time itself may be an arbitrary entinty, what is a "day"? or a billion "years"? Prove there is a difference between the two from the vantage point within time, and you will be famous.
You looked for it. Wonder if it was real. Searched for answers and never knowing for sure. People told you no one would ever find it. It can't be true. You wondered your whole life is God real or not. What happens to me when I die? I can prove to you once and for all God is real and so is His Garden of Eden- I found it! Look at my videos and see it for the first time! I FOUND THE GARDEN OF EDEN !!
Whilst even Aristotle and Plato preferred geo-centric cosmological models, there were other Ancient Greek philosophers and scientists that developed helio-centric cosmological models (Aristarchus).
@Alchaeon1 Genetic and DNA evidence and the complexity of the cell makes evolution impossible and supports creation not the religion of evolution. You believe in the magic wand of time that can turn atoms into thinking people. I admire your faith.
I almost get the feeling you have been watching my videos, "Creation Ex-Nihilo Revisited" " Scientific Foreknowledge in the Bible".
Have you looked at the mechanism of creation in anti-de Sitter Space? This space/time configuration would provide the means God could have used to create a mature universe with informational homogeneity. It seems such an explanation could also address the deception problem.
No, the big bang requires no presuppositions, the major empirical data supporting it was discovered by an astronomer that not only didn't think it was true but was a steady statist.
@TheScienceFoundation Empirical data?? Empirical means having been observed. Exactly what about the big bang was "observed". Nothing. Therefore the "evidence" can not by definition be "empirical". Do you think that if you use scientific sounding words it makes the drivel you are writing less stupid? I don't think so.
The only so called "empirical" evidence I've been told about is the 3 degree Kelving background radiation. That is easily explained by
@BroCope "It is generally stated that there are three observational pillars that support the Big Bang theory of cosmology. These are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and the abundance of light elements. Additionally, the observed correlation function of Large-scale structure of the cosmos fits well with standard Big Bang theory." (more on newsdial[.]com)
@foxhole8063 The red shift of light is better explained by changes in the "universal constants", like the speed of light, and Planck's Constant. The biggest problem is the quantization of the shifts. If the cause was velocity, the shifts would not be quantized. The fact they are indicates that the shifts are evidence of quantum jumps in the electron shell when electrons jump to a higher energy level. That is most likely caused by either a change in the speed of light or a change in ZPE.
The cosmic microwave radiation is uniform in all directions. If the big bang were true, the radiation coming from the location of the big bang would be greater. The uniformity kills that pillar. The abundance of light elements is not evidence of anything except your ability to imagine it is evidence. And the large scale structure is not what we would see from a big bang. We would expect to see a more uniform distribution of matter. Instead the universe is extremely "clumped". You lose.
@BroCope (Re: light elements) Look further back into the universe, and you see stellar / galactic spectra with a smaller and smaller abundance of heavy elements, going eventually to zero. Helium abundance, on the other hand, goes up to a limit accurately predicted by the BBT.
That's not imagination; it's science. If you disagree, take it up with UC Berkeley.
@BroCope One last point. Take 5 minutes with Google, and you'll easily see all of your concerns already addressed by the cosmology and astrophysics community. That's all I had to do.
@BroCope I'm afraid the red shift quantization hypothesis was dismissed in the late 80s and early 90s when researchers tried to corroborate Tifft's original findings. As for uniformity, it's true that the BBT has trouble explaining it, but that simply says the theory is incomplete. Attempting to use this as justification to believe in a young universe is intellectually careless can't be backed up by observation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@foxhole8063 It was pooh-poohed, but the evidence was never addressed. The speed of light measurements show a decrease over the last 400 years, and Planck's constant has been increasing during the same time. When taken together, the two produce a straight line. They are inversely related. The BBT has more problems than uniformity. The big one is that it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. My favorite is that it can not handle universal rotation in the universe. Everything is spinning.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There is no mechanism to convert linear motion coming out from the BB into EVERYTHING spinning, rotating, and orbiting. Gravity can not transform linear motion into circular. It can only increase or decrease linear velocity, not set everything spiining like tops. You just believe in your magic "poof" gravity did it. It is bad science to believe in magic.
