|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
The Big Bang - 10/22/2009 9:35:29 PM
|
|
|
AnalystsAreUs
Posts: 186
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Some would have you believe that the word formed as part of a big bang, but a reliable eye witness gives a significantly different description:
Job 38:4
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone...
Given the number of different systems and cycles on this planet, I favor the engineering description in Job.
_____________________________
The needs of the many depend on the courage of the few.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/22/2009 10:14:20 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 3045
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AnalystsAreUs
Some would have you believe that the word formed as part of a big bang, but a reliable eye witness gives a significantly different description:
Job 38:4
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone...
Given the number of different systems and cycles on this planet, I favor the engineering description in Job.
What description? The one that says, "God made this"? That's not much of a description.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/22/2009 11:06:08 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4637
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I am in the world, but I am not of the world. I am in the darkness, but I am not of the darkness. The children of darkness, will dwell with The Children Of Light. They will be in my world, but they will not be of my world. And The Children Of Light Will Reign With Him Forever!!!!!!!!!!! Uhh, this is the Science and Origins thread, VITD. I believe they have another thread for creative writing... 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/23/2009 2:13:22 AM
|
|
|
VoiceInTheDarkness
Posts: 34
Joined: 10/21/2009
Status: offline
|
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heavens and the earth.
This seems to imply that there were generations of creativity involved in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and he sums it all up as, in the day that he created the heavens and the earth.
I believe God, in reference to the days involved during his creation of the heavens and the earth, is bracketing the sequence of events involved during his creation, not the time elapsed during the sequence of events. A twenty four hour earth day, according to the Jewish calender, goes from evening to evening. God used the phrase, "and the evening and the morning", to denote the days of creation. I believe he used this phrase in reference to, evening, ( the end of something ), morning, ( the beginning of something else ). The twenty four hour earth day is measured by the rotation of the earth, in relationship to the son, without the sun you could not distinguish between evening and morning. The sun and moon was not set in place until the fourth day.
God, who is infinite in dimensions, who dwells in an infinite eternal state of being as the I AM, created something new, something the angels had never seen before. God created a four dimensional reality in which there are physical laws, and boundaries, including the fourth dimension, the illusion of time. The illusion of time exist because of the movement of light energies throughout the darkness, and the changes, and movements of the elements within the physical laws.
God created in such a way, that creation actually created itself, within, ( for lack of a better word ), God's imagination. He spoke forth into the darkness of time, and the created energies of light did the rest.
God only interferes in the natural events of creation, to direct events accordingly, to achieve a specific purpose. The formation and placement of the earth, sun, and moon, are the result of God's manipulation of creation.
As science has discovered there is an evolutionary process to creation. At certain points of the evolutionary process of creation, God would speak new elements into the creation of the earth, causing the grass, plants, trees, etc. to come forth from the earth, and the waters to bring forth life, the kinds of animals etc. The evolutionary process within the species of the kinds of animals, brought into existence the numerous types of species we've seen throughout history and today.
Notice there are two different creations of man, the first in Geneses 1:26-30. In this example man was in the image of God, but just a little higher in creativity and reasoning than the rest of the animal species. After the earth, animals and man evolved to a certain point in the evolutionary process, God created the man Adam, breathed his breath into Adam, so the man Adam became a living soul, and placed the man Adam into the garden that God had planted for him.
Notice, God planted the garden eastward in Eden. What was this place called Eden? It was an area where mankind was already living and flourishing. Cain also when he went out from the presence of the Lord, dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden, where he got him a wife.
_____________________________
Now is the time of the revealing of all things
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/24/2009 12:56:40 AM
|
|
|
parkerbrother
Posts: 387
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline
|
In a few years we'll actually be able to see the big bang, or at least the tail end of it.
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is a large, infrared-optimized space telescope, scheduled for launch in 2014. JWST will find the first galaxies that formed in the early Universe, connecting the Big Bang to our own Milky Way Galaxy. JWST will peer through dusty clouds to see stars forming planetary systems, connecting the Milky Way to our own Solar System. JWST's instruments will be designed to work primarily in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum, with some capability in the visible range.
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/24/2009 9:54:47 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4637
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
In a few years we'll actually be able to see the big bang, or at least the tail end of it. In a few years, we may actually be able to see the Creator of "the big bang"! 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/24/2009 10:06:19 AM
|
|
|
AnalystsAreUs
Posts: 186
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: AnalystsAreUs
Some would have you believe that the word formed as part of a big bang, but a reliable eye witness gives a significantly different description:
Job 38:4
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone...
Given the number of different systems and cycles on this planet, I favor the engineering description in Job.
What description? The one that says, "God made this"? That's not much of a description.
-Dan.
God's approach seems very organized. He laid a foundation, measured it etc. This is not the language one uses to describe a big explosion.
Since you have an eye witness, it's time to challenge the dogma of the Big Bang.
_____________________________
The needs of the many depend on the courage of the few.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/24/2009 3:54:05 PM
|
|
|
shakezula
Posts: 934
Joined: 3/9/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AnalystsAreUs
Since you have an eye witness, it's time to challenge the dogma of the Big Bang.
who was the eyewitness? Moses?
