Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
FRINGE SCIENCE
>
The Big Bang Theory - Debunked?
The thing is, even with all the valid scientific knowledge and equations, one is still left with that question: What was there before?If time is linear, then the question must be asked. The answers: Nothing or Infinity are just cop outs. It still makes no rational sense.
If time isn't linear, then you run into similar problems.
And if this isn't reality and our science is based on our subjective experience of this universe, then we actually can't claim to know anything.
Very valid lines of thought, Harry.Also, do bangs (big or small) in nature occur without some kind of preamble?
Nothing - something - nothing
Is that the best they got?
And how do we know this was the first Big Bang ever?
I'm starting to think these questions are too big for science alone to ever answer
Needs philosophers also
Okay Krishna - Big Bang I knewThen I'm told Big Crunch is coming and we all doomed
Now you say there's another option: big freeze??
Bang
Crunch
Freeze
What else ?
Bang Crunch Freeze.Good name for a band.
Either a band or cooking instructionsBang it
Then crunch it
Then place in the freezer
Now back to those dinosaurs...
Is anyone bold enough to stick their neck out in this public four and make a call on the Big Bang theory?Do you really think something just appeared from complete nothingness???
I wonder if the dinosaurs ever contemplated this...
Maybe the dinosaurs made the Nazca Lines...
Would that explain how the lines are visible from anthills (according to wiki)?
Found this One of the best quotes: In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old."
Proof? It's called, umm, science. There is data to back up the conclusion. Radiocarbon dating falls off at about 50,000 years because, again, science. The rate of decay can be established in the here and now and, in a nutshell, conclusions drawn about the age of an item with a degree of certainty, usually within a century.
For dinosaur age stuff, other radioactive isotope decay rates and methods have been established. For good info on geologic dating see http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowle...
Science isn't just stuff people make up because they don't believe in the Bible or have a pet theory (such as evolution) that they want to support.
Why is it that the die-hard Bible thumpers just can't seem to wrap their heads around the logic of the scientific method, what a theory actually is or isn't, and scientific reasoning?
I was raised Catholic, still consider myself spiritual, yet I see no incompatibility between my logical, rational side and my spirituality. It is sometimes paradoxical, yes, but not confoundedly so unless you are dogmatic.
The universe is a mysterious, wondrous place that we are only beginning to understand.
Edward wrote: "Harry wrote: "James wrote: "And then when you research the official biblical edits the Romans did to the New Testament in the 4th Century, the Bible becomes even murkier..,it is historical fact tha..."Didn't mean to imply Nag Hammadi codex wasn't around. Sorry if misunderstood!
Edward wrote: "Harry wrote: "Seeing as the thread's moved on a bit in topic, I thought I'd stick my snout in.Simply: we all know there are tons of contradictions/mistakes in the Holy Bible, whether it be: the d..."
I should have said hanged on a tree to be particular.
Acts 5:30
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Acts 10:39
And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
Acts 13:29
And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
Peter 2:24
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed
I want to reiterate again that my only criticism or response (as I never brought the subject up) is the sort of (rare) Christian who makes the biblical interpretation that the world is only 6,000 years old and won't consider science's recent discoveries. I have no beef whatsoever with mainstream Christians and I believe the Bible (although not scientifically perfect) still holds many, many secrets of ancient knowledge & wisdom and I refer to it regularly. Most Christians I know see no conflict between science and faith. Just like what Robert said in this discussion thread: "I was raised Catholic, still consider myself spiritual, yet a see no incompatibility between my logical, rational side and my spirituality. It is sometimes paradoxical yes, but not confoundedly so unless you are dogmatic."
I think there are a lot of very cool "believers" like that and I therefore trust nobody will misconstrue my jokes throughout this thread as me being anti religions.
Edward wrote: "scientific fact until next revision..."Ha! That's a good line and quite true actually. Things often are presented in academic circles as irrefutable facts until a new scientific discovery is made and then suddenly everything changes and the previous fact is swept under the carpet.
Krishna wrote: "I didn't understand what Harry was trying to say"With what Krishna? (I can confuse myself at times).
I made a comment earlier that there are what could be seen as contradictions in the Bible, and Edward wanted to know the source for my claims that apart from saying Christ was crucified on the cross, it also states he was hanged on a tree. I'm not trying to say which is right mind!
Edward wrote: "Harry wrote: "I made a comment earlier that there are what could be seen as contradictions in the Bible, and Edward wanted to know the source for my claims that apart from saying Christ was crucifi..."It does sometimes feel like some Christians haven't even heard of Constantine or Paul.
