Creation

Hi ringo, If you are going to quote me get the quote right.
Message 522
If inflation does not exist those nine problems do not match what is observed.You can find an open letter to the Scientific community at the web site below.
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community | Plasma-Universe.comThere were 31 scientists that signed the above letter. After it was reproduced at cosmologystatement.org, another 200 scientist and engineers signed the letter as well as 250 independent researchers.
You can find the original document at: cosmologystatement.org
They point out that if inflation, dark matter and dark energy which has never been observed, does not exist, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the BBT.They state: "the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors."Now if you have any evidence for the existence of inflation, dark matter, and dark energy please share it.Just because they are required for the BB to be a theory does not make any one of them exist.God Bless,

I can imagine some folks signing this document while still accepting the evidence for the BBT, dark matter, dark energy, and inflation. So what should I make of the number of folks who signed the paper? Exactly what are their opinions?I do recognize some fairly famous names on the list, and no I am not claiming that everyone on the list accepts the same science. But telling me that the list has a couple hundred people on it when most of them are not even cosmologists, and when signing the list means something different for some folks than for others, is not all that persuasive.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi ringo, That would mean the universe was infinite, eternal, if that took place. But is ruled out because it would have already run out of energy without an endless supply of energy.

quote:

---

Job 9:8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

​

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

​

Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

---

I hear a lot of chatter about stretching and fabric when the universe is being talked about.Stretching out the heavens would look a lot more like the pictures of the proposed universe, than what would be produced by a scaler field (which has never been seen but happened once to produce the universe) would.If the universe started as a hot, dense, ball of energy and the space between each of the quarks and leptons began to expand that would produce a universe that would be a sphere. But if the space between all quarks and leptons expanded exponentially there would have never been any two able to combine and produce anything. Much less there would be no chance of a collision of galaxies as they would not exist.God Bless,

Hi Astrophile and welcome, I don't know if you can understand what non-existence is. But if you can you know that non-existence can not produce existence.If you think so give me your explanation of what would make it possible.Now if the universe came from a big bounce (big crunch of a universe beginning to expand into a new universe). That would make it eternal in existence.Tell me what would be the mechanism that would cause the crunch to compress all that is in the old universe into the small little pea sized universe. Then what would be the mechanism that would cause it to begin to expand.After a few eons there would be no energy left without an external eternal power source. It has a simple answer.Either it had a beginning to exist.
OR
It has existed infinitely in the past.I can find no other possible solution.Of the two solutions you proposed one is not possible, the other is a infinite universe.Care to try again?God Bless,

This exchange shows exactly why you should stick to being wrong about how to diagram a sentence, and why you should leave science to the serious scientists and to the amateurs who at least make try to read up on the matter.If the universe has expanded from a smaller size, why would that make the universe eternal or infinite? Ringo's statement says nothing about the initial state of the universe at all, nor does it say anything about infinite expansion or the state of the universe today beyond it being bigger than at some other time. Can I see those computations, ICANT?At least this time your statement is wrong. That's an improvement over past answers you've given that would cause a poor teaching assistant set your paper on fire.

I did. I copied and pasted it directly from your post. A shortage of evidence is not "proof" that the Big Bang is false.

quote:

---

Job 9:8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

---

Spreading doesn't mean expansion. When you spread butter you have the same volume. Only the shape changes.

quote:

---

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

---

Same as above. Curtains don't expand.

quote:

---

Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

---

Here you have the earth spreading. Science does not claim that the earth is expanding.

If at one point in time,even at the beginning of known time there was a singularity, that singularity would have the exact same weight and mass as the universe does now.Belief is simply that God created the singularity rather than how it necessarily came to be. The BB theory may simply be a matter of observing Gods creation.It makes more sense to ask "What came first? God or dirt" rather than to speculate that dirt has eternally existed. Critics say that one major reason that many people prefer the eternal dirt hypothesis is that dirt (matter) does not hold one accountable.

No, conmen say that.The reality is that there is evidence that dirt does exist. And the evidence to support that statement is...?

Because the singularity contains everything that is now out there...according to theory. Why would the mass change?
Or perhaps I am confusing mass with weight or volume.

The singularity is not a thing, it is the point where all our understanding breaks down. It's equally likely that it had no mass.

In fairness to ICANT, I don't think the universe having a beginning was supposed to prove that God exists. He was working through verse by verse to show that none of them were false. But we got stuck on verse 1.

Both those explanations are prima facie absurd. The universe is everything - there can not be anything before it or outside it that caused it to exist. Equally, it couldn't have come to exist from nothing; since nothing could have caused it to begin.Equally, the universe cannot have always been here, since how then could we have got to here? An infinite amount of time would have to have passed to reach this point, and no matter how long time has been going for it cannot have reached the point of infinity.If those of the only two explanations, then clearly no simple answer exists. Whatever the answer is it's necessarily something which does not make sense in terms of the simple everyday concepts you're using.

Hi ringo, Are you sure the earth did not expand from a small nucleus to what it is today.According to science the Milky Way is not expanding. Although it had to at one time.God Bless,

Hi ringo, A lack of those three things means the BB did not take place as has been presented here.Why do you think cavediver made the statement that a new theory was needed.God Bless,