Creation

from your same link:plane
NOUN
An aeroplane.words can have multiple meanings dummy.

Hi Tangle Why do you classify the Big Bang Theory as a hypothesis?Is that because it is a TV show? How can a theory which can be disproven be stronger than a fact that never changes? What would you base such a hypothesis on? The only thing you would have is to make the assumption it was true then try to prove your assumption was true. But you can not base evidence of something you believe to be true. That is faith and faith is not allowed in science or so I have been told many times on this site. You can take numbers and make them say anything you want them to say. If you don't believe that check out Einstein's biggest blunder.As long as the math is all that supports the hypothesis it will remain a hypothesis. It will never become a theory until there is evidence to support it.

quote:

---

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

---

Now if you can tell me when the beginning was I will give you a definite time. But until then I will just say "the universe has always existed in some form."Actually that is not far from what several scientist believe. Einstein believed it was eternal in existence until he was hoodwinked by Hubble. No I am not wrong.Just because there are scientist that don't believe in the Big Bang Theory and have tried to come up with something else does not make me wrong.They have zero evidence for anything they have dreamed up, imagined, or devised as to how the creation took place.At least I have a Book I have come to believe that is true due to the things foretold thousands of years before they took place. Even scientific things foretold long before man discovered the facts about certain things. Exodus 3:14

quote:

---

ויאמר אלהים
אל־משה אהיה אשר
אהיה ויאמר כה
תאמר לבני ישראל
אהיה שלחני אליכם׃

---

God Bless,

Hi Dr. If you had been honest you would have included the following.

quote:

---

Origin
Early 20th century: shortened form.

---

Well 200 years before the airplane was invented in 1903 it meant:"A flat surface on which a straight line joining any two points on it would wholly lie."

quote:

---

Origin
Early 17th century: from Latin planum ‘flat surface’, neuter of the adjective planus ‘plain’. The adjective was suggested by French plan(e) ‘flat’. The word was introduced to differentiate the geometrical senses, previously expressed by plain, from the latter's other meanings.

---

quote:

---

A tool consisting of a block with a projecting steel blade, used to smooth a wooden or other surface by paring shavings from it.

---

quote:

---

Origin
Middle English: from a variant of obsolete French plaine ‘planing instrument’, from late Latin plana (in the same sense), from Latin planare ‘make level’, from planus ‘plain, level’.

---

So yes old words can be co-opted and used as slang by people to lazy to use the complete word when talking about an object.God Bless,

great so you agree that words can have multiple meanings depending on their context. So why are you arguing with ringo about science's use of "assumption"?

Because a theory explains the facts and forms a conclusion. Which can change if new facts are found. But this is irrelevant. Correct but irrelevant You don't seem to be able to understand that my point is that there are scientifically valid hypothesises that DO say that the the universe has existed forever. As far as this argument goes, yes it does. You said this way back in post 1285: And I showed you a mathematically validated hypothesis by scientists that shows that it coud be. You blather on about difficult physics that you don't understand and it not being enough to form a theory then quote a chunk of ancient mythology as though that was enough? Really?

According to John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time...." Either Moses was wrong or John was wrong.There is no such thing as a "spiritual manifestation" and your god doesn't exist either. Whether you believe in Him or not does not make any difference.

You have no place to make absolute statements which you cannot prove. Perhaps it makes no difference what we believe in the grand scheme of things. I have experienced spiritual manifestations, so it means your definition has to be different for your statement to be true. Evidence does not define reality. Your absolute belief in such a definition is quite simply WRONG...at least for many of us. If your name was ringo Webster, you would have to rewrite your dictionary.

At 10 billion degrees K it would be well beyond the visible spectrum. It wasn't. Even ultraviolet light, which is just barely beyond the visible spectrum, is dark - because, guess why - it's beyond the visible spectrum. On the contrary, everything was dark until it cooled down enough to be visible. Who said there was objective evidence for that? The difference is that the Big Bang is the best explanation for the objective evidence that we do have. God is not. You're being dishonest. I bet you have used the word yourself exactly in that context. If you were honestly looking for answers, you could have googled that yourself. For example:

quote:

---

Technically, these are all assumptions, but they are perfectly reasonable ones that can be tested. The scientist performing the experiment described above would justify many of her assumptions by performing additional tests in parallel with the experimental ones. For example, she would separately test whether substance B affects bacterial growth to check that it was indeed inert as she'd assumed. Other assumptions are justified by past tests performed by other scientists. For instance, the question of whether or not bacteria can grow on the growth medium would have been studied by many previous researchers. And some assumptions might remain untested simply because all of our knowledge about the field suggests that the assumption is a safe one (e.g., we know of no reason why bacteria should multiply faster when their dishes are marked with a red, rather than a green, pen). All tests involve assumptions, but most of these are assumptions that can and have been verified separately. link

---

That's why the Big Bang is still a hypothesis. It is not (yet) a thoroughly tested theory, like evolution or the age of the earth, until the assumptions can be confirmed. Dictionary definitions are the first layer of understanding, not the last. Argumentum ad dictionarium is a fallacy used by schoolboys. Adults should have grown out of it.