Robert wrote: "Found this hilarious serious site "explaining" dinosaurs and the Bible. https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaur...One of the best quotes: In fact, there is no proof whatsoeve..."
Love this quote Robert! > "I was raised Catholic, still consider myself spiritual, yet a see no incompatibility between my logical, rational side and my spirituality. It is sometimes paradoxical yes, but not confoundedly so unless you are dogmatic."
You've articulated that so well. It should be compulsory reading for all those of religious persuasion who view science/scientists as an enemy of their faith.
Harry wrote: "Seeing as the thread's moved on a bit in topic, I thought I'd stick my snout in.Simply: we all know there are tons of contradictions/mistakes in the Holy Bible, whether it be: the differing accou..."
Harry,
The differentiation of Jesus' crucifixion, about how one says He was strung on a tree and the other says He was crucified on a cross ... well it's basically saying the same thing. Jesus was literally strung on a tree (a cross, made of wood.)
And where God said, "Let us make Man in OUR image, after OUR likeness." God was referring to Himself, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three, "us".
James wrote: "Okay, so carbon dating not an exact science but 13.8 billion years vs 6,000 years is quite the difference!So to amuse myself and hopefully others, let me ask those who take the Bible 100% literal..."
James,
in the Bible it does mention a "leviathan" and a "behemoth", which are thought to be describing dinosaurs. Job 40 and Job 41 mention a leviathan and behemoth which sure does sound like a description of a dinosaur to me.
Fay, a genuine question for you upon your reply (and I'm not saying I have any answers here): Did the Holy Trinity exist at the beginning of everything or did it only come when Jesus was created? i.e- Is your Christian viewpoint that Christ was 'waiting in heaven' before his Earthly incarnation? (Which would be a valid argument; I'm just asking).Not buying the tree/cross explanation however, especially when you look at original language versions and translations.
Harry wrote: "Fay, a genuine question for you upon your reply (and I'm not saying I have any answers here): Did the Holy Trinity exist at the beginning of everything or did it only come when Jesus was created? i..."Yes, the Trinity existed in the Beginning. Yes, Jesus was in Heaven before He came to Earth as a human.
Fay wrote: "James, in the Bible it does mention a "leviathan" and a "behemoth", which are thought to be describing dinosaurs. Job 40 and Job 41 mention a leviathan and behemoth which sure does sound like a description of a dinosaur to me.
..."
That's correct Fay - hence my earlier comment in this thread about brief obscure references in the bible to dinosaurs (although theologians differ over whether these are dinos or not).
But overall I think the fact remains that anyone believing the Earth is only 6,000 years old would have a very hard time fitting the dinos into the picture...
Fay wrote: "Harry wrote: "Fay, a genuine question for you upon your reply (and I'm not saying I have any answers here): Did the Holy Trinity exist at the beginning of everything or did it only come when Jesus ..."O.K, thanks, I really didn't know if that was the stance of the Church. Does it reference it specifically in the Bible?
Fay wrote: "Harry wrote: "Seeing as the thread's moved on a bit in topic, I thought I'd stick my snout in.Simply: we all know there are tons of contradictions/mistakes in the Holy Bible, whether it be: the d..."
I should also mention that it does say specifically: 'HANGED' upon the tree (meaning 'hanged by the neck), which is a very different thing than being nailed to a crucifix.
Harry wrote: "I should also mention that it does say specifically: 'HANGED' upon the tree (meaning 'hanged by the neck), which is a very different thing than being nailed to a crucifix. ..."Yep, there are hundreds if not thousands of direct contradictions in the Bible like that. That reflects the fact that it's an amalgamation of various books and has untold authors and editors along the way.
James wrote: "Harry wrote: "I should also mention that it does say specifically: 'HANGED' upon the tree (meaning 'hanged by the neck), which is a very different thing than being nailed to a crucifix. ..."Yep, ..."
Yep, and that's obviously academically provable.
James wrote: "Fay wrote: "God cannot have created the Earth and then have it evolve, it simply did not occur. God created humans and life and the Earth and it was perfect, no sin in the world, and then BAM! Adam..."James, what Fay means is, according to the Bible evolution couldn't have happened. Evolution states that we started as the tiniest microorganisms which then evolved into the next thing, and the next all the way until we became the humans we are now. Some people believed that God made the world and then used evolution to create humans. This is known as Theistic Evolution. But, you probably already knew that.
If you believe that God created the world and humans then you cannot believe this. Genesis 2:7 says "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." It does not say that God "let all the animals of the earth evolve from one thing to another until one superior being was birthed; this being is man," or anything like that. He directly built us out of the dust and specially breathed the breath of life into Adam's lungs. This—in addition to us being made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26)—is what separates us from all alnimals. When God made the other animals he just said "let their be this" and "let this inhabit the earth," and what he wanted appeared. But he uniquely created us to have dominion over all the alnimals of the world. We aren't different only because of our rational thinking abilities or opposable thumbs.