Your appeal to authority means nothing to me. I care very little for conclusions from people who START OUT believing a theory
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
and then purport to finding proof for the very fairy tale they already believe. My science is much more rigorous than the legions of brain dead "scientists" who haven't had a scientific thought in their lives. So the cosmology and astrophysics community is nothing more than a clown college to me. I will not be moved by an appeal to some clowns authority.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
As far as I know, one can not tell the amount of an element in a spectral analysis. One can only tell presence or absence, not quantity. If I'm not mistaken that would take a mass spectrometer and a physical sample for vaproization.
@BroCope "My science is much more rigorous than the legions of brain dead "scientists" who haven't had a scientific thought in their lives. So the cosmology and astrophysics community is nothing more than a clown college to me. "
Of course it is. I understand.
Well, your fascinating opinions about the big bang theory and gravity certainly make more sense now. I'll keep an eye out for a journal submission outlining your work. Keep fighting the good fight :-)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@foxhole8063 Your condescension is noted. All I am doing is taking the exact philosophical position that the astrophysics "community" takes when confronted with any suggestion that their trust in magic is unscientific. Your condescension is a primary example of what I am talking about. When a theory violates any number of well known and established laws of physics, the only explanation possible is "magic" because that kind of crap is to stinky to get past my sniff test.
@BroCope Well, after hearing that you and you alone are the only voice of intelligence against the entire scientific community's obvious ineptitude, it's kind of hard to take you seriously. So you don't understand the BBT ... that's fine. But it doesn't translate to GOD DID IT. Same goes for evolutionary theory. Both are backed by evidence; both are also works in progress.
I'd tell you to do some reading, but you will just ignore it since the authors are all "brain dead". So there we are.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@foxhole8063 It is you that accepts the BBT on the basis of magic. Hypothesizing and demonstrating an advanced intelligence is not magic. Asserting that things can exhibit behavior that violates the well know laws of physics is resorting to magic. "Poof" it happened. Sure it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but "poof" it happened just that way. Sure the BBT can not explain uniform microwave radiation, but "poof" it doesn't matter. Why? magic.
@BroCope Accepting God as proven "fact" while citing your own staggering ignorance and sense of intellectual superiority as "evidence" that the big bang and evolution are false makes for good rhetoric for yelling at confused passers-by on a street corner, but not much else.
Again, I would tell you to read up to get the answers to your misconceptions, but you've convinced yourself that it's all wrong and you're smarter. Can't help you there.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@foxhole8063 I know God. He is intelligen and knows how to speak, He doesn't speak to the likes of you until you repent. Problem is that I am not ignorant. Remember it is you that says that the BBT somehow violates well established laws of physics, how? Magic. I speak of observable science. You speak of things never seen, never duplicated, as if they were real. I don't believe in frog to prince fairy tales. You are an ideologue. Truth be damned, protect the fairy tale.
@foxhole8063 I admire your faith in the magic of nothing exploding and creating everything, or are you saying that matter and energy is eternal? You only have these two choices as a big banger. God says creation is self evident and you have no excuse to believe in these fairy tales of material pantheism or your pagan religion of cosmic evolution.
@Bornagain271 "nothing exploding and creating everything"
So you're a member of the Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron school of only getting a halfassed understanding of ideas you decide to reject?
The big bang theory is based on observatios ... but it's limited in that it only explains the conditions of the very early universe (infinitely hot, infinitely dense), not the conditions at t=0. We don't know that yet. You can say GOD says whatever you like; it doesn't make it real.
time itself may be an arbitrary entinty, what is a "day"? or a billion "years"? Prove there is a difference between the two from the vantage point within time, and you will be famous.
bdogshredder 3 months ago
Is that a smirk?
bdogshredder 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You looked for it. Wonder if it was real. Searched for answers and never knowing for sure. People told you no one would ever find it. It can't be true. You wondered your whole life is God real or not. What happens to me when I die? I can prove to you once and for all God is real and so is His Garden of Eden- I found it! Look at my videos and see it for the first time! I FOUND THE GARDEN OF EDEN !!
downyourtube 4 months ago
Whilst even Aristotle and Plato preferred geo-centric cosmological models, there were other Ancient Greek philosophers and scientists that developed helio-centric cosmological models (Aristarchus).
