1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    02 Sep '15 21:00
    The Big Bang Never Happened

    YouTube
  2. Jo'Burg South Africa
    Joined
    20 Mar '06
    Moves
    45425
    14 Sep '15 21:28
    Excellent - I wonder what arguments evolutionists will have now again...
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52616
    14 Sep '15 21:371 edit
    Originally posted by Nicksten
    Excellent - I wonder what arguments evolutionists will have now again...
    Was sorry you had to answer his nonsense video's.

    Tell me just what the big bang has to do with evolution? You do realize the universe was around for about 10 billion years before our SUN was even made much less Earth itself so just how do you justify conflating the beginnings of the universe with evolution? Personally I no longer respond to what is apparently your master, Hinds. Are you in fact his disciple?

    And just for your information, the BB is just a theory held up by some evidence and the entire scientific world knows full well it might be superseded by something superior. There is solid evidence something like the BB happened, it is not just a theory built out of nothing. For instance, it was shown the galaxies in the universe are receded from us at a rate that depends on how far away the galaxies are, the closer ones X speed away, except for those bound by gravity like Andromeda, which is in fact on a collision course with the milky way, but the further out you go, the faster they are receding. All you have to do is run that backwards and you can see as you go back in time, they are closer and closer together. That alone says they were all in one place in the deep past.

    Of course you are probably one of the YEC'ers who just poo poo ANY scientific evidence that says Earth is more than 6000 years old but that is YOUR problem not the problem of the world. The REAL world knows better. In about a thousand different ways actually.
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    15 Sep '15 05:12
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Was sorry you had to answer his nonsense video's.

    Tell me just what the big bang has to do with evolution? You do realize the universe was around for about 10 billion years before our SUN was even made much less Earth itself so just how do you justify conflating the beginnings of the universe with evolution? Personally I no longer respond to what is appa ...[text shortened]... problem of the world. The REAL world knows better. In about a thousand different ways actually.
    Your problem is that you speak out of ignorance. 😏
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52616
    15 Sep '15 10:41
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Your problem is that you speak out of ignorance. 😏
    Yes, I suppose for you, evolution started with the big bang. What a piece of rot you are mentally. You don't know your asss from a hole in the ground.
  6. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78542
    16 Sep '15 02:24
    Originally posted by Nicksten
    Excellent - I wonder what arguments evolutionists will have now again...
    I hate to spoil the party, but the theory of evolution does not depend on the Big Bang theory. It depends only on the Earth having a history longer than about 500 million years. What is more the observed redshift of distant galaxies compared with standard candles, along with the microwave background, is rather hard to explain without a big bang. Whether the expansion was preceded by creation ab nihilo or some prior universe there is no reason to doubt the overall picture.
  7. Standard memberlemon lime
    go phish
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    16 Sep '15 04:122 edits
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    I hate to spoil the party, but the theory of evolution does not depend on the Big Bang theory. It depends only on the Earth having a history longer than about 500 million years. What is more the observed redshift of distant galaxies compared with standard candles, along with the microwave background, is rather hard to explain without a big bang. Wheth ...[text shortened]... reation ab nihilo or some prior universe there is no reason to doubt the overall picture.
    A question about redshift. Why does redshift occurring in relation to earth necessarily mean everything is accelerating away from everything else? If earth itself is in motion relative to some other more or less central point of observation then it might only appear the entire universe is accelerating. If it turns out the earth is simply decelerating at a different rate of speed than the objects we are observing, then it's possible we could be 'seeing' acceration (away from earth) when in fact what might actually be happening are various rates of overall deceleration.

    This is easy to understand but difficult to explain, so here's an analogous example of what I'm talking about...

    Say you are on a train traveling 80 mph, and the train tracks are parallel to a road on which a car is traveling 60 mph. The train is decelerating at a rate of 2 mph and the car is decelerating at a rate of 5 mph. In relation to the ground both are decelerating, but in relation to one another the train is (in effect) accelerating away from the car. The moment the car stops moving the train is still moving away but is no longer accelerating away from the car.

    So what I'm suggesting here (from the above example) is the possibility that the red shift we are able to observe (from earth) might not be an accurate representation of the over all motion of the entire universe. Anyway, I'm just laying this out here as something to think about... I doubt if it can be proven one way or the other.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    16 Sep '15 06:54
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    ...... but in relation to one another the train is (in effect) accelerating away from the car.
    The key is that all distant galaxies are accelerating away relative to the earth. Whether or not the earth is decelerating relative to some other frame of reference is not relevant.
    In addition, the relative velocities increase proportionally with distance.
    There is no reasonable scenario in which deceleration of the earth relative to some other frame of reference would cause the same effect. In your analogy you need to add trains on all sides rather than just one train.