_____________________________
watch out for the oo moo and the blehblehbleh
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/24/2009 4:25:09 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4637
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
who was the eyewitness? Moses? Go ahead, AAU, and try to explain divine inspiration to shakez. I gave up on his flippancy a long time ago...
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/24/2009 6:33:08 PM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 1307
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Since you have an eye witness, it's time to challenge the dogma of the Big Bang.
You're welcome to propose an alternative and supply evidence to back up your superior theory. That's how science works. The Big Bang theory was extremely unpopular when it was first proposed, but it fit the data far better than the earlier steady state theories that we out there at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/25/2009 8:24:27 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 3045
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AnalystsAreUs
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: AnalystsAreUs
Some would have you believe that the word formed as part of a big bang, but a reliable eye witness gives a significantly different description:
Job 38:4
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone...
Given the number of different systems and cycles on this planet, I favor the engineering description in Job.
What description? The one that says, "God made this"? That's not much of a description.
-Dan.
God's approach seems very organized. He laid a foundation, measured it etc. This is not the language one uses to describe a big explosion.
I guess it's a good thing that the BB isn't just a big explosion.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/27/2009 9:41:04 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 265
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tacitus
quote:
Since you have an eye witness, it's time to challenge the dogma of the Big Bang.
You're welcome to propose an alternative and supply evidence to back up your superior theory. That's how science works. The Big Bang theory was extremely unpopular when it was first proposed, but it fit the data far better than the earlier steady state theories that we out there at the time.
It looks like even secular scientists are looking for an alternative theory, as there are just too many hypothetical, un-observed "fudge factors" with BB to make it viable.
Bucking the Big Bang
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/27/2009 9:59:05 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 265
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
BTW, I will agree with Tacitus that BB "fit the data" AT THE TIME it was proposed far better than the "eternal universe" ideas popular at the time Einstein proposed relativity theory. But creationists disagreed with the idea of an eternal universe too. They already knew the universe had a beginning, and a creator.
However, almost every time any new data was discovered, it did NOT fit the current version of the BB theory. In other words, its predictive power was zilch, nada, zero. Never a good sign for a "scientific" theory.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/27/2009 7:49:49 PM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 1307
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
However, almost every time any new data was discovered, it did NOT fit the current version of the BB theory. In other words, its predictive power was zilch, nada, zero. Never a good sign for a "scientific" theory.
That just isn't true. The Big Bang theory is one of the best established and confirmed (though observational means) scientific theories there is. If you mean all the new data concerning dark matter and dark energy, and the run-away expansion of the Universe, yes, those were all surprises to cosmologists, but none of that invalidates the Big Bang theory at all.
As for the predictive power -- I can think of two predictions the Big Bang theory made that were verified to an extremely high degree of accuracy:
1) The Cosmic Background Radiation -- an echo of the Big Bang itself
2) The composition and ratio of hydrogen to helium, the two elements created in the Big Bang
Those observations confirmed the theoretical calculations.
Add to that, the further we look, the younger and more compact the universe looks. Nothing so far that we have see is contrary to the established theory.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/27/2009 9:09:25 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4637
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
If you mean all the new data concerning dark matter and dark energy, and the run-away expansion of the Universe, yes, those were all surprises to cosmologists, but none of that invalidates the Big Bang theory at all. Of course nothing invalidates faith-based religion. Just find a new fudge factor and continue your dogma as desired...
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/28/2009 8:52:05 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 3045
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
It looks like even secular scientists are looking for an alternative theory, as there are just too many hypothetical, un-observed "fudge factors" with BB to make it viable.
Bucking the Big Bang
A couple things:
1.) That article is 5.5 years old. Scientists have found quite a bit of new data in that 5 years, including the dark matter that he claims is a "fudge factor."
2.) I wonder what his alternative theory is. I'd bet money that it doesn't involve a 6000 year old earth.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/28/2009 10:24:28 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 265
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tacitus
quote:
However, almost every time any new data was discovered, it did NOT fit the current version of the BB theory. In other words, its predictive power was zilch, nada, zero. Never a good sign for a "scientific" theory.
That just isn't true. The Big Bang theory is one of the best established and confirmed (though observational means) scientific theories there is. If you mean all the new data concerning dark matter and dark energy, and the run-away expansion of the Universe, yes, those were all surprises to cosmologists, but none of that invalidates the Big Bang theory at all.
As for the predictive power -- I can think of two predictions the Big Bang theory made that were verified to an extremely high degree of accuracy:
1) The Cosmic Background Radiation -- an echo of the Big Bang itself
2) The composition and ratio of hydrogen to helium, the two elements created in the Big Bang
Those observations confirmed the theoretical calculations.
Add to that, the further we look, the younger and more compact the universe looks. Nothing so far that we have see is contrary to the established theory.
Can you tell me where you found the "high degree of accuracy" prediction for the background radiation? Everything I've read says that the high degree of constancy of the background radiation, both in magnitude and frequency, was a problem for BB because that implied thermal equlibrium of the "early universe". That equilibrium in turn presented a "time horizon" problem, meaning that there simply wasn't enough time for radiation to go back and forth across the whole universe as to reach equilibrium. This in turn brought forth the "hyper-inflationary" theory addendum to BB as a rescueing device, rather than say the theory is just wrong, for which there is still no explanation as to what forces of nature could start AND stop such hyper expansion, and why.
BB predicted that there might be SOMETHING of a radiation signature, but what they actually got was far different than expected.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/28/2009 10:27:18 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 265
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
1.) That article is 5.5 years old. Scientists have found quite a bit of new data in that 5 years, including the dark matter that he claims is a "fudge factor."
Hi Dan,
So what did they find, more unexplainable star positions?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/28/2009 8:35:04 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 3045
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
quote:
1.) That article is 5.5 years old. Scientists have found quite a bit of new data in that 5 years, including the dark matter that he claims is a "fudge factor."
Hi Dan,
So what did they find
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_cluster
quote:
more unexplainable star positions?
What are you talking about?
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/30/2009 5:18:28 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 265
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
quote:
1.) That article is 5.5 years old. Scientists have found quite a bit of new data in that 5 years, including the dark matter that he claims is a "fudge factor."
Hi Dan,
So what did they find
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_cluster
quote:
more unexplainable star positions?
What are you talking about?
-Dan.
I don't get it, Dan, is this like a back-up plan in case that "density wave" theory you provided links to a few weeks back doesn't pan out? Did you notice that both are providing completely different explanations for why spiral galaxies exist? Both cannot be correct, but both could certainly be wrong. Do you favor one over the other? Just curious.
Both of these are trying to figure out how in the world the stars in spiral galaxies could possibly be where they are, in light of "billions of years" of existence, and their mysterious apparant velocities. Perhaps I SHOULD stand corrected, not "unexplainable" but "too many explanations".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/30/2009 9:38:23 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 3045
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
I don't get it, Dan, is this like a back-up plan in case that "density wave" theory you provided links to a few weeks back doesn't pan out? Did you notice that both are providing completely different explanations for why spiral galaxies exist? Both cannot be correct, but both could certainly be wrong. Do you favor one over the other? Just curious.
The two work together. The "density wave" theory works off of the rosette-shaped orbits of stars in a galaxy. Part of the reason those stellar orbits take that shape and not the ellipsoidal orbit typically found in star systems is that the mass in a galaxy is distributed throughout the galactic disk, whereas the mass in a solar system is concentrated in the central star. This distribution is also borne out by measurements showing that the linear velocity of stars in a galaxy is relatively flat, regardless of distance from the center of the galaxy (as shown in the graph on the wikipedia page), i.e. stars in the middle of an arm are traveling at the same speed as stars on the tips. Contrast this with planets in a solar system where bodies closer to the star have a greater linear velocity (i.e. Mercury is traveling much faster than Pluto; LEO satellites go faster than geosynchronous satellites)
The problem is that they have evidence of all of this mass and gravitational energy, but no electromagnetic energy associated with it - hence the term "dark matter."
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
You gotta love this from Dan's wiki article on "Dark matter"
quote:
It has been noted that the names "dark matter" and "dark energy" serve mainly as expressions of human ignorance, much like the marking of early maps with "terra incognita."[14]
So now we find people willing to trump the plain reading of scripture, not ONLY with man's worldly KNOWLEDGE, but now ALSO with man's IGNORANCE. 
Scientists have found evidence of <something>, but they don't know what it is. They can see evidence of gravitational forces and they can see the universe's expansion rate accelerating. At this point, they don't know what exactly are causing those phenomena to occur.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/31/2009 6:38:29 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 265
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
Scientists have found evidence of <something>, but they don't know what it is. They can see evidence of gravitational forces and they can see the universe's expansion rate accelerating. At this point, they don't know what exactly are causing those phenomena to occur.
okay.....So how does this tie into your statement that led to you offering this "dark matter" link:
quote:
1.) That article is 5.5 years old. Scientists have found quite a bit of new data in that 5 years, including the dark matter that he claims is a "fudge factor."
How does this "save" big bang? Are you trying to say that BB _predicted_ that scientists would find "something", they wouldn't know what, that would not only not emit light, it wouldn't even interact with it, that would preserve the spiral galaxy structure for billions of years, and cause accelerated expansion?
Dan, can't you see that this is just another "fudge factor"? The evidence continues to surprise, BB has nothing to say about it, so they apply another band aid. Finding data that doesn't fit your model is NOT the same thing as finding some "thing" attached to your model, especially when that "thing" supposedly has such fantastical attributes. To think otherwise is to basically say that your model is non-disprovable, and therefore more akin to faith than science.
How is it different to "explain" evidence with a mysterious unknown substance that defies everything ever observed about matter, from just saying "God did it"? To me, seems like just a choice of faith. What if we just changed the name of "dark matter" to "God", would that suffice? Both are unknown to those continueing the patch attempts for BB.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/31/2009 6:46:01 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4637
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Dan, can't you see that... No demolay, uniformitarian naturalists cannot see much of anything, since they are so blinded by their religious faith. It would be humorous if it were not so tragic. 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
