Why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!, page 37

reply to post by randyvs

---

I've been saying the same since page one. The big bang is a theory and not fact so it doesn't prove that "moses got it right", as the OP suggests.

Here is another theory:
Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end

By suggesting that mass, time, and length can be converted into one another as the universe evolves, Wun-Yi Shu has proposed a new class of cosmological models that may fit observations of the universe better than the current big bang model. What this means specifically is that the new models might explain the increasing acceleration of the universe without relying on a cosmological constant such as dark energy, as well as solve or eliminate other cosmological dilemmas such as the flatness problem and the horizon problem.

Not only does it show that the big bang isn't fact but it also reminds us that dark matter was a fudge factor that Einstein included to explain things that didn't quite fit.

reply to post by daskakik

---

See in the OP it says " I " . That leaves the OP on his own thru out this thread. That doesn't at all mean I won't try to have his back as a believer. At the same time it obligates me personally to NOTHING. This is the logic to my " Madness ".

"There are two things I know of that go to infinity. The universe and the stupidity of man. I'm not real sure about the universe ".

Albert Einstien.

reply to post by daskakik

---

So you believe that

The big bang is a theory and not fact so it doesn't prove that "moses got it right", as the OP suggests.

Because -

Wun-Yi Shu has proposed a new class of cosmological models that may fit observations of the universe better than the current big bang model.

And this model according to the professor:

...explain the increasing acceleration of the universe without relying on a cosmological constant such as dark energy, as well as solve or eliminate other cosmological dilemmas such as the flatness problem and the horizon problem.

Thus -

• Time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity.

Did you catch that?

The Professor said that “Time has no beginning and no end” - that is a FACT relative to space and time in the cosmos.

Just like the Universe and space is infinite so is time.

But is TIME the same “thing” as the MATERIAL universe (the result of the Singularity - Big Bang)?

If yes, then I would have to agree with the Prof, that there was no Big Bang – No Singularity.

This means that many great men of science including Einstein, Hubble, Sagan made a big mistake.

Thus what Robert Jastrow, professor of astronomy and geology at Columbia University wrote is false.

That is:

“Few astronomers could have anticipated that this event—the sudden birth of the Universe—would become a proven scientific fact, but observations of the heavens through telescopes have forced them to that conclusion.”

COBE team leader George Smoot remarked:

“What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe.”

Carl Sagan said in Cosmos:

“At the beginning of this universe, there were no galaxies, stars or planets, no life or civilizations.”

He refers to the change from that state to the present universe as

“the most awesome transformation of matter and energy that we have been privileged to glimpse.” - COSMOS

This also will include the Bible when it said that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” - Gen 1:1

But if No, then the evidence provided by the great minds of Science stands to be true and accurate.

That is E = m c 2

Astrophysicist Josip Kleczek explains the formula simply as the:

"Most and possibly all elementary particles may be created by materialization of energy.”

This also proves that Bible is accurate – that the heavens, the material universe had a beginning.


So what say you? Is time the same as the material universe (the result of the Big Bang)?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Note:

Although, the Big Bang answers many question as the beginning of the universe, it does not answer other things.

One of it is - what is supposed to have caused the big bang itself?

Man with his sophisticated instruments will continue to struggle to find the real answer to this question sadly though when they finally find it they will come to same conclusion as the man Moses 3500 years ago who said that:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” - Gen 1:1 NASB

So, what say you?

Ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2

---

I'm not arguing content I'm pointing out that theories are not fact. I could care less what Wun-Yi Shu proposes because in the future both the big bang and his model may be proven wrong.

All the realtionships that you make about time and space based on this model are not fact. I see you still don't understand what is fact and objective evidence and what is correlation. This is the second time that you take something that I post trying to clear up that misunderstanding and you run with it in another direction. I really don't understand why.

reply to post by daskakik

---

I'm not arguing content I'm pointing out that theories are not fact. I could care less what Wun-Yi Shu proposes because in the future both the big bang and his model may be proven wrong.

So does this mean then that the "Organic Evolution Theory" is not a fact?

All the realtionships that you make about time and space based on this model are not fact.

What model ru talking about? Please elaborate.

