0 on one side of the equation and non-zero on the other.

That is not a problem for me because I’m exposing your leap of faith, but that is a problem for you because the speed of light (C) includes the photon with it’s frequency and wavelength according to your physics.

@Magoroth wrote in post #589: I eliminate nothing, it is you who persists in claiming that e=mc^2 has a relevance in this situation, when it is pretty fucking blatant that it doesn’t if you just think for two seconds.

Your maggot rot language emerged again, Magoroth.

You better try to understand Einstein’s Relativity theories with the gravitational lensing and such before you make such nonsense nonscience claims. I’ll help you get started by providing these very useful links to posts in this thread:

1. post #61
2. post #87
3. post #93
4. post #199
5. post #258
6. post #361
7. post #325
8. post #455
9. post #465
10. post #485
11. post #535
12. post #567

Your thoughts eliminate the speed of light (C) from Einstein’s E=MC2 which converts the formula into your Magoroth Model E=M. Your stated red-shift contextuaized belief, there, is false based on Einstein’s E=MC2 as detailed for you in “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” (see post #584).

Red-shift disrupts Einstein’s E=MC2, and/or Einstein’s E=MC2 disrupts red-shift; therefore, red-shift is a leap of faith, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

The Big Bang theory is a scientific model built on overlapping lines of empirical data, nota blind leap.The model stand firmly on three major observational pillars.

The Hubble-Lemaître Law.

Cosmic microwave background CMB.

Elemental abundances..

@FLRW wrote in post #586: Red-shift does not disrupt Einstein’s E=mc²

Red-shift most certainly disrupts Einstein’s E=MC2 and/or vice versa. Here is the proof that disrupts your whole post. You repeated your frequency argument, but frequency is not explicitly included in Einstein’s E=MC2, so a photon with the photon’s frequency and wavelength are represented in the speed of light (C) inside of Einstein’s E=MC2; therefore, the shift from high energy violet light to low energy red light results in a decrease of energy (E) within Einstein’s E=MC2 forcing the speed of light (C) for the photon without mass (M) to increase beyond 186,000 miles per second thus smashing your constant speed limit for light!

@FLRW wrote in post #586: Since a photon’s energy is proportional to its frequency (E=hf), a loss of energy results in a decrease in frequency and a corresponding increase in wavelength.

Your statement overflows with illogical inconsistency:

1. You repeated the MITman Model (post #465) which holds that your faulty E=hf formula concludes with you performing the G=(+1)+(-1)+(-1) formula where G must equal 0 for logical consistency. Your loss of photonic energy is a loss of photonic frequency which is two decreases, but you have one increase up your sleeve with the wavelength. Hence your imbalanced equation garbage physics are illuminated by the MITman Model (post #465)!
2. Your E=hf fails to provide a balanced account for your E=hf, so your E=hf certainly fails to provide a balanced account for Einstein’s E=MC2!

@FLRW wrote in post #586: energy conservation is maintained through the curvature of spacetime

Your "spacetime is a leap of faith as per post #199 which, among other valid fact disrupting your Big Bang, shows that time is not represented in Einstein’s E=MC2 so Einstein’s E=MC2 has no plottable position in the Minkowski spacetime model resulting in Big Bang adherent’s leap of faith in spacetime.

@FLRW wrote in post #586: mass-energy equivalence

Your restriction of Einstein’s E=MC2 exclusively to equivalence of mass (M) and energy (E) results in YOU eliminating the speed of light (C) from Einstein’s E=MC2; therefore, you promote the Magoroth Model of E=M. You science is so incredibly sloppy!

You are using your E=M leap of faith to support your spacetime leap of faith to support your red-shift leap of faith to support your Big Bang leap of faith.

So... Still no response to post 470?

I know you're not going to respond substantively, I'm just wondering what your latest excuse will be.

The Big Bang theory relies on general relativity - an extension of Minkowski’s flat space time into curved space time - where the conservation of this energy - momentum tensor serves as the core foundation for how the universe expands. No need for a leap of faith when science offers a full explanation.

Red-shift does not disrupt Einstein’s E=mc²; rather, it is a direct consequence of the energy-frequency relationship defined by the equation.

Gravitational and cosmological redshift occur when photons lose energy as they travel out of a gravitational well or through expanding space. Since a photon's energy is proportional to its frequency (E=hf), a loss of energy results in a decrease in frequency and a corresponding increase in wavelength.

