Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
FRINGE SCIENCE
>
The Big Bang Theory - Debunked?
Good point James, but it was Barney not Denver that was used (unless you know of another instance- in which case, the dino plot thickens.)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/midd...
Krishna, all good points. Yep, we're still debating it!
But the ship has sailed on truth in this thread, HarryAnd remember the old Hollywood maxim: Never let the truth get in the way of a good story
So again, I ask you, why would Denver need to be anything more (let alone a whole lot more) than a friend????? I mean, he's the last dinosaur...
Could this story be bigger than the Big Bang and 4th Century Binlical edits combined???
You might be on to something. I await Dino-Gate. What about Rex from Toy Story? Don't tell me he's in on it too.
Yes they are all in on itThey all Illuminati dinosaurs
To pluck another loose connection to something somewhere betwixt these posts... why is Jesus Christ usually depicted as white when he wasn't? (Although I could take a good guess at the answer.) Or maybe he had that rare Michael Jackson skin disease?
Jesus is depicted as being whiter and whiter each year to suit the predominantly European followers.I heard a comedian tell a joke about this saying that soon he'll be an albino in paintings
Krishna wrote: "U know if u go and say to anyone who believes god that u have actually seen god, then he will be the 1st person to disbelieve u."That reminds me of: "If you talk to God, they'll call you religious. If God talks to you, you're crazy." Or words to that effect. (Who said that? Dave Allen?)
James wrote: "Jesus is depicted as being whiter and whiter each year to suit the predominantly European followers.I heard a comedian tell a joke about this saying that soon he'll be an albino in paintings"
Ha! That albino joke's good. So Christ's becoming like washing powder?
Krishna wrote: "Human psychology contradicts itself!!"Well brought back nearer to some distant thread subject- back to contradictions! :)
It's now James's turn to connect back to the Big Bang, as John hasn't posted recently.
Good to hear your responses Ed. God knows what this thread's about though...
Yes Krishna! For me, I find the Big bang to be of little interest when considering the nature of reality, 'cos so many fundamental questions still remain- as we've seen in this spider web thread. But that's just me.
Is this thread a good analogy for the infinity of thought? Just a thought.
James wrote: "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 thin..."Genesis is part of the Pentateuch and the LAW though, not a group of books such as Poetry. I think that if we were to take Genesis as being metaphorical and poetic and such then it would've been placed with Poetry and Wisdom. Especially since Genesis is categorized with LAW, I mean, seriously. Actual laws are serious and literal, wouldn't you think James that a book put in a category called Law would be serious and literal also? Or was Genesis misplaced in the Bible Mr. James? Was it really supposed to be put in a long lost fairy tale but got mixed up with Biblical truths?
I think not.
I must admit, over the last few days, or at least while I was doing some serious thinking before this thread got silly, I have become more critical of modern science.The Big Bang does not seem remotely proven as far as I can tell.
And yet it's taught all over the world as absolute fact.
I thought science is meant to only promote concepts that if not proven facts at least have massive amounts of evidence.
Seems to me there's almost as much "blind faith" going on in modern science as there is in religions...
James wrote: "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 ..."
Yes, we probably have started a record. Pardon me for creating this whole big off topic mess (Yet, not really, it's been interesting. Anyways I just had to get my opinion out there.) with my Genesis 1:1 comment which triggered the respond with science button in your brain. Oh what the heck, we probably would've become off topic if I hadn't even had posted that. Oh well.
James wrote: "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, doe..."
I believe that we as humans could've been made literally in God's image. Why not? Of course God though is a much more beautiful heavenly being, surrounded in light and glory.
Problems with the Big Bang TheorySince scientists first proposed the big bang theory, many people have questioned and criticized the model. Here's a rundown on some of the most common criticisms of the big bang theory:
•It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing. Proponents of the big bang theory say that such criticism is unwarranted for two reasons. The first is that the big bang doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. The other reason is that since the laws of science break down as you approach the creation of the universe, there's no reason to believe the first law of thermodynamics would apply.