Alchaeon1 4 months ago
...evolutionary biology does nor rely nor require the vast fossil record ir order to validate, compelling evidence that it is.
I can only direct people to the Genetic and DNA evidence that renders evoltionary biology irrefutable.
If people wish to cling to religious dogma because somehow they interpret aspects of science as a direct challenge, then that is their choice.
You cannot stop nor force people to come out into the light and allow enightenment to heal their wounds of ignorance
Alchaeon1 4 months ago 2
@Alchaeon1 Genetic and DNA evidence and the complexity of the cell makes evolution impossible and supports creation not the religion of evolution. You believe in the magic wand of time that can turn atoms into thinking people. I admire your faith.
Bornagain271 2 days ago
I almost get the feeling you have been watching my videos, "Creation Ex-Nihilo Revisited" " Scientific Foreknowledge in the Bible".
Have you looked at the mechanism of creation in anti-de Sitter Space? This space/time configuration would provide the means God could have used to create a mature universe with informational homogeneity. It seems such an explanation could also address the deception problem.
seanmPWH 11 months ago
Bad sound for me. Almost not hearable....
foolproofman 1 year ago
Utter nonsense
itsgoodya 1 year ago
four stars of jupiter lol
sownzgr8 1 year ago
No, the big bang requires no presuppositions, the major empirical data supporting it was discovered by an astronomer that not only didn't think it was true but was a steady statist.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 2
@TheScienceFoundation Empirical data?? Empirical means having been observed. Exactly what about the big bang was "observed". Nothing. Therefore the "evidence" can not by definition be "empirical". Do you think that if you use scientific sounding words it makes the drivel you are writing less stupid? I don't think so.
The only so called "empirical" evidence I've been told about is the 3 degree Kelving background radiation. That is easily explained by
BroCope 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation the absorprtion and re-radiation of heat by the dust that fills interstellar space - IN A YOUNG UNIVERSE.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope "It is generally stated that there are three observational pillars that support the Big Bang theory of cosmology. These are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and the abundance of light elements. Additionally, the observed correlation function of Large-scale structure of the cosmos fits well with standard Big Bang theory." (more on newsdial[.]com)
What evidence supports your claims?
foxhole8063 1 year ago 2
@foxhole8063 The red shift of light is better explained by changes in the "universal constants", like the speed of light, and Planck's Constant. The biggest problem is the quantization of the shifts. If the cause was velocity, the shifts would not be quantized. The fact they are indicates that the shifts are evidence of quantum jumps in the electron shell when electrons jump to a higher energy level. That is most likely caused by either a change in the speed of light or a change in ZPE.
BroCope 1 year ago
The cosmic microwave radiation is uniform in all directions. If the big bang were true, the radiation coming from the location of the big bang would be greater. The uniformity kills that pillar. The abundance of light elements is not evidence of anything except your ability to imagine it is evidence. And the large scale structure is not what we would see from a big bang. We would expect to see a more uniform distribution of matter. Instead the universe is extremely "clumped". You lose.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope (Re: light elements) Look further back into the universe, and you see stellar / galactic spectra with a smaller and smaller abundance of heavy elements, going eventually to zero. Helium abundance, on the other hand, goes up to a limit accurately predicted by the BBT.
That's not imagination; it's science. If you disagree, take it up with UC Berkeley.
foxhole8063 1 year ago 2
@BroCope One last point. Take 5 minutes with Google, and you'll easily see all of your concerns already addressed by the cosmology and astrophysics community. That's all I had to do.
foxhole8063 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@BroCope I'm afraid the red shift quantization hypothesis was dismissed in the late 80s and early 90s when researchers tried to corroborate Tifft's original findings. As for uniformity, it's true that the BBT has trouble explaining it, but that simply says the theory is incomplete. Attempting to use this as justification to believe in a young universe is intellectually careless can't be backed up by observation.
foxhole8063 1 year ago 13
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@foxhole8063 It was pooh-poohed, but the evidence was never addressed. The speed of light measurements show a decrease over the last 400 years, and Planck's constant has been increasing during the same time. When taken together, the two produce a straight line. They are inversely related. The BBT has more problems than uniformity. The big one is that it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. My favorite is that it can not handle universal rotation in the universe. Everything is spinning.
BroCope 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is no mechanism to convert linear motion coming out from the BB into EVERYTHING spinning, rotating, and orbiting. Gravity can not transform linear motion into circular. It can only increase or decrease linear velocity, not set everything spiining like tops. You just believe in your magic "poof" gravity did it. It is bad science to believe in magic.
Your appeal to authority means nothing to me. I care very little for conclusions from people who START OUT believing a theory
BroCope 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
and then purport to finding proof for the very fairy tale they already believe. My science is much more rigorous than the legions of brain dead "scientists" who haven't had a scientific thought in their lives. So the cosmology and astrophysics community is nothing more than a clown college to me. I will not be moved by an appeal to some clowns authority.
BroCope 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
As far as I know, one can not tell the amount of an element in a spectral analysis. One can only tell presence or absence, not quantity. If I'm not mistaken that would take a mass spectrometer and a physical sample for vaproization.
BroCope 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BroCope "My science is much more rigorous than the legions of brain dead "scientists" who haven't had a scientific thought in their lives. So the cosmology and astrophysics community is nothing more than a clown college to me. "
Of course it is. I understand.
Well, your fascinating opinions about the big bang theory and gravity certainly make more sense now. I'll keep an eye out for a journal submission outlining your work. Keep fighting the good fight :-)
foxhole8063 1 year ago 20
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@foxhole8063 Your condescension is noted. All I am doing is taking the exact philosophical position that the astrophysics "community" takes when confronted with any suggestion that their trust in magic is unscientific. Your condescension is a primary example of what I am talking about. When a theory violates any number of well known and established laws of physics, the only explanation possible is "magic" because that kind of crap is to stinky to get past my sniff test.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope Well, after hearing that you and you alone are the only voice of intelligence against the entire scientific community's obvious ineptitude, it's kind of hard to take you seriously. So you don't understand the BBT ... that's fine. But it doesn't translate to GOD DID IT. Same goes for evolutionary theory. Both are backed by evidence; both are also works in progress.
I'd tell you to do some reading, but you will just ignore it since the authors are all "brain dead". So there we are.
foxhole8063 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@foxhole8063 It is you that accepts the BBT on the basis of magic. Hypothesizing and demonstrating an advanced intelligence is not magic. Asserting that things can exhibit behavior that violates the well know laws of physics is resorting to magic. "Poof" it happened. Sure it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but "poof" it happened just that way. Sure the BBT can not explain uniform microwave radiation, but "poof" it doesn't matter. Why? magic.
Your authorities are as dumb as you.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope Accepting God as proven "fact" while citing your own staggering ignorance and sense of intellectual superiority as "evidence" that the big bang and evolution are false makes for good rhetoric for yelling at confused passers-by on a street corner, but not much else.
Again, I would tell you to read up to get the answers to your misconceptions, but you've convinced yourself that it's all wrong and you're smarter. Can't help you there.
foxhole8063 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@foxhole8063 I know God. He is intelligen and knows how to speak, He doesn't speak to the likes of you until you repent. Problem is that I am not ignorant. Remember it is you that says that the BBT somehow violates well established laws of physics, how? Magic. I speak of observable science. You speak of things never seen, never duplicated, as if they were real. I don't believe in frog to prince fairy tales. You are an ideologue. Truth be damned, protect the fairy tale.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope Mm-hmm. Your projection's getting pretty desperate.
foxhole8063 1 year ago 5
@foxhole8063 I admire your faith in the magic of nothing exploding and creating everything, or are you saying that matter and energy is eternal? You only have these two choices as a big banger. God says creation is self evident and you have no excuse to believe in these fairy tales of material pantheism or your pagan religion of cosmic evolution.
Bornagain271 2 days ago
@Bornagain271 "nothing exploding and creating everything"
So you're a member of the Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron school of only getting a halfassed understanding of ideas you decide to reject?
The big bang theory is based on observatios ... but it's limited in that it only explains the conditions of the very early universe (infinitely hot, infinitely dense), not the conditions at t=0. We don't know that yet. You can say GOD says whatever you like; it doesn't make it real.
foxhole8063 1 day ago
Thank You Berean.
sarevor 1 year ago
Nice video. You upload many useful things. Thanks!
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 Praise the Lord, 5 more NWC videos coming soon.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago