World is made immortal, created matter. Why does it not have sceintific value?
There's no evidence that it was "created", only formed.
There's no evidence -- quite the opposite -- that it is or will be immortal.
Matter possesses energy and is rver mobile. After all, E=Mc2 is exactly that. Since matter is never static, therefore no static frame of reference is possible. Why does it not have sceintific value?
E = mc
2 states that mass
is energy, not that it possesses energy.
Matter can indeed be exactly static. I think there's a rather large nonzero probablity that at least one particle in the universe is static at any point in time.
That matter has inertia which resists change and motion. Why does it not have sceintific value?
Links or quotes please. I have yet to see any religious text discuss the concept of inertia, nor was it ever mentioned in my science history lessons.
That creation out of nothing is not possible. Why does it not have sceintific value?
Because something is not scientific simply for accepting a scientific conclusion.
Universe expands and contracts periodicall. But never does it collapse to a so called singularity. Why does it not have sceintific value?
Because that's not evidenced at all by anything. You state as fact something which is inherently unknowable as such.
Hindus believe in a cyclic universe, and whatever can be explainede by BB can be explained by it. Why is one off BB more sceintific than periodical expansion and contraction. This model is theoretically possible. Why does it not have sceintific value?
No, not everything explained by a Big Bang can be explained by a cyclic universe.
Second, neither is considered more scientific than the other. But invoking cyclic universe involves more entites than a single one.
Hindus hold that the expansion of universe starts with a BANG, clearly, explitly specified. Why does it not have sceintific value?
Because there wasn't a bang at all. That means you basically believe in something that is impossible.
Hindus believe that even universe undergoes an evolution. If you look aroound you will find stars, galaxies etc at various stages of formation. Why does it not have sceintific value?
Because simply believing something after the fact is not enough to make something scientific.
Christians, Sikhs, pagans all accept science. That doesn't make them scientific either.
Lastly, why BB too is not a myth
Because there's evidence of the phenomenon we call the Big Bang.
Rather a complete failure, I think.
Edited by Nij, : Fix coding.