•Some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.
•Some astrophysicists and cosmologists argue that scientists have misinterpreted evidence like the redshift of celestial bodies and the cosmic microwave background radiation. Some cite the absence of exotic cosmic bodies that should have been the product of the big bang according to the theory.
•The early inflationary period of the big bang appears to violate the rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Proponents have a few different responses to this criticism. One is that at the start of the big bang, the theory of relativity didn't apply. As a result, there was no issue with traveling faster than the speed of light. Another related response is that space itself can expand faster than the speed of light, as space falls outside the domain of the theory of gravity.
There are several alternative models that attempt to explain the development of the universe, though none of them have as wide an acceptance as the big bang theory:
•The steady-state model of the universe suggests the universe always had and will always have the same density. The theory reconciles the apparent evidence that the universe is expanding by suggesting that the universe generates matter at a rate proportionate to the universe's rate of expansion.
•The Ekpyrotic model suggests our universe is the result of a collision of two three-dimensional worlds on a hidden fourth dimension. It doesn't conflict with the big bang theory completely, as after a certain amount of time it aligns with the events described in the big bang theory.
•The big bounce theory suggests our universe is one of a series of universes that first expand, then contract again. The cycle repeats after several billion years.
•Plasma cosmology attempts to describe the universe in terms of the electrodynamic properties of the universe. Plasma is an ionized gas, which means it's a gas with free roaming electrons that can conduct electricity.
There are several other models as well. Could one of these theories (or other ones we haven't even thought of) one day replace the big bang theory as the accepted model of the universe? It's quite possible. As time passes and our capability to study the universe increases, we'll be able to make more accurate models of how the universe developed.
Fay wrote: "I believe that we as humans could've been made literally in God's image. Why not? Of course God though is a much more beautiful heavenly being, surrounded in light and glory. ..."Seems way too simplistic to me, but that's just my $.02 worth.
James wrote: "Fay wrote: "I believe that we as humans could've been made literally in God's image. Why not? Of course God though is a much more beautiful heavenly being, surrounded in light and glory. ..."Seem..."
Okay.
I personally think Edward totally hit it regarding this entire discussion when he wrote these brilliant words: "scientific fact until next revision"
Harry wrote: "Good to hear your responses Ed. God knows what this thread's about though..."Not sure atheists would agree with you Harry.
Edward wrote: "Lance wrote: "Harry wrote: "Good to hear your responses Ed. God knows what this thread's about though..."Not sure atheists would agree with you Harry."
Is it a requisite to be all things to all ..."
In this thread? God knows...
I've drawn attention to this lively discussion thread in the Science Teacher Network group on Linked.com and seem to have sparked the genesis (so to speak) of an equally lively debate in that forum.Here's what one STN group member who is a retired Professor of Physics and who refers to himself as an "Agent of Educational Change" has to say on this topic. (Member's name withheld):
"Science only makes claims about the material world whereas issues related to God's existence are clear not. So this is I think much ado about nothing. One could argue about the necessity of there being a god but that would not necessarily speak to God's existence. It could exist whether or not we think It is needed.
"Sorry but I think is in the class of how many angels can fit on the head of a pin."
James wrote: "Problems with the Big Bang TheorySince scientists first proposed the big bang theory, many people have questioned and criticized the model. Here's a rundown on some of the most common criticisms ..."
I don't know if this proves or disproves the Big Bang theory or even if I am off topic again but has anyone discovered what happens to all that celestial matter eaten up by black holes? Does it disappear into some other dimension?
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..."
When the Bible said "strung upon a tree" it is usually used for figurative language. Many songs have been made saying that phrase just because it can be more rythmic and a cross is made out of a tree so people like to use that phrase.
When God said let us make man in our image it means the trinity.The trinity is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in one. They work together but have different functions. When God says make them in our image He is meaning all three persons. 1John 5:7-"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
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..."Jesus was NEVER created. Jesus is eternal and the beginning. If you don't understand that then think of this: Why would you believe in a god that was created? Whoever created that god would be higher than the first and so on. So why would God be created? He is THE prime being of all and created us.
Secondly, Galatians 3:13- Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”. If Paul the apostle, who was a very learned Hebrew, used this term of hanging on a tree as refering to Christ on the cross; then that's the reason we as Christians use it too.
Harry wrote: "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 ..."
Just because it says hanged doesn't mean by the neck. Hung can mean by your hands and feet too and Paul didn't use it that way either, did he. When you think of hanging it can mean in many ways.
James wrote: "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, doe..."
Jesus says -I- am the Way the Truth and the Life. He said I for a reason. Christianity is not the Way but Jesus himself (I know you didn't say you thought that, I'm just clarifying for a reason). I'm sure you've heard of the "ask Jesus in your heart" and that's IS the only way. Jesus' love doesn't save you, but He does Himself! His love is a gift not a gateway.
James wrote: "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 ..."
sorry.... :D
Krishna wrote: "and regarding the big bounce theory how can the universe contract when there r about 70% dark energy, which is a repelling force? and regarding red shift, it indicates towards inflationary universe and microwave background radiation indicates is the afterglow of big bang. what can be the other possible explanation of doppler effect?
..."
I have no idea to any of that...
So now we can add the big bounce theory to the list?
big bang - big crunch - big freeze - big bounce
Cool names
:)
Lance wrote: "Harry wrote: "Good to hear your responses Ed. God knows what this thread's about though..."Not sure atheists would agree with you Harry."
I'm glad my jokes aren't lost on everyone Lance!
Abigail 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..."
When I first mentioned the tree and gods plural it was simply to illustrate that there are literally loads of contradictions in the Bible, so I'm not too, er, hung up, on making it into a big thing. I could have equally pointed out that the word 'virgin' originally meant simply 'young woman', or the fact that Abraham was a commander with 318 officers below him despite being a humble shepherd at the same time, or I could point you to the continuance of the passage about making Man in God's image, where it says He created them: male and female, before this then being forgotten and the first female subsequently being made from the lone Adam's rib....
I don't agree with your reasoning for the use of the word 'tree' or 'hanged' (I purposely said: 'hanged by the neck' to indicate how the word was originally used- but I forget whether that was Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek) but you also raise some very valid points Abigail, and I could argue against the tree being literal and the cross being more likely historically anyway. The tree reference could easily be a symbolic term for the Tree of Life or other examples, seeing as a lot of the Bible is analogous or code written. I mean, everyone knows that Christ told people parables, keeping his more straight forward secrets for his disciples, where he taught them how to, quite remarkably, raise the dead amongst other miracle workings.
So... we could be here all day! But I think the most important thing to come out of this thread is just how easily the Holy Bible can be interpreted differently by different people- just the same as to how God was interpreted differently by Judaism, Islam and Christianity, for instance.
And Abigail, I do understand- er, at least, that I don't understand, the infinite impossibility of God (or Jesus) being eternal. Which nicely links back to the Big Bang and something coming out of nothing.
(I'm simply a God believer without wanting the middleman, and I'm much more interested in getting to understand what God actually is.)
I do find the trinity idea fascinating actually. And the quote you give, Abigail, of:1John 5:7-"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one"
I find very interesting, especially the use of that word Word- the great debated Logos! It's also interesting to look at the next part of that passage:
"And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water and the blood: and these three agree in one."
And does anyone understand the Son of Man I wonder? (Jeez, stop bringing up new threads of thought Harry- we'd only just got back to that big bang cracker pull of God's.)
Edward wrote: "Harry wrote: "Good to hear your responses Ed. God knows what this thread's about though..."Monty Python's Meaning of Life II? Its all your fault with the trees and playful dinosaurs. Great stuff,..."
I think it might be Life of Brian 2.
Everyone's gone quiet about the dinosaurs. Maybe it is a conspiracy.