You do it all the time under the umbrella of belief. Why is it different when I do it? No you haven't. You have experienced "something" that you interpret as "spiritual manifestations" - most likely because some pastor has told you that's what it was. You have it backwards. YOU can define "spiritual manifestation" in such a way as to make your interpretation true. But different people will define it in different ways: ghosts, demons, gods, etc. How can a belief be "wrong", unless it actually defies objective evidence? My belief is just as valid as yours - AND it's supported by a complete lack of evidence for yours.

Hi Tangle Can you explain one of the hypothesis that is valid?
Then give me the evidence that makes it valid. Using the scientific definition of validity found here

quote:

---

In its purest sense, this refers to how well a scientific test or piece of research actually measures what it sets out to, or how well it reflects the reality it claims to represent. Like reliability, validity in this sense is a concept drawn from the positivist scientific tradition and needs specific interpretation and usage in the context of qualitative research.

---

Bloodletting was practiced until the 20th century, as a cure for diseases. George Washington was bled to death by doctors practicing the accepted cure for diseases.Today we know that the life of the flesh is in the blood as the red blood cells carry oxygen and energy to the body cells and then transport the cell waste to the liver and kidneys. Thus we know that the life of the flesh is in the blood. This was not fully understood until the 1900's. But Moses made that statement over 2800 years ago, in my book you call a book of mythology. How did a shepherd 2800 years ago have that information and write it down for us to have today.

quote:

---

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

---

If the Bible is a book of myth how would it be able to record information 2800 years before it was discovered?God Bless,

Hi ringo My God does exist "Whether you believe in Him or not does not make any difference."One day you will meet Him face to face and give an account of your life and make your excuses for not believing in Him. You will believe then but it will be too late.I pray God bless you anyway and open you eyes that you might see before it is too late,

That statement has no value. You could say the same thing about the Tooth Fairy. If there was a god, he would be more likely to judge you on your behaviour than on someting as petty as belief.

Of course I can't ICANT, but if I could you wouldn't understand it.Luckily I don't have to because it's a published peer reviewed paper. (Which means that those who do understand have checked for both of us.). But you know, you could always check for yourself

quote:

---

In this article, we show that one may be able to get a better understanding of some of the above problems by studying the quantum correction terms in the second order Friedmann equation, derived from the quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE), which in turn was obtained by replacing geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories [5] (this formulation of quantum mechanics gives rise to identical predictions as those of ordinary quantum mechanics). In particular, while one correction term can be interpretable as dark energy, with the right density, and providing a possible explanation of the coincidence problem, the other term can be interpreted as a radiation term in the early universe, preventing the formation of a big-bang type singularity, and predicting an infinite age of our universe. One naturally assumes a quantum mechanical description of the fluid or condensate filling our universe, described by a wavefunction
(assumed normalizable and single valued. Some well-studied examples in curved spacetimes, including in cosmology, include Refs. [6], [7], [8], [9].
), associated with the four-velocity field
, and expansion
,
(with vanishing shear and twist, for simplicity. The constant
for conformally invariant scalar fluid, but left arbitrary here). We will see later in this article that a condensate composed of gravitons with a tiny mass is a natural candidate for this fluid. Then the quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation follows [10]1
(1)
Note that Eq. (1) follows directly the Klein—Gordon or Dirac

---

But after that it gets a bit trickier.https://www.sciencedirect.com/...ticle/pii/S0370269314009381 That made me laugh out loud. This is just a wild guess but I'd say they knew that blood was necessary for life because every time they cut a goat's throat it died.

Hi ringo Are you saying the Big Bang Theory is wrong and we cannot see the cmbr? Why does the cmbr exist then? You know that because? You said, "There is no objective evidence that God exists."I was just asking did you require the same kind of objective evidence that was available for those events for the existence of God. Message 1335But you seem to require more evidence for God than those events. But you just said above there was no objective evidence supporting the Big Bang. Make up your mind. Never since I read about the Wright brothers was the first to build an airplane. But you are not arguing that assumption have to be proven but that they are fact. Unless I misunderstood what you were saying. Where can I find that the Big Bang is a hypothesis rather than the Standard Theory? If dictionaries do not give us the definitions of words why do we have dictionaries?Can anybody make up any kind of definition that suites their belief system?God Bless,

I'm saying that Genesis talks about visible light - i.e. the difference between day and night. The authors of Genesis could not "see" the cmbr and had no way of knowing that it existed. The difference is that we are actively looking for objective evidence, so yes, we do require objective evidence and we don't call something a theory until there is objective evidence to support it. Believers, on the other hand, just make excuses for not having any objective evidence for their beliefs. No. As I said, those events are not considered as fact until they are supported by evidence. No. The Big Bang is the best EXPLANATION for the evidence that we do have. Of course we have evidence for the Big Bang - the cmbr for example. No, I'm not. I'm arguing that assumptions are tested and shown to be valid. Google. As I said, it's the first layer of understanding. People like you, who regard the dictionary as the be-all and end-all repository of knowlege, never get beyond the first layer. Of course not. But people working in specialized areas can fine-tune definitions to fit their needs.

quote:

---

hammer
2. a metal ball, typically weighing 16 pounds (7.3 kg), attached to a wire for throwing in an athletic contest.

---

Be sure not to use yours for anything else.