In other words, we aren't just monkeys that got lucky.
Harry wrote: "Fay wrote: "Harry wrote: "Fay, a genuine question for you upon your reply (and I'm not saying I have any answers here): Did the Holy Trinity exist at the beginning of everything or did it only come..."Harry, I don't remember exactly where at this moment but I know it says it somewhere in the Bible. Let me get back to you on that. But like said before, "Let us make Man in Our image, after Our likeness." Who else could God be referring to except Jesus and the Holy Ghost?
Sarah wrote: "James wrote: "Fay wrote: "God cannot have created the Earth and then have it evolve, it simply did not occur. God created humans and life and the Earth and it was perfect, no sin in the world, and ..."Thank you Sarah. Yeah, that's mainly what I meant.
Sarah wrote: "James, what Fay means is, according to the Bible evolution couldn't have happened. Evolution states that we started as the tiniest microorganisms which then evolved into the next thing, and the next all the way until we became the humans we are now. Some people believed that God made the world and then used evolution to create humans. This is known as Theistic Evolution. But, you probably already knew that. ..."I understand where you're coming, Sarah, but I still maintain all these Biblical quotes are not clear cut at all. You are essentially making interpretations. Other Christians make different interpretations from the exact same quotes and would argue evolution wasn't even a concept when the Bible was written. For example, nowhere in the Bible does it say "Darwinian Evolution is a lie". Quotes saying Man was formed from the dust of the ground and breathing life into nostrils are still highly ambiguous. Likewise creating the Earth in 7 days may not be literal - especially as elsewhere in the Bible is a quote that says a day is like a thousand years.
So this is why there are many modern Christians who see no conflict with science or certain aspects of Evolution.
Fay wrote: ""Let us make Man in Our image, after Our likeness." ..."Again, that's another quote that's highly ambiguous. "our image" could be metaphorical rather than physical image - I mean, does anyone actually believe God looks like a man?
Likewise with other Biblical quotes by Jesus such as "I am the way, the truth and the life" and that humans can "only get to the father thru me." Preachers have told us this means Christianity is the only way to get to heaven. But I, like many others, happen to believe that means Christ's state of love is the way to live your life and ascend. Meaning it was an all-inclusive, non-religious message (especially as there was no Christian religion when Christ said that - the organized religion came centuries later).
Not saying I or others are correctly interpreting these quotes by analyzing them in these ways, but just giving a smattering of the infinite ways all these quotes can be interpreted...
Yes James. I think there is a lot of metaphor within the Bible probably due to the political troubles of the time. The leaders didn't want anybody usurping their power with the talk of God for a start far less a "son of a God". What if the masses believed it? It was dangerous times.Personally, I think the message about man being made in God's image wasn't meant to be in a physical sense but in a spiritual one. I do not believe in the devil because if God is all powerful and there is only one God then that makes a devil spirit obsolete. I think that God meant that man would have good and evil within him and individuals were given the choice of what path to follow. Hence the "free will" that we were supposedly blessed with.
I think that Hell is the bad choices we make and the consequences of those bad choices not a physical place where the sinner burns forever.
I don't wish to imply that this line of thought is correct merely what has made the most sense to me from the Christian Bible point of view. Even then, in the time the Bible was written, there had to be many unanswered questions. But I do think people were looking for answers to the injustices perpetrated against them by those in power at the time and automatically tuned into their inner selves for answers which brought them closer to their spiritual selves or God.
Agree with all you say, Laureen - 100%
Fay wrote: "Harry wrote: "Fay wrote: "Harry wrote: "Fay, a genuine question for you upon your reply (and I'm not saying I have any answers here): Did the Holy Trinity exist at the beginning of everything or di..."Thank you Fay.
("Who else could God be referring to?" you ask. Well, I've got plenty of ideas, but we'd be going even further away from the Big Bang thread! But, for one thing, plenty of other 'gods'/demi-gods existed in historic record before Jehova and Jesus. Mithras being the first.)
Edward wrote: "Harry; didn't mean to be nit picky about Christ. But it was incredulous to me. I was born a catholic, went to Sunday school and all that; even read the Bible a bit, but that was the first time I ev..."Cheers Ed. They don't teach it all at Sunday school!
James wrote: "Agree with all you say, Laureen - 100%"It is really nice when someone gets you, thanks James. Not that other ideas are not just as welcome or important here.