1. Energy Conservation: In general relativity, energy conservation is maintained through the curvature of spacetime; the photon's energy shift reflects the change in gravitational potential or the expansion of space, not a violation of mass-energy equivalence.
2. Frequency Shift: The observed redshift is simply the photon adapting to the new reference frame or potential, with its lower energy manifesting as a longer wavelength (redder light).
3. Theoretical Consistency: Einstein predicted this effect in 1907, and it has been experimentally verified (e.g., by Pound and Rebka), confirming that light behaves consistently with relativistic physics.

Redshift is a verification of General Relativity and the Einstein equivalence principle, not a disruption of E=mc². 

The MIT trained nuclear scientist @FLRW, the same FLRW who includes that he is a relative “to Albert Einstein through the Koch family”, the FLRW who prides himself as looking like Oppenheimer, who tested the first atomic bomb not knowing whether the atomic bomb explosion would consume the entire world - months after the Nazi threat of developing a competing first atomic bomb was eliminated, the same FLRW who used a DebateCraft.com screen name which is a namesake for the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric that is a cornerstone of current cosmological confused calculations along with Einstein’s relativity theories for FLRW’s relativistic morality, yes, that FLRW flowers without facts fumbling into faith for unresponsiveness to the CMBR crashing reminder post #592 (9/14/26), so I’ll provide it for you, again.

@FLRW wrote in post #586: Red-shift does not disrupt …snip

Mr. observationally challenged scientist FLRW,

Instead of addressing my CMBR disrupting recent response post #578 nor post #592 to you, you skipped it, so here is a full copy for (1) you to get back on track with your faith based CMBR and (2) you to be unable to respond to me with scientific method based procedure for your CMBR.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: Kermos, why do you like Chinese scientist?

You’re racist. You admitted that you look like one who associates with communists (post #570), and the chinese have a communist form of government.

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: The validity of Eda Gjergo’s concept that early massive galaxy formation significantly contaminates or even constitutes the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is currently not accepted by the mainstream cosmological community and is considered a controversial hypothesis rather than established fact.

You are a sloppy scientist who was indoctrinated at MIT. I previously explained that I use your science against you. Gjergo is your mainstream cosmological community’s scientist sorceress.

Kroupa’s credentials are primarily European. Pavel Kroupa, astrophysicist and professor at the Helmholtz Institute for Radiation and Nuclear Physics at the University of Bonn and Charles University in Prague, expressed “According to our calculations, it may not exist at all” regarding the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) as per his study published in the journal Nuclear Physics B (source: “Goodbye to the Big Bang theory: a university challenges everything we thought we knew and suggests that the creation of the universe may have been something else” (Austin Caldwell; MARCA; 2025-06-28). Kroupa’s credentials far exceed your credentials to address the CMBR’s status in the mainstream cosmological community!

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: Gjergo and co-author Pavel Kroupa published a paper in Nuclear Physics B (2025) arguing that radiation from the formation of massive early-type galaxies (ETGs) could account for at least 1.4% and potentially 100% of the observed CMB energy density, thereby challenging the standard Big Bang model. Their calculations suggest that these galaxies were up to 10,000 times brighter during formation than they are today, and their redshifted infrared emissions could mimic the CMB spectrum.

So, your CMBR is faith-based which is the very point that you nonsensically non-scientifically fight.

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: However, prominent physicists and reviewers have raised significant criticisms:

You are a sloppy scientist who was indoctrinated at MIT. Name names with links to papers.

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: 1. Mechanism Issues: Critics note that for galaxy emission to mimic the CMB, there must be a mechanism to distribute cosmic dust uniformly and thermalize it to the exact temperature of the CMB, which is physically unlikely given that dust is generated by specific galaxies, not uniformly distributed.

Your CMBR is not uniform as established in post #376.

Your “which is physically unlikely given that dust is generated by specific galaxies” is your scientist sorcerers belief without proof (assumption, see post #53 for the dictionary definition).

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: 2. Observational Evidence: Standard cosmology maintains that the CMB originates from recombination (380,000 years after the Big Bang), while the galaxies in question formed much later (~200 million years). The spectral shape and anisotropies of the CMB are robustly explained by the Big Bang model and are not fully accounted for by galaxy formation models.

Here, you credit “Observational Evidence”. There, you discredit “Observational Evidence” (see post #478). Your sloppy science is self-contradictory!

Your “the CMB originates from recombination (380,000 years after the Big Bang)” is a massive assumption (belief without proof, see post #53 for the dictionary definition). Nobody observed your CMB origination, so you lied by including your unobserved CMB origination under your “ 2. Observational Evidence”.

Your unobserved “while the galaxies in question formed much later (~200 million years)” is your “belief without proof” (assumption, see post #53 built on top of your “the CMB originates from recombination (380,000 years after the Big Bang)” massive “belief without proof” (assumption, see post #53), so you lied by including your unobserved “while the galaxies in question formed much later (~200 million years)” under your “ 2. Observational Evidence”.

Your “The spectral shape and anisotropies of the CMB are robustly explained by the Big Bang model and are not fully accounted for by galaxy formation models”, that you stated so “matter of fact” is really a “matter of faith” built on your detailed lies above.

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: 3. Methodological Concerns: Some reviews point out circularity and a lack of sensitivity analysis in the authors’ claims, noting that the 1.4% figure is a conservative lower bound that the authors themselves admit could scale up to 100% with “small tweaks” to assumptions, which undermines predictive rigor.

Hmm, “Some reviews”, but not all reviews, so much for your “authoritative” “mainstream cosmological community” cohesion.

You have “assumptions”, and they have assumptions. You dogmatically believe your “belief without proof” are superior to their belief without proof by way of your fanatical evolution religion intense zeal.

Your “3. Methodological Concerns” apply to your position, as well, FLRW! You employ scientist sorcerer’s arbitrary data point deletion followed by their application of mathematical statistics (magic) to arrive at your “definitive 2.725 K” (proof post #421). I posted your CMBR data points with detailed mathematical analysis in post #376 and post #421 which clearly exposed your “definitive 2.725 K” to be a magical, mystical, nonsense nonscience faith.

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: In summary, while Gjergo and Kroupa’s work highlights a potential foreground contamination that warrants further study, the consensus view remains that the CMB is a relic of the Big Bang, and the claim that it arises primarily from early galaxy formation is regarded as unsalvageable nonsense or a provocative but unproven hypothesis by many in the astrophysics community.

Oh, look, “potential foreground contamination” is a variant of you “scientist sorcerer’s arbitrary data point deletion” which I referenced earlier in this post. That is you, Mr. MIT AI IQ scientist sorcerer FLRW committing your magical, mystical act right there!

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

You failed to prove your CMBR, and you failed to disprove your CMBR. I am using your science against you, so whether you prove or disprove Kroupa et al’s paper doesn’t matter to me because I’m showing you that your whole Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Kroupa, with additional author Eda Gjergo, expose evidence against the existence of the CMBR. These two extracts from their abstract explain:

A previously overlooked foreground component is the formation of massive early-type galaxies (ETGs), which can no longer be ignored, particularly in light of JWST’s detection of massive, evolved systems at extreme redshifts (z>13).

Even in our most conservative estimates, massive ETGs account for 1.4% up to the full present-day CMB energy density.

(source: “The impact of early massive galaxy formation on the cosmic microwave background” (Eda Gjergo, Pavel Kroupa; Nuclear Physics B published by Elsevier aa distributed on ScienceDirect.com; August 2025; Article: 116931; Volume 1017))

Astronomer astrologers best case scenario is that a “definitive 2.725 K” is off by 1.4% which means you the MIT trained nuclear scientist FLRW has personal faith expressed as scientific fact in his own composition in this thread of:

@FLRW wrote in post #412: 2. Modern Verification: Modern precision satellites like NASA’s COBE and ESA’s Planck Observatory have measured the CMB’s true current temperature down to a definitive 2.725 K.

Which is recorded in post #421 with my response.

That study’s 1.4% is the lower of the conservative echelon.

The study’s full present-day CMB energy density is the higher of the conservative echelon which excludes a so-called CMBR from being a Big Bang indicator!

This examination of the study’s conservative echelon leaves the liberal echelon unexplored. The implications of a liberal echelon destroy the Big Bang.

Your whole Big Bang is unproven and unobserved with bad evidence, so your Big Bang is a leap of faith.

FLRWdoes not have to prove anything. He presented the scientific studies for the Big Bang theory which are still being used today.

Your leap of faith comes from your religious upbringing which you are applying to the Big Bang theory despite the scientific evidence supporting it.

