@Debby wrote in post #489: Redshift is critical to the Big Bang theory because it provides direct observational proof that the universe is expanding.

History, red-shift rapidly morphs into blue-shift

Sirius was known as the Star of Isis in ancient Egypt, and human witness described Sirius as red, but Sirius is blue, now. This change describes a stellar u-turn, yet astrophysics declare that it’s impossible, but human witness indicates that the change from red to blue occurred, so your red-shift falls apart based on human witness recorded history.

No human witnessed your red-shift, yet scientist sorcerers mystically, magically pronounce red-shift exists.

You seriously disbelieve human witness about Sirius, but you Sirius-ly believe human witness about red-shift. You are very confused.

For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. This current post builds upon post #649’s demonstrated scientific fact that red-shift is your leap of faith. I plan to reply to your post, again, with more scientific fact showing the ridiculousness of red-shift.

Lack of Scientific Method process leaves your Big Bang evidence in a state of science fiction, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

The Big Bang theory is similar to the creation story. Both had a beginning, both took time to develop and in both the universe is expanding. Your leap of faith in creation can easily be applied to the Big Bang theory.

@Debby wrote in post #692: The Big Bang theory is similar to the creation story. Both had a beginning, both took time to develop and in both the universe is expanding. Your leap of faith in creation can easily be applied to the Big Bang theory.

Delusional Debby doubles down. You distorted your declarations dated from months ago:

@Debby wrote in post #137: @Kermos Scientists are still sorting out the inconsistencies in the BigBang theory. Use the Bible to fill in the gaps.

@Debby wrote in post #143: @Kermos It might have more credibility if backed by the Bible and God as creator.

I responded to you with the clear separation between faith in Christ and the Big Bang belief as per the following:

Hello again Debby,

I still understand your sentiment.

Since the Word of God is decisively clear regarding the 6,000 years ago-ish beginning for all creation (see post #20 and post #82 for Word of God quotations), then a 13,800,000,000 years ago-ish Big Bang represents אֲבַדּוֹן (abbadon, destruction) for all who cling to that purportedly super-hot, swelteringly torturous שְׁאוֹל (sheol, hell).

No communion exists between Lord Jesus Christ who is with us Christians and Satan the enemy who is with Big Bang adherents (2 Corinthians 6:14-15). We Christians overcame the evil one, even the many of the Big Bang scheme/model/theory/belief (1 John 2:13), so there is no backfilling gaps between the Word of God and the Big Bang.

You are concerned about credibility and contorting the Word of God to the Big Bang, but I am concerned about people believing in Christ and Him crucified and the Word of God is good unto salvation from the wrath of God (Romans 1:16). The keywords are credibility versus believing.

The Big Bang is not proof of God. God is not proof of the Big Bang.

Please don’t be vague, Debby. State your meaning with detail and citations.

Regards,

Kermos

Well, there you have it - you are the one who adheres to “the Bible creation story has been applied to the Big Bang theory” - not I.

Your Queen of Heaven has you delusional (see post #684), and Satan whom you serve has you deceiving (see post #665).

As I conveyed previously, the Big Bang is not a fact, so the Big Bang is science fiction.

No fact supports the Big Bang. Not one iota of the Scientific Method supports the Big Bang. Therefore, the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

How many have you succeeded your leap of faith to so far.

Mr. follower of Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker FLRW, your cumulative science (knowledge) about your Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation cannot overcome the following!

@FLRW wrote in post #668: the premise that a temperature decrease from 1941 to 1965 was a specific “adherent’s requirement” is inaccurate

Mr. observationally challenged scientist FLRW,

Your CMBR conclusion contradicts the evidence found in the following data.

CMBR UnSETtling Theory

Set theory is fascinating, and set theory is destructive to your argument.

1. McKellar (1941): M = {x ∈ R | 1.8 ≤ x ≤ 3.4}
2. Penzias and Wilson (1965): P = {x ∈ R | 2.5 ≤ x ≤ 4.5}

M and P represent two mutually exclusive, independent and discreet studies.

M=P is false.

M∩P is a range of real number temperature elements that potentially one set can be greater than or lesser than the temperature in the opposing set (except for the boundaries which would be equality on one side), so M∩P elements are excluded from this evaluation because these cancel each other out. This leaves the elements represented in MΔP.

MΔP is the range of real number temperature elements that uniquely qualify as exclusively greater than or less than the temperature in the opposing set, so MΔP is included in this evaluation.