Krishna wrote: "Dinosaurs may not have existed on earth ever:)"To some, that's not even a joke!
And, James, have you still got the Denver Dinosaur theme tune in your head? Or had you only just forgotten it and now that damn Whitewolf's made you think about it again? :)
Do you yourself think that's a possibility Krishna? That the bones are somehow a 'cosmic practical joke'?
Well if we had a Douglas Adams' Probability Drive (from Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy) I guess everything that's inconceivable becomes a conceivable occurrence at some time.
I was thinking about the Hubble pics of seeing the universe shortly after the occurrence of the Big Bang, and it brought to mind this thought:Why do so many people say "I'll believe it when I see it!" when talking about U.F.Os or ghosts, instantly dismissing any photographic and film evidence, and yet those same people will believe that they've seen Mars or the early star systems (for instance)?
I think everything and everyone is God, trapped in a Matrix shell of deceit- even though we may have chosen the experience.Just think, this debate about Life, the Universe and Everything has been going on since time immemorial, and we're still doing it! Maybe we're not so oh so smart as we sometimes think we are.
Yep, I think magic and science are just two branches on the same tree that any old gods/aliens have.
I thought "big bang - big crunch - big freeze - big bounce" were Amsterdam brothel menus.
Edward wrote: "He created them: male and female, before this then being forgotten and the first female subsequently being made from the lone Adam's rib....Come on Harry. I know that the commentary regarded the ..."
Ah, it was a pretty poor example actually when there are so many more that are worthy. But I didn't dare broach such subjects as the masculinisation of God or the banishment of the Goddess or the demi-gods that preceded Christ..........
:)Looking forward to the next instalment.
James wrote: "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 thin..."Okay, so you're going to throw the long day theory at me. Well, this game I can play.
Yes, 2 Peter 3:8 does say : "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." This is simply saying that almighty God in heaven has a different concept of time than we humans on earth do. This is because God is not limited by 1: The physical time we are bound by here on earth. And 2: The mortality and short lives that we all must face some day. So yes, I see where you are coming from, but Genesis 1:5b says: "And there was evening , and there was morning —the first day ." Same with the second, third, fourth, fifth sixth and seventh days. It specifically says there was morning and evening ONE day--not a thousand years. Also, remember what Fay said about the book of Genesis being not a book of poetry, but a book of the Pentateuch, the law, meaning that everything in it is the literal truth, not metaphoric at all. Why do you think there are seven days in a week (unless you're one of those people who refuse to recognize Monday as real, you know)? To commemorate the six days in which God created the earth and the seventh on which he rested.
Also, I don't agree with you on the whole Man being formed from the dust thing id ambiguous. Genesis 2:7 specifically says "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." God just scooped up some dust shaped it into the form of a man and breathed life into him and he was alive. Simple as that; no ambiguity.
Sarah wrote: "James wrote: "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..."This thread should have proven that the Bible is open to interpretation, just as you and I interpret it. Otherwise there wouldn't be around 41,ooo denominations who all find something to disagree about. And you're forgetting that the 6,000 year theory (which is pretty isolated to the U.S) is held by only a small number of Christians. Also, plenty of Christians (including many I've known) will not dispute such contradictions that are being brought up with complete dismissal and will gladly entertain historical inaccuracies and the like. I mean: how big is the canon of work on Christian theology? So much has always been debated.
Believing in God and Jesus is one thing. To think the Bible doesn't have mistakes and questions hanging over it is quite another.
p.s- if the Earth rotated at a different speed, in accordance with other celestial bodies, it's possible that the day with its morning and night was much vaster in its timespan. Or they could have not been meant literally.
Or... the whole thing was based on much older stories and by 1 A.D they'd lost a lot of the detail...
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)
I thought everyone knew ..."
All well and good but I have been thinking deeper than you...much deeper...and what I am picking up on is something very dark, as highlighted in the CAPS below:
Denver, the last dinosaur, he's my friend AND A WHOLE LOT MORE.
Your thoughts?