FLRW presented nonsense nonscience as recorded in post #376 with the outline:

Comprehensive Scientific Fact That The Big Bang Is A Leap Of Faith

1. RED-SHIFT IS MERELY RED-SPECTRAL
2. Redshift collapses under the Scientific Method Waveforms, it gets worse for red-shift conjecturers
3. Astronomical Observations, red shift sinks further into the abyss
4. History, red-shift rapidly morphs into blue-shift
5. Conclusion for your pillar of red-shift
6. COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION (CMBR)
7. Scientist’s, er, philosopher’s public CMBR deception
8. CMBR UnSETtling Theory
9. CMBR Average Disformity
10. CMBR Logical Conclusion
11. PRIDEFUL MAN SEES LIGHT IN THE HEAVENS AND SAYS TO HIMSELF, “THERE IS NO GOD”
12. GALAXIES CHANGE
13. The Zenith Model
14. THE COSMIC DISTANCE LADDER IS A POORLY FORMED FAITH
15. The Episcopic Model

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 with many like Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker and Debby and Double_R treading the Big Bang broad way!

The Big Bang is a leap of faith.

The following will refute Kermos's claims on the Big Bang Theory.

David Rowland is an independent writer and researcher who has self-published alternative claims arguing that the Big Bang theory is false and logically impossible.

David Rowland's Claims

1. No Singularity or Beginning: Rowland argues that an infinite universe without a beginning or end is the only logical reality, and that a singularity or creation event violates basic logic.
2. Redefined Redshift: He claims that galactic redshift is not a Doppler-effect velocity indicator showing expansion, but rather a form of light attenuation over distance.

Rejection of Expansion and Dark Matter: He asserts that Hubble's calculations were flawed, galaxies are not receding, and concepts like dark matter are non-existent mathematical fictions.

Scientific Consensus

1. Not Peer-Reviewed Mainstream Science: Rowland’s writings appear in alternative or vanity-style online journals rather than peer-reviewed major astrophysics institutions.
2. Overwhelming Empirical Evidence: The mainstream scientific community views the Big Bang theory as overwhelmingly supported by multiple independent lines of physical evidence, including:
3. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation.
4. The observed expansion of the universe via galaxy redshifts.
5. The abundance of light elements (such as hydrogen, helium, and lithium) predicted by primordial nucleosynthesis.

Standing in Cosmology: Alternative static-universe or non-expansion models like those promoted by Rowland lack predictive power and fail to account for the physical data verified by modern space telescopes and observatories.

@FLRW wrote in post #610: The following will refute Kermos’s claims on the Big Bang Theory. David Rowland is an independent writer and researcher who has self-published alternative claims arguing that the Big Bang theory is false and logically impossible. …snip… mainstream scientific community views the Big Bang theory as overwhelmingly supported …snip

To Mr. MIT trained nuclear scientist,

You refuted yourself, silly scientist.

You believe in the Big Bang, and your your Big Bang is not a proven fact, so yours is faith.

Rowland believes in an infinite universe without beginning according to you, and his infinite universe is not a proven fact, so his is faith.

The Rowland quotes, that I presented in post #61 and post #199 remain valid.

Would you kindly share with me how you refuted my belief that yours is a Big Bang belief because I’m not finding it?

And while you’re at it, where is your response to my CMBR disrupting post #607 response to your CMBR faith filled post? My post that you skipped for your apparent lack of scientific acumen. It’s the third post above your current post.

A believer in Lord Jesus Christ, Kermos

While the Big Bang theory leaves some open questions, such as the exact nature of dark matter and dark energy, it remains the definitive framework utilized by modern science because it successfully accounts for the observed reality of our universe.

What if he countered your argument, and claimed that jury decisions are in fact rooted in faith?

"A believer in Lord Jesus Christ, Kermos"----LOL

Oh, I get it now, belief in God is a leap of faith.

Kermos wrote:

@FLRW wrote in post #610: The following will refute Kermos’s claims on the Big Bang Theory. David Rowland is an independent writer and researcher who has self-published alternative claims arguing that the Big Bang theory is false and logically impossible. …snip… mainstream scientific community views the Big Bang theory as overwhelmingly supported …snip

To Mr. MIT trained nuclear scientist,

You refuted yourself, silly scientist.

You believe in the Big Bang, and your your Big Bang is not a proven fact, so yours is faith.

Rowland believes in an infinite universe without beginning according to you, and his infinite universe is not a proven fact, so his is faith.

The Rowland quotes, that I presented in post #61 and post #199 remain valid.

Would you kindly share with me how you refuted my belief that yours is a Big Bang belief because I’m not finding it?

And while you’re at it, where is your response to my CMBR disrupting post #607 response to your CMBR faith filled post? My post that you skipped for your apparent lack of scientific acumen. It’s the third post above your current post.

A believer in Lord Jesus Christ, Kermos

Wtf are we even supposed to have for the beginning of the Universe *except* a leap of faith lmao how is this even an argument

Like regardless of what theory you come up with, the fact is that at this stage, any theory is just wild guesswork

@FLRW wrote in post #614: “A believer in Lord Jesus Christ, Kermos”

I believe in Jesus Christ the Lord that by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together (Colossians 1:16-17). I proclaimed my belief in the opening post.

You believe in the Big Bang. Your belief is so very weak that you fail to admit that it’s faith.

Now, continuing with where you fumbled your Big Bang belief. You failed to answer my simple question, and, Mr. sloppy scientist, you failed to respond to my immediately subsequent question about your CMBR being disrupted.

@FLRW wrote in post #610: The following will refute Kermos’s claims on the Big Bang Theory. David Rowland is an independent writer and researcher who has self-published alternative claims arguing that the Big Bang theory is false and logically impossible. …snip… mainstream scientific community views the Big Bang theory as overwhelmingly supported …snip

To Mr. MIT trained nuclear scientist,

You refuted yourself, silly scientist.

You believe in the Big Bang, and your your Big Bang is not a proven fact, so yours is faith.

Rowland believes in an infinite universe without beginning according to you, and his infinite universe is not a proven fact, so his is faith.

The Rowland quotes, that I presented in post #61 and post #199 remain valid.

Would you kindly share with me how you refuted my belief that yours is a Big Bang belief because I’m not finding it?

And while you’re at it, where is your response to my CMBR disrupting post #607 response to your CMBR faith filled post? My post that you skipped for your apparent lack of scientific acumen. It’s the third post above your current post.

A believer in Lord Jesus Christ, Kermos

Jesus could do nothing on his own, he could not even save his own life from being crucified.

john 5:30. By myself I can do nothing.

@Magoroth wrote in post #616: the fact is that at this stage, any theory is just wild guesswork

As an adult, an angry adult at that, but no less an adult, you acknowledged the Big Bang leap of faith.

I would like to draw your attention back to your post #598. You expressed you believe in a god with a 13.8 billion year old universe, so the god in whom you believe is not Jesus Christ.

We Christians 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)

Moreover, we Christians 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 (Genesis 1:1-31). 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).

Christians believe Christ. Christians believe the beginning of creation week (Genesis 1:1) is about 6,000 years ago. The calculation is based on Biblical record from the beginning until the birth of Christ added to the about 2,000 years after Christ’s birth.

Therefore, a person who claims to be a Christian yet does not believe the above Word of God (Christ) references to the creation account, then that person is not a Christian.

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.

Distinct incompatibility exists between Cosmic Evolution (13,800,000,000 years) and Christianity (6,000 years).

Lord Jesus Christ says “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.” (Matthew 7:26-27). For us Christians, Christ is our glorious foundation. Lord Jesus Christ says “everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock.” (Matthew 7:24-25).

Again, I think it took some humility on your part for you to concede the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

It's too bad that they didn't have smartphones 2000 years ago.

FLRW wrote:

It's too bad that they didn't have smartphones 2000 years ago.

Deja vu.

What if he countered your argument, and claimed that jury decisions are in fact rooted in faith?

He won't, and knows why. If all jury verdicts are a matter of faith, then the central claim of this thread becomes totally meaningless. At that point he's simply saying anything we believe that we did not personally witness is faith. That logically expands then to not just every scientific claim but nearly every claim we've ever believed.

Kermos has engaged consistently through 600+ posts and counting, all in an effort to discount the big bang specifically, without addressing the most basic consequence of accepting his fundamental premise. It's deeply dishonest and he knows that, which is why rather than engage with me he just ignores me. It's much easier to hide behind 10k characters of AI generated nonsense than to engage in a simple yet fundamental question about what your position entails.

Double_R’s debate deception derailed.

Double_R lied about the historical chronology within his first few entries thus his explanation was irrational thus he failed the rational chronology requirement as layed out in the accurate chronology detailed post #136, so the earliest on-topic unanswered request among the two of us was my post #136 to him.

This current post isn’t directed specifically to Double_R, but he is welcome to read it and gnash his teeth. I present post #463, below, again, for the record. I leave my composition’s second person references intact for clarity.

Double_R wrote in post #438: What an unbelievable coward. The only one hiding here is you. Since you want to play games with all the posts pretending it’s all being hidden somewhere, let’s recap our entire discussion: …snip

You unjustly slandered me, and you evaded rationally explaining how you arrived at your irrationally convoluted post #89 sequence recorded in my post #136 to you, and you lied about the correspondence sequence in your post with your very early sequential recipient error for your post #33 which was to SatanLucy without any mention of me in your post #33 yet your current post says “Me #33: I explained that you were”.

If you want to engage further, then explain yourself, first. I explained this to you on multiple occasions, and I can continue acting like your posts to me are like the Big Bang, that is, nonexistent! Unless you can muster the courage to respond to my opening inquiry inside of post #136.

My 3 ball example in post #35 demonstrated one does not know (science) as a matter of fact where the ball came from which rolled over the grandpa’s foot, but one may conject (theorize) about the ball, and that “theorize” is faith.

The Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.

@linate wrote in post #613: Double_R What if he countered your argument, and claimed that jury decisions are in fact rooted in faith?

Take a good, long, hard look at the Scott Peterson case regarding the murder of his unborn child, Conner, and his wife, Laci (“Watch Scott Peterson: The New Evidence Full Episodes, Video & More - A&E”). Scott was on death row in California, U.S.A. for their murders. A full jury of 12 found him guilty “beyond a shadow of a doubt” based on their faith, but continuing case revelations bring into question whether all twelve of the jurist’s faith even achieve the jurisprudence principle “a reasonable person would believe” threshold.

linate, you Double_R_epeat like a parrot. This concept was covered in my post #82 to you way back on August 7th! I explained your Big Bang belief is outside of human witness history, so you are comparing dissimilar things. Your cognitive collection capacity is crippled.

We Christians believe in Christ. You evolutionists believe in your Big Bang god(s).

Hmmm, In public Hitler embraced religion and religious rhetoric is through his speeches. The “German Christian” movement, an extremely nationalist and antisemitic Protestant group, was a very important part of his early support. There was even an occasion where a declaration had to be made that Hitler was not in fact the 2nd coming of Jesus, he was just a “really good Christian leader”. The very first treaty he signed was an agreement with the Catholic Church regulating the boundary between church and state, giving some political protection to the Catholic Churches, and creating obligations from Catholics to him as leader of the state. The church bells rang for his birthday every year, even as the Russians were nearing Berlin. There was also an effort by some Christian Nazis to rewrite the Bible free of “Jewish influence” and there was a popular theory that Jesus was Aryan, possibly even German - this was common in Europe at the time, for example you also saw some British leaders maintain Jesus was in actual fact Anglo-Saxon as bizarre as that claim might seem to us today.

Hitler was not a religious man. He was motivated by ideology. Religion was an important part of the Nazi movement from the beginning until the end. The antisemitism he espoused had been a common feature of German Christian movements for centuries, the holocaust being an industrialized and very large scale version of the programs that mar German history going back hundreds of years.

I think this shows that God is a leap of faith.

A Catholic priest has died after a crucifix fell on him during a livestreamed Mass in Ecuador.

Father Patricio Alfredo Sanchez Molinari was delivering a sermon about the fragility of life at his church in the city of Guayaquil when the wall-mounted cross came loose and struck him.

Hmmmmm

@FLRW wrote in post #620: It’s too bad that they didn’t have smartphones 2000 years ago.

It would have been just a bunch of people standing around yelling toward each other.because there were no cell towers.

Scientists so very often miss the obvious.

Speaking of you scientists missing the mark, let’s go back to the science you skipped again with the CMBR disrupting reminder post #607 just a little way up from this post to you - just a little way up from your post. You scientific avoidance is quite telling about your science.

Your whole Big Bang is unproven and unobserved with bad evidence, so your Big Bang is a leap of faith.

@FLRW wrote in post #606: Red-shift does not disrupt Einstein’s E=mc²

Hey Mr. scientist FLRW, substantially repeating your faith filled post #586 doesn’t make it fact, especially when your post #606 omits a scientific method based response to my post #603!

So, how about it, you faith science preacher, respond in detail to post #603 which was on this site before your post #606!

Red-shift does disrupt Einstein’s E=mc² as clearly demonstrated in post #361 as well as post #603.

You employ your E=M model leap of faith to support your spacetime leap of faith to support your red-shift leap of faith to support your Big Bang leap of faith.