Noooo!!! Big Bang Theory Mocked

[blackstrap]

I can't stand on water(unless it is frozen) but Christ seemed to have no trouble. TSS ,if I have to move houses every 4 billion years ,well think of all the stuff that accumulates after just 20 years