I see you still don't understand what is fact and objective evidence and what is correlation. This is the second time that you take something that I post trying to clear up that misunderstanding and you run with it in another direction. I really don't understand why.

Of course I do.

I provided so many objective evidence - all of which you rejected.

ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by daskakik

---

So does this mean then that the "Organic Evolution Theory" is not a fact?

Right not a fact. Maybe comes closer to being proven then the big bang but until it is confimed it is not fact.

What model ru talking about? Please elaborate.

I provided so many objective evidence - all of which you rejected.

Shu's.

If you really understood what objective evidence is you would not be trying to pass correlation off as objective evidence. Just because you say you understand doesn't mean that you do.

You posted this and claim that it proves the the bible is factual:

"Most and possibly all elementary particles may be created by materialization of energy.”

"May be created" is far from being fact. That is proof to me that you don't understand. It has been what most of this thread has been about you saying you have facts when you don't.

reply to post by daskakik

---

Did you get that atheist and evolutionist here!

"Organic Evolution Theory" is not a fact!

Right not a fact. Maybe comes closer to being proven then the big bang but until it is confimed it is not fact.

So stop presenting it as fact - daskakik has spoken.

As for the "big bang" or the Birth of the Universe (I prefer this description) not being a fact - you mean Nasa made a mistake or the scientist who proved it to be a fact made a mistake?

For example:

When Robert Jastrow, professor of astronomy and geology at Columbia University.

Said that:

“Few astronomers could have anticipated that this event—the sudden birth of the Universe—would become a proven scientific fact, but observations of the heavens through telescopes have forced them to that conclusion.”

Or the COBE team leader George Smoot made a HUGE mistake when he said:

“What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe.”

Shu's.

If you really understood what objective evidence is you would not be trying to pass correlation off as objective evidence. Just because you say you understand doesn't mean that you do.

Huh, you're the one who brought up Shu's theory - I was just merely asking a question if you undertand what he/she was talking about.

Here's my question again - please answer it:

Is TIME the same “thing” as the MATERIAL universe (the result of the Singularity - Big Bang)?

You posted this and claim that it proves the the bible is factual:

"Most and possibly all elementary particles may be created by materialization of energy.”

"May be created" is far from being fact. That is proof to me that you don't understand. It has been what most of this thread has been about you saying you have facts when you don't.

Then by all means please explain E = mc2 in relation to Energy and Matter.

btw - you also forgot these:

“the most awesome transformation of matter and energy that we have been privileged to glimpse.” --COSMOS

I can cite more but if you don't understand what E= mc2 is then it's pointless.

ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by daskakik

---

As for the "big bang" or the Birth of the Universe (I prefer this description) not being a fact - you mean Nasa made a mistake or the scientist who proved it to be a fact made a mistake?

You mean they are not human? Einstein admitted that his Cosmological Constant was a mistake.

Huh, you're the one who brought up Shu's theory - I was just merely asking a question if you undertand what he/she was talking about.

What part of not arguing content don't you understand? Bringing the theory up was to point out that the big bang isn't the only theory out there and as such isn't a proven fact.

Then by all means please explain E = mc2 in relation to Energy and Matter.

I can cite more but if you don't understand what E= mc2 is then it's pointless.

I understand E=mc2 but that has nothing to do with someone saying "maybe" turned into "fact" by you.

reply to post by daskakik

---

You mean they are not human? Einstein admitted that his Cosmological Constant was a mistake.

Huh? Wut? Not human? Who said they're not human?

Of course they are human - that's a silly statement.

As for Einstein - although he "admitted that his Cosmological Constant was a mistake", to his credit - he humbly admitted his mistake and later corrected it and became convinced that the universe had a beginning.

Notice this small snipit from an article:

Einstein’s Big Blunder


Where did the Universe come from?

Part 1: Einstein’s Big Blunder

100 years ago, Albert Einstein published three papers that rocked the world. These papers proved the existence of the atom, introduced the theory of relativity, and described quantum mechanics.

Pretty good debut for a 26 year old scientist, huh?

His equations for relativity indicated that the universe was expanding. This bothered him, because if it was expanding, it must have had a beginning and a beginner.

Since neither of these appealed to him, Einstein introduced a ‘fudge factor’ that ensured a ‘steady state’ universe, one that had no beginning or end.

