MMurphy
Inactive
Mitspa how do either of those things work against it? Are you saying that red shift indicates and infinite universe?the very best scientist admit this actually works against this theory...
Mitspa how do either of those things work against it? Are you saying that red shift indicates and infinite universe?the very best scientist admit this actually works against this theory...
There are no dogmas respecting what scientific theories you can apply to.so? he is clearly wrong and according to these catholics, he is not a real catholic
no the scientist on this video, prove that it defeats the big bag theory...did you even watch this video?Mitspa how do either of those things work against it? Are you saying that red shift indicates and infinite universe?
Well these guys seem to disagree? I dont have a dog in that hunt.There are no dogmas respecting what scientific theories you can apply to.
He quotes the very best sources and the greatest scientist in the world on this issue...did you even watch the video?The guy in the video doesn't seem to understand what the big bang model actually is and what different hypotheses demonstrate. "Big bang theory at best given the benefit of every doubt... an expanding mass of gas." Uh, no. General big bang theory is taken from observation that all the universe appears to have been closer together and appears to have come to one point; and as far as we data leads using the microwave background radiation, provides a point to at least 300,000 years prior to the singularity. At this stage gas didn't exist. Only sub atomic particles - not even full matter existed. The big bang describes space time and energy coming to existence. Not mass and not matter expanding. Matter isn't expanding, neither is mass.
Einstein actually championed the theory. At least he did at first and then changed it so that the universe was infinite then he had to change it back again.He quotes the very best sources and the greatest scientist in the world on this issue...did you even watch the video?
You do understand that science has proven many false theories wrong since Einstien has passed away? And Einstien would reject this theory altogether if he had the information that sceince now has.Einstein actually championed the theory. At least he did at first and then changed it so that the universe was infinite then he had to change it back again.
Mitspa what evidence do you have for the universe being infinitely old?
What evidence is there for an infinitely old universe?You do understand that science has proven many false theories wrong since Einstien has passed away? And Einstien would reject this theory altogether if he had the information that sceince now has.
what? who has brought that issue up? lol what has been proven is big bag is a false theory, that the very best and respected scientist now admit this theory is in the trash can of science history.What evidence is there for an infinitely old universe?
Mitspa you realize that you are arguing for an infinite universe, right? If the big bang is false that means the universe is infinite.what? who has brought that issue up? lol what has been proven is big bag is a false theory, that the very best and respected scientist now admit this theory is in the trash can of science history.
The issue is that the big bang theory has been defeated and should be put in the history bin of really silly ideas. I believe the bible and real science ...what is provable and observable...not fairy tales.Mitspa you realize that you are arguing for an infinite universe, right? If the big bang is false that means the universe is infinite.
I'm sincere when I say, how do you define the beginning scientifically? We know there was a beginning, so aside from everything just appearing (which isn’t supported by Gen 1) how do you explain it to someone who believes in the Big Bang? As the BB just a theory, what is your theory?The issue is that the big bang theory has been defeated and should be put in the history bin of really silly ideas. I believe the bible and real science ...what is provable and observable...not fairy tales.
Ab I dont have to have all the answers to know when a con job is at work..Eternal things are known by those who have the Eternal Spirit of God, and here is where I reason with the brethren. But I dont have to claim to have the answers to the beginning of time beyond what the scriptures declare, its mans pride and flesh that cause him to presume he must have answers to these things.I'm sincere when I say, how do you define the beginning scientifically? We know there was a beginning, so aside from everything just appearing (which isn’t supported by Gen 1) how do you explain it to someone who believes in the Big Bang? As the BB just a theory, what is your theory?
I already gave my theory here http://www.christianforumsite.com/threads/learning-genesis.37490/page-2#post-314586
See this is where I differ because I see it as a command to learn from creation to see and understand the awesome work of God. I'm not defending the BB, only that there was a beginning as the scriputes say and the Lord has given us hints so we can search them out. Does it matter? Not at all. But we are to have an answer to any question and people want to know how we can mesh the observed or de facto understanding with the word of God. Before Hubble, the standing theory was the universe was eternal. Now they have a beginning just like we do. More understanding and prayer and we'll have them quoting Genesis! I can honestly claim to have found the reference to dark matter/energy in Genesis 1. I'm glad you wrote backAb I dont have to have all the answers to know when a con job is at work..Eternal things are known by those who have the Eternal Spirit of God, and here is where I reason with the brethren. But I dont have to claim to have the answers to the beginning of time beyond what the scriptures declare, its mans pride and flesh that cause him to presume he must have answers to these things.
Have no problem with real science...but this theory is just another religion and has no basis in sound observable science and has been used for years to corrupt the faith of many young people.See this is where I differ because I see it as a command to learn from creation to see and understand the awesome work of God. I'm not defending the BB, only that there was a beginning as the scriputes say and the Lord has given us hints so we can search them out. Does it matter? Not at all. But we are to have an answer to any question and people want to know how we can mesh the observed or de facto understanding with the word of God. Before Hubble, the standing theory was the universe was eternal. Now they have a beginning just like we do. More understanding and prayer and we'll have them quoting Genesis! I can honestly claim to have found the reference to dark matter/energy in Genesis 1. I'm glad you wrote back
That would be true if it wasn't the most convincing evidence of God. All it States is that the universe has an origin.Have no problem with real science...but this theory is just another religion and has no basis in sound observable science and has been used for years to corrupt the faith of many young people.
That might be your opinion ...but The Holy Spirit came to convict...convince...(same word) the world!Mit
That would be true if it wasn't the most convincing evidence of God. All it States is that the universe has an origin.
What do you mean it don't make sense?That doesn't make sense.
The Bible tells us the universe was created. This theory indicates it is created also. You seem to be unclear that this theory is not a philosophy, its an observation and by arguing against it, you are supporting an idolatrous belief that the creation is as infinite as God.