Laureen, I'm really enjoying your well written, good-point-making, peace-headed posts! Am certainly agreeing with a lot you say.
Harry wrote: "Laureen, I'm really enjoying your well written, good-point-making, peace-headed posts! Am certainly agreeing with a lot you say."The last post mentioning the Big Bang (the original topic) was about 50 posts ago...So I'd say we just set some kind of Goodreads' record...What can you expect in an asylum, tho?
Anyway, getting back on topic...
What about those dinosaurs??????????????????
the 6,000 year old dinosaurs that were chasing Adam & Eve I mean.
Yeah, and I'm afraid the leviathan mention's no good at explaining it- seeing as that's a sea creature and dinosaurs couldn't swim.James, perhaps you should start another Big Bang thread (the second Big Bang?) and retitle this The Bible Versus Dinosaurs.
Yes, you're quite right. We do seem to get very off topic. Maybe that isn't so especially as I (dumbo) hasn't worked out how to introduce a new topic. Not that I have tried hard. Adam & Eve and dinosaurs just don't go together in my imagination anyway. Nor does the ice age or Neanderthals.
And re; the whole 6000 years thing, and apart from the inexact science of adding up the ages, the well reasoned ideas that a 'year' wasn't the equivalent of our years, the disbelief in carbon dating (which I'm afraid I just don't get), there are still so many other ways of giving evidence that everything is much more mightily older. Science is very useful in that field.One good example is- using scientific methods- we've been able to prove that the Great Flood did happen, which obviously corresponds to the Bible. This is roughly dated circa 10500 B.C by science. On top of that, the Sphinx has been proven to have been weather damaged by such a velocity of water, that it means it's much older than establishment Egyptologists would have it, as it could have only been weathered by the Great Flood- indicating, amongst all the other evidence, that it belonged to a long lost civilisation....
The 6,000 year theory isn't too far off if you think of it in terms of 'the beginning of our modern earth and human beings'.
O.K, O.K, I'm off topic again... Can this just be a sort of hotpot thread? And getting back to those dinos...
Okay if we are allowed to go way off topic (and I have no idea who is making the rules in this mental asylum) then how about this loosely connected point: According to Jon Ronson's book The Men Who Stare at Goats the theme song to the children's TV show DENVER, THE LAST DINOSAUR was played over and over to Iraqi prisoner's during the Gulf War. What's all that about? Some say there's mind control patterns in the music... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH7Uf...
Good luck linking this back into the big bang topic!
Blimey mate, that's the loosest connection ever! I feel like I've just read a bad pun. :)However, the above is a very serious issue, especially as there was new proof a few months ago of the U.S using torture techniques that they shouldn't be; where the U.K have had to wriggle free from the implications, even though we were just as aware. But... am I digressing? Er... from what?
Back to those men staring at goats- perhaps goats are descended from dinosaurs?
Oh and Krishna: I still cannot wrap my head around getting something out of nothing.Can we 'Undergrounders' just debunk the Big Bang already????
No big bang theory in the Underground I vote!
DayumI made the mistake of playing that theme song...And now I cannot get it out of my head!
Denver, the last dinosaur, he's my friend and a whole lot more.
Yours sincerely,
James Sirhan Chapman Oswald Patsy
James wrote: "DayumI made the mistake of playing that theme song...And now I cannot get it out of my head!
Denver, the last dinosaur, he's my friend and a whole lot more.
Yours sincerely,
James Sirhan Chapman ..."
I always thought the story was of Barney that annoying purple dinosaur. No?
Harry wrote: "Back to those men staring at goats- perhaps goats are descended from dinosaurs? ..."
Bingo!
I knew you'd find a connection.
So bring this ship home, Harry.
Make the connections from goats to dinos to the Bible to the Big Bang and finally make your prediction on the Big Crunch!
The dinosaur ancestors of the goats wrote the Bible and then disappeared into the hollow earth, where they are currently concocting a new Big Bang, called The Bigger Bang.I thought everyone knew that. :)
Underground Knowledge — A discussion group
Books mentioned in this topic
The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe (other topics)STOPP (Stop the Organized Pill Pushers) Now (other topics)
STOPP (Stop the Organized Pill Pushers) Now (other topics)
Before the Big Bang: The Prehistory of Our Universe (other topics)
The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Richard Dawkins (other topics)Takaaki Musha (other topics)
Seriously, come on now, they are surely a big problem for this 6000 year old belief
I mean none of the ancient writings mentioned men living with dinosaurs
So if I was a subscriber to this 6000 year old Earth theory and read a bit about the dinosaurs I'd be thinking "Houston, we have a big problem here"!!!! :)