But in 1929, Edwin Hubble showed that the furthest galaxies were fleeing away from each other, just as the Big Bang model predicted. So in 1931, Einstein embraced what would later be known as the Big Bang theory, saying, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” He referred to the ‘fudge factor’ to achieve a steady-state universe as the biggest blunder of his career...

www.cosmicfingerprints.com...

Anyway this is old story - most people in the scientific community are aware of this.

So let's see - Einstein and other men of science are convinced of the Beginning of the Universe but you said they have no idea what they're saying. Hmmm I wonder who is correct on this?

Let's see - daskakik now convince and believe that the "evolution theory" IS NOT A FACT but don't believe the scientific evidence of Beginning of Universe. Looks like more work needed.

Next u said:

What part of not arguing content don't you understand? Bringing the theory up was to point out that the big bang isn't the only theory out there and as such isn't a proven fact.

OK - please provide your objective evidence to the contrary because the evidence of it being a fact is indisputable and overwhelming - that is, that the Universe had a Beginning.

Again in addition to the objective evidence provided in the OP - for your viewing pleasure I present the NASA COBE Team:
science.nasa.gov...



www.youtube.com...

If you say that the "Big Bang" "isn't a proven fact" then please offer a proven contradiction to the above vid.

My suggestion - I think you should stop now while you still can, before you bury yourself further -the other option is admit that the Universe had a beginning - after all you already admitted that "evolution is not a fact".


ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by daskakik

---

Huh? Wut? Not human? Who said they're not human?

Of course they are human - that's a silly statement.

Humans make mistakes even NASA scientists. What silly about that?

Einstein and other men of science are convinced of the Beginning of the Universe but you said they have no idea what they're saying. Hmmm I wonder who is correct on this?

Einstein himslef said:

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

Didn't sound very convinced to me.

If you say that the "Big Bang" "isn't a proven fact" then please offer a proven contradiction to the above vid.

That is what Shu's model of the universe is. You know like both theories can't be correct because they contradict each other.

Besides not understanding what objective evidence is you also don't understand that there being a big bang and there not being a big bang can't both be true?

reply to post by daskakik

---

Humans make mistakes even NASA scientists. What silly about that?

Nthin' silly 'bout that - what silly is your statement that:

You mean they are not human?

But does this mean then that evolutionist are mistaken for saying that the theory of evolution is a fact?

As for humans making mistakes - I refer you to the truthfulness of the Scriptures:

"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. " -- Romans 5:12 WEB

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," -- Rom 3:23 ESV

"We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check." -- Jam 3:2

“For there is no man righteous in the earth that keeps doing good and does not sin.” (Ecclesiastes 7:20)

“. . .If we make the statement: “We have no sin,” we are misleading ourselves and the truth is not in u. . .” (1 John 1:8)

Next you quote Einstein:

Einstein himslef said:

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

Any idea what you just quoted?


So please explain correctly what Einstein talking about?

Inquiring minds want to know.

ty,
edmc2


(Out of desperation the man grabbed a straw believing that it will save him.)

....later...

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by daskakik

---

But does this mean then that evolutionist are mistaken for saying that the theory of evolution is a fact?

Already said yes. Now if you remember the list of facts I posted before then you will recognize that while the whole thoery of evolution has not been proven to be fact parts of it can be backed by proof and as such are true.

Any idea what you just quoted?

(Out of desperation the man grabbed a straw believing that it will save him.)

So please explain correctly what you just quoted if you have. What was Einstein talking about in the quote you've provided.

Don't see why he would need saving. It's from a book titled "Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein"

It's from a letter he wrote to a friend a year before his death. Seems to me that he is being critical of his own work and realized that it may very well be wrong.

Here's another:

"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

I think he had identified a couple of details in his work that could invalidate it.

reply to post by daskakik

---

I think you have no idea of what you're talking about - just like the man out of desperation grabbed a straw believing that it will save him.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by daskakik

---

I think you have no idea of what you're talking about - just like the man out of desperation grabbed a straw believing that it will save him.

Great. The man that came up with the ground work for the big bang, that you are using to prove that the bible is true, had no idea. No more needs to be said.