Proof samples:

1. M∩P and M>P, M=3.2 and P=3.1
2. M∩P and M<P, M=3.1 and P=3.2
3. MΔP and M>P, nonexistent
4. MΔP and M<P, M=1.8 and P=4.5
5. MΔP and M<P, M=2.4 and P=3.5

The exemplary intersection (M∩P) elements of 3.1 and 3.2 sufficiently illustrate the cancelation effect of the corresponding intersection elements.

The result is M<P.

The CMBR temperature increases going forward in time according to this logic demonstrated using set theory which potentially indicates a lower temperature in the past.

Set theory applied to your star bible data upends your “this faint microwave glow fills all space and matches the exact predicted cooling afterglow of a hot early universe” writing.

@FLRW wrote in post #668: later refined to 2.725 K

Post #667 details the error of your “2.725 K”, and post #667 is one post before your post!

You and your astronomer astrologer cohort employ scientist sorcerer’s arbitrary data point deletion followed by your magical, mystical formulas (application of mathematical statistics) to conclude with your “2.725 K” CMBR (see post #578 for record that YOU ENGAGED IN ARBITRARY DATA POINT DELETION).

FLRW, you have extremely poor reasoning ability. Well, you do think the Universe is 13,800,000,000 years old.

No matter where you turn in your Big Bang belief, you logically end up in a leap of faith!

How many have you shared your leap of faith in the Big Bang theory?

FLRW faces his Faith-based fantasy flash because of the following exposing his Big Bang belief.

@FLRW wrote in post #655: Double_R Geoffrey Burbidge was a renowned astrophysicist

He may be dead, but he left behind his science along with the scientific consensus for the paper’s surviving scientists and his students from University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences.

YOU PRESENT NO SCIENTIFIC METHOD - a real scientific failure for you, the MIT educated nuclear scientist!

MITman AI IQ leaps in faith beyond astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, noted professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, who explained with “observational data” of the NGC 7319 quasar that “its redshift cannot be due to the expansion of the universe” and quasars in general “too many of them are being found closely associated with nearby, active galaxies for this to be accidental” (source for Burbidge quotes), who with the “scientific consensus” of an international team of astrophysicists and astronomers produced the “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper published in m The Astrophysical Journal (issue 1, volume 620).

Your MITman AI IQ completely dropped the science about Cepheid variable, so here you go.

@FLRW wrote in post #650: a method validated by independent “distance ladder” measurements using Cepheid variables

How quickly you fall into the Lazy in your Faith-based, Lazy, Ridiculous, Wrong science! I addressed Cepheid variable earlier in this thread - another non-acute observational issue for your Ridiculous science (post #82) - your science (knowledge) is Wrong - and the following exposes your broken “distance ladder” rungs, AGAIN.

Cepheid variable; faith not fact

Astronomers believe Polaris is the nearest Cepheid variable star to Earth, at 445.5 light years (2,673,000,000,000,000 miles). Polaris is commonly referred to as the North Star.

Polaris’ minimum and maximum diameter in miles at Polaris is unobserved by astronomers, and any temperature change for Polaris is not measurable at Polaris by astronomers.

Astronomers possess no luminosity data at the source for Polaris, but astronomers do possess brightness data at Earth.

And, finally, astronomers never accurately measured the distance from Polaris to Earth - see the Episcopic Model (spatial limitations, too vast a visage) in post #53.

Astronomers do not collect sufficient, complete, and accurate data at 2,673,000,000,000,000 miles (2.6 quadrillion miles) from Polaris, the nearest Cepheid variable star, nor any other Cepheid star for comparative parallax measurements which astronomers believe are more distant from Earth.

Astronomer Henrietta Swan Leavitt published a 21-page account of her work “1777 Variables in the Magellanic Clouds” in 1908 with more astronomical work before her death in 1925. She believed that observing a Cepheid star’s pulsation period results in astronomers knowing the luminosity at a Cepheid star thus astronomers believe they possess sufficient information to determine fantastic Interstellar distances. Based on Leavitt’s work, astronomers believe they can use the luminosity of a Cepheid star in the inverse square law, which requires knowing either the distance or the luminosity at source, to determine the distance to Cepheid variable stars, and they further believe that they can hopscotch hugely gargantuan distances using these “known” (truly unknown) luminosity (of a star at the star) illogically based on observed brightness (of a star at Earth) calibrated with parallax distance to Polaris (or another Cepheid star with a “known” distance from Earth) which results in the distance to another star.

Cepheid variable nonsense nonscience is your prophetess Leavitt and her progeny preaching the abundance of light and parallax of your star bible’s millions and billions of light years away with millions and billions of years in the past.

Rewind to the foundational star bible contribution by Leavitt in which astronomers use an unobserved luminosity to calculate a star’s distance. Astronomer astrologers cannot determine the luminosity, which requires measurement at the source star, of a Cepheid by observing the change in the star’s brightness, which is a measurement at Earth - such brightness-to-luminosity extrapolation is a leap of faith.

Your cosmic distance ladder is your Faith-based science, FLRW.

Therefore, your missing fact Cepheid variable “distance ladder” rung joins with your missing fact red-shift “distance ladder” rung joins with your missing fact CMBR “distance ladder” rung to arrive at your Big Bang leap of faith.

Are all jury verdicts a leap of faith? Yes or No?

You're too much of a coward to answer, but I'll keep asking.

The Big Bang deserves a leap of faith from those who have already taken a leap of faith accepting the creation story in the Bible.

Double_R’s dizzy 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.

Using your 3 balls to explain a theory is a leap of faith including your counting skills.

I’m bringing this forward from post #642 and subsequently from post #680 because you, Mr. Faith-based, Lazy, Ridiculous, Wrong science MIT graduate scientist FLRW, have a nasty procedure (habit) of expressing (preaching) your conclusions (conjecturers) followed by you disregarding followup!

@FLRW wrote in post #640: OK, I see what is going on here. I estimate Debby’s IQ at 160 and K’s at 45-47.

FLRW has Faith-based, Lazy, Ridiculous, Wrong science (knowledge) such as exposed in my red-shift disrupting post #603 to which FLRW still fails to respond, so here’s the proof for writing Faith-based, Lazy, Ridiculous, Wrong science about FLRW.

You are antiscience because you delusionally discard and besmirch the reputation of the astrophysicist who said of NGC 7319 quasar that “its redshift cannot be due to the expansion of the universe” and quasars in general “too many of them are being found closely associated with nearby, active galaxies for this to be accidental”, and these quotes were issued by astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, noted professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences (source for Burbidge quotes), who with an international team of astrophysicists and astronomers produced the “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper published in m The Astrophysical Journal (issue 1, volume 620).

@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 your E=M model. Your 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.

Mr. nuclear scientist FLRW, your Big Bang CMBR is a leap of faith as visible in the following per Mr. nuclear physicist professor scientist Kroupa.

Astrophysicists recalculated CMBR from data including JWST readings, and the study details astronomer astrologer’s CMBR isn’t what they scienced (knew)

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, 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 conservatively off by 1.4% to 100% which means the MIT trained nuclear scientist FLRW has science fiction expressed as scientific fact in his own composition in this thread of:

@FLRW wrote in post #664l6: Several lines of evidence and theoretical arguments challenge Pavel Kroupa’s claim

MITman, your AI IQ puts your grounds for belief (evidence definition in post #25) in your Big Bang CMBR on similar grounds for belief (evidence) for Kroupa’s. Both of you are in a leap of faith.

@FLRW wrote in post #664l6: Discrete galaxy sources cannot reproduce this — as Ethan Siegel

Scientist FLRW, your scientist Siegel cannot know (science) that “Discrete galaxy sources cannot reproduce this”, so your Siegel believes without proof (assumption definition in post #53); therefore, scientist FLRW, your scientist Siegel is in a leap of faith with you.

@FLRW wrote in post #664l6: The 1.4% → 100% leap

You agreed with me that Kroupa is in a leap!

@FLRW wrote in post #664l6: A peer review on Pith (2026) notes that the upper bound (“up to 100% of CMB energy density”) rests on “assumptions that are neither derived nor mutually consistent.”

I present to you your “assumptions that are neither derived nor mutually consistent” which results in your Big Bang being a leap!

You provided absolutely, positively no scientific method basis for your faith based Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)!

Disrupting Your Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)

I present to you the history recorded by others which reveals CMB was a known quantity decades before 1964. This directly derails your “predicted” “fact” leaving a mere residual called “faith” (see post #376).

Andrew McKellar used W. S. Adams’ spectroscopic instrumentation during 1941 to measure background temperature of 2.3 K of a B type star.

In 1948, cosmologist George Gamow led a group that calculated cosmic microwave radiation.

The vaunted Bell Telephone Laboratories had a facility atop Crawford Hill in Holmdel, New Jersey where Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson experimented in 1964. They detected a homogeneous, constant radiation. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1978 for their CMB work.

Robert H. Dicke, Jim Peebles, and David Wilkinson, astrophysicists at Princeton University believed the Big Bang emitted a tremendous radiation blast resulting in cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), and they prepared to investigate microwave radiation levels in the year 1964.

But, Bernard F. Burke, professor of physics at MIT (your alma mater), introduced the two groups working a mere 40 miles from each other.

The two groups agreeably jointly published in Astrophysical Journal Letters. Two notes were published, (1) Dicke et al substantiated the Big Bang based on CMBR, and (2) Penzias et al noted the existence of 3.5 K CMBR universally.

McKellar recorded the CMBR in 1941, so the CMBR was a known quantity by the time of Penzias et. al. as well as Dicke et. al.; therefore, neither Penzias et. al. nor Dicke et. al. “predicted” anything. You wrote deception.

In essence, your history of using something like the RW Metric (see post #361 for RW Metric details) deceives people, including you.

Scientist’s, er, sorcerer’s public CMBR deception

It is time to compare and contrast these data collections:

1. McKellar (1941): (2.5 +0.9/-0.7) K
2. Penzias and Wilson (1965): (3.5 +/- 1.0) K

Your manipulation of statistics (mathematical nonsense) to arrive at “this faint microwave glow fills all space and matches the exact predicted cooling afterglow of a hot early universe” is a deeper lie and malevolent representation.

Your astrophysicist high priest Stephen Hawking issued the condemnation of astronomer astrologers with “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”, so you keep his words in mind while reading the following.

CMBR UnSETtling Theory

Set theory is fascinating, and set theory is destructive to your argument.

1. McKellar (1941): M = {x ∈ R | 1.8 ≤ x ≤ 3.4}
2. Penzias and Wilson (1965): P = {x ∈ R | 2.5 ≤ x ≤ 4.5}

M and P represent two mutually exclusive, independent and discreet studies.

M=P is false.

M∩P is a range of real number temperature elements that potentially one set can be greater than or lesser than the temperature in the opposing set (except for the boundaries which would be equality on one side), so M∩P elements are excluded from this evaluation because these cancel each other out. This leaves the elements represented in MΔP.

MΔP is the range of real number temperature elements that uniquely qualify as exclusively greater than or less than the temperature in the opposing set, so MΔP is included in this evaluation.

Proof samples:

1. M∩P and M>P, M=3.2 and P=3.1
2. M∩P and M<P, M=3.1 and P=3.2
3. MΔP and M>P, nonexistent
4. MΔP and M<P, M=1.8 and P=4.5
5. MΔP and M<P, M=2.4 and P=3.5

The exemplary intersection (M∩P) elements of 3.1 and 3.2 sufficiently illustrate the cancelation effect of the corresponding intersection elements.

The result is M<P.

The CMBR temperature increases going forward in time according to this logic demonstrated using set theory which potentially indicates a lower temperature in the past.

Set theory applied to your star bible data upends your “this faint microwave glow fills all space and matches the exact predicted cooling afterglow of a hot early universe” writing.

CMBR Average Disformity

Scientists like averages (mean), or medians, or blind faith guesses, such as the astronomer astrologer’s current magical, mystical 2.7255 K CMBR nonsense nonscience temperature, so I present the mean temperature values to test their conclusion that there has been a decrease in the temperature over the years.

The data averaged:

1. McKellar (1941): 2.5
2. Penzias and Wilson (1965): 3.5

2.5=3.5 is false.

2.5<3.5 is true.

1941<1965 is true.

3.5-2 5=1.0 is true.

1965-1941=24 is true.

The five factual statements directly above show a 1.0 K increase of heat on average over a period of 2 dozen years starting in 1941 AD until 1965 AD.

A decrease in heat temperature from 1941 to 1965 is the Big Bang adherent’s requirement, but it’s just not there, so your CMBR is very bad evidence for your Big Bang.

CMBR Logical Conclusion

The above dissection of historical data shows that these are each distinctly different surveys:

1. McKellar (1941): (2.5 +0.9/-0.7) K
2. Penzias and Wilson (1965): (3.5 +/- 1.0) K

McKellar (1941): (2.5 +0.9/-0.7) K is not isotropic agreement with Penzias and Wilson (1965): (3.5 +/- 1.0) K.

Statistical consolidation of the points is unreasonable because reasonable doubt has been cast by the potential for decreased temperature in earlier time thus anyone claiming increased temperature is a person defying the logical conclusion from the data; in other words, you cannot logically claim that there was a high heat temperature deep in the past around your Big Bang timeframe which would make the differences in points statistically insignificant. The differences in points are statistically significant as a function of the recorded increase in temperature over the decades, yet astronomer astrologers exhibit Stephen Hawking’s quote, recorded above.

In other words, these measurements are in agreement with one another that the Big Bang is a leap of faith/belief.

Deception of the CMBR is a very poor method to present your case.

Various sources of material for this whole CMBR section include “cosmic microwave background” of Encyclopedia Britannica, “Cosmic microwave background” of Wikipedia, and “A Review of the 1941 to 1961 CMBR Temperature Measurements” on ResearchGate.

Your grounds for belief (evidence) is very bad evidence for the Big Bang.

FLRW has added more scientific calculation to the Big Bang theory in his new topic created.

@SergeantLynch wrote in another thread’s post #4: @FLRW Not wishing to down play it, but isn’t any creation and existence metric simply a more or less contrived version of the “perhaps metric”?

@FLRW wrote in another thread’s post #5: @SergeantLynch Hmmmm, perhaps.

Fascinating, FLRW.

Please consider these unanswered posts I made to you:

1. Set Theory unsettles your Big Bang CMBR decreasing temperature, see post #695 for details.
2. Geoffrey Burbidge, astrophysicist professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California San Diego indicated disruption of red-shift as a measure of age and distance, and astronomer astrologers radically miscalculated Cepheid variable stars, see post #697 for details.
3. Red-shift most certainly disrupts Einstein’s E=MC2 and/or vice versa, see post #702 for details.
4. Pavel Kroupa, astrophysicist and professor at the Helmholtz Institute for Radiation and Nuclear Physics at the University of Bonn and Charles University in Prague, says the CMBR may not be what astronomer astrologers believe the CMBR to be, see post #703 for details.

Bad Big Bang evidence is the basis for your Big Bang belief, so your “perhaps” is evidence of your Big Bang leap of faith.

Your leap of faith in accepting the Big Bang matches your leap of faith accepting the creation story in the Bible. Congratulations.

Mr. Faith-based, Lazy, Ridiculous, Wrong science MIT graduate scientist FLRW, you have a nasty procedure (habit) of expressing (preaching) your conclusions (conjecturers) followed by you disregarding followup, so I’m bringing this forward from post #617.

@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 post #670 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 #670 response to your CMBR faith filled post? My post that you skipped for your apparent lack of scientific acumen.

A believer in Lord Jesus Christ, Kermos

Your leap of faith in creation is not supported by any scientific evidence in the Bible.

@Debby wrote in post #489: Redshift is critical to the Big Bang theory because it provides direct observational proof that the universe is expanding.

Red-shift is devoid of the Scientific Method

No scientific method procedure used a man controlled, receding, light emmitting object to measure a purported frequency shift of light (more specifically, red-shift), so you are left with a red-shift leap of faith.

Scientific method validation of the Doppler effect for light does not exist; in contrast, scientific method validation of the Doppler effect for sound exists. The result is that red-shift is merely red-spectral.

This post supplements my post #275.

A Big Bang cosmic distance ladder’s foundational rungs are a leap of faith.

For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. This current post builds upon post #691’s demonstrated scientific fact that red-shift is your leap of faith. I plan to reply to your post, again, with more scientific fact showing the ridiculousness of red-shift.

Lack of Scientific Method process leaves your Big Bang evidence in a state of science fiction, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Are all jury verdicts a leap of faith? Yes or No?

You're too much of a coward to answer, but I'll keep asking.

As I point out from time to time, "BIG BANG" is a very loose epithet coined to represent a theoretical proposition.

So, BIG is relative to what?...And BANG is relative to what?...No one knows...And faith is irrelevant.

But did you know that some people faithfully accept that the BIG EVENT was the work of a MAGIC MAN and occurred sometime within the last 10,000 years...Such is a much better example of leaping.

Nonetheless, RED SHIFT is just happy hands, is it?

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #711: As I point out from time to time, “BIG BANG” is a very loose epithet coined to represent a theoretical proposition. So, BIG is relative to what?…And BANG is relative to what?…No one knows

Hence, SergeantLynch, the Big Bang theory is a leap of faith. Your “No one knows” means “no one sciences”.

A theory, as you repeatedly stated even when another tried to persuade you otherwise for the sake of unity on the Big Bang belief side, this I acknowledge, is human conjecture; that is, the Big Bang is a human leap of faith.

Humans also accepted the creation story in the Bible as a leap of faith. Now they see their leap of faith united with the Big Bang.