    I must also add that most theologians actually think the big bang is in favour of a creator and would not seek to prove that it never happened as doing so would increase the likelihood that the universe has an infinite history and thus was not created. Certainly disproving the big bang would not help young earth creationists at all.
  9. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    16 Sep '15 07:32
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    A question about redshift. Why does redshift occurring in relation to earth necessarily mean everything is accelerating away from everything else?
    Redshift in galaxies shows that all are accelerating away from the Milky Way.
    There is nothing special about the Milky Way so we can assume that all
    galaxies will experience the same ie that all other galaxies are accelerating
    away from them.

    The common analogy used is if you take a partially inflated a balloon and
    randomly put dots over the surface when you continue to inflate the balloon
    all the dots will be moving away from all other dots.
  10. Standard memberlemon lime
    go phish
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    16 Sep '15 07:45
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The key is that all distant galaxies are accelerating away relative to the earth. Whether or not the earth is decelerating relative to some other frame of reference is not relevant.
    In addition, the relative velocities increase proportionally with distance.
    There is no reasonable scenario in which deceleration of the earth relative to some other frame o ...[text shortened]... s not created. Certainly disproving the big bang would not help young earth creationists at all.
    The entire universe may appear to be expanding at an accelerated velocity relative to earth, but how can we know if this would hold true for any other point (of reference) in the universe? The point of my analogy was to show the difference in perceived velocity, and how a redshift might show up in one instance of the example, but not in another instance of the same example. Shining a light from the moving train to the car would show the train accelerating away but shining it on the ground would show that the train is decelerating. Using the earth as the fixed referenece point is only relevant in that we are not in a position to check out other points of referece. We have theories now of an unseen force able to overcome gravity and forcibly push matter apart, but these theories are based almost entirely on our observations from here on earth...
  11. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86348
    16 Sep '15 08:04
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Your problem is that you speak out of ignorance. 😏
    And your problem is that you bring the gospel into disrepute.
  12. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86348
    16 Sep '15 08:09
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The key is that all distant galaxies are accelerating away relative to the earth. Whether or not the earth is decelerating relative to some other frame of reference is not relevant.
    In addition, the relative velocities increase proportionally with distance.
    There is no reasonable scenario in which deceleration of the earth relative to some other frame o ...[text shortened]... s not created. Certainly disproving the big bang would not help young earth creationists at all.
    I agree with thought here, particularly the last paragraph. One interesting thing for me, is what happens to time relative to the various masses moving through space-time at varying and increasing speeds. Has time itself been a variable throughout the expansion of the universe and if so what impact could this have on our perceived age of it. Etc.
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    16 Sep '15 12:42
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    The entire universe may appear to be expanding at an accelerated velocity relative to earth, but how can we know if this would hold true for any other point (of reference) in the universe?
    It follows from basic trigonometry.

    The point of my analogy was to show the difference in perceived velocity, and how a redshift might show up in one instance of the example, but not in another instance of the same example. Shining a light from the moving train to the car would show the train accelerating away but shining it on the ground would show that the train is decelerating.
    So basically you think you understand relativity. It is obvious though that you don't.
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    16 Sep '15 12:44
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I agree with thought here, particularly the last paragraph. One interesting thing for me, is what happens to time relative to the various masses moving through space-time at varying and increasing speeds. Has time itself been a variable throughout the expansion of the universe and if so what impact could this have on our perceived age of it. Etc.
    Time is relative, but except for near light speed velocities or near black holes it doesn't make a significant difference.
  15. Standard memberlemon lime
    go phish
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    16 Sep '15 20:56
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It follows from basic trigonometry.

    [b]The point of my analogy was to show the difference in perceived velocity, and how a redshift might show up in one instance of the example, but not in another instance of the same example. Shining a light from the moving train to the car would show the train accelerating away but shining it on the ground would show ...[text shortened]... ng.

    So basically you think you understand relativity. It is obvious though that you don't.[/b]
    So basically you think you understand what I've been saying. It is obvious though that you don't.

    But no worries, we've covered this topic before... and this is why I was specifically asking DeepThought about it.
Back to Top