See you around.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by daskakik

---

I think you have no idea of what you're talking about - just like the man out of desperation grabbed a straw believing that it will save him.

Great. The man that came up with the ground work for the big bang, that you are using to prove that the bible is true, had no idea. No more needs to be said.

See you around.

Ye didn't get it? - the straw man was you - grabbing a straw.

Good that you decide not to follow through else you will bury yourself deeper and deeper because the in the end you know that the ULTIMATE truth is that Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!

That is WHY I believe it!

see ya around

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2

---

Gotta call BS. you said:

Einstein and other men of science are convinced of the Beginning of the Universe but you said they have no idea what they're saying.

I posted a theory of a universe with no beginning and quotes which show that Einstein wasn't all that convinced and admits that he may have been wrong. You post rants with big text.

Should have payed more attention to Astyanax's post on page 1:

Ah, yes. Another God promotion from the indefatigable edmc^2, who will babble and ramble, distort logic and commonsense to the point of unrecognizability, and contemptuously ignore questions and criticisms in order to peddle his favourite line of tosh.

This is my last post on this thread.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by edmc^2

---

Gotta call BS. you said:

Einstein and other men of science are convinced of the Beginning of the Universe but you said they have no idea what they're saying.

I posted a theory of a universe with no beginning and quotes which show that Einstein wasn't all that convinced and admits that he may have been wrong. You post rants with big text.

Should have payed more attention to Astyanax's post on page 1:

Ah, yes. Another God promotion from the indefatigable edmc^2, who will babble and ramble, distort logic and commonsense to the point of unrecognizability, and contemptuously ignore questions and criticisms in order to peddle his favourite line of tosh.

This is my last post on this thread.

Are you sure this will be your last post here?

Should have payed more attention to Astyanax's post on page 1:

Is this the MO now - invoke the Asty retreat whenever confronted by FACTS?

I don't mean to question you're knowledge but Truth is Truth.

So once again - ALL evidence show that Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!

And that is the FACT - that's why I believe it.

That is:

"In The Beginning God Created The Heavens and the Earth" - Gen 1:1 --ESV

c ya around

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2

---

no particular reason - just adding the info for future reference:

Confirmation of Isa 40:22

"the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze,"

- indicating a "fine gauzelike" connectivity of the heavenly bodies (galaxies, stars, planets, etc).

To this specific line:

“The filaments are huge, stretching for tens of light years through space..."

Now two new reports stand out in relation to Alfvén’s predictions so that ultimately he cannot be ignored. The first concerns the birth of stars and the second the electric circuit of the Sun....

..... The telescope (Herschel) has been giving astronomers an unprecedented look inside the cosmic womb of stars, known as molecular clouds, to find (surprise, surprise) that stars are formed in “an incredible network of filamentary structures, and features indicating a chain of near-simultaneous star-formation events, glittering like strings of pearls deep in our Galaxy.” Although described as “incredible” by astronomers, this description precisely matches the decades-old expectations of plasma cosmologists!



.....In an ESA report last month the high-resolution of the Herschel space observatory produced another surprise, “The filaments are huge, stretching for tens of light years through space and Herschel has shown that newly-born stars are often found in the densest parts of them... Such filaments in interstellar clouds have been glimpsed before by other infrared satellites, but they have never been seen clearly enough to have their widths measured. Now, Herschel has shown that, regardless of the length or density of a filament, the width is always roughly the same. “This is a very big surprise,” says Doris Arzoumanian, Laboratoire AIM Paris-Saclay, CEA/IRFU

www.holoscience.com...

Thread source: www.abovetopsecret.com...

ciao..

Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.
  Posted 15 days ago with 20 member flags

Christians help me debunk these non sense atheistic beliefs about Genesis please
  Posted 3 days ago with 14 member flags

Satan hid the fossils to trick everyone!
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags

Just ONE question on evolution
  Posted 15 days ago with 5 member flags

M U T A T I O N - Friend or Foe of Evolution?
  Posted 8 days ago with 5 member flags

When a Child is Born...the Evolution begins
  Posted 5 days ago with 5 member flags

Denisovans
  Posted 15 days ago with 3 member flags

Are Humans the result of Hybridization?
  Posted 14 days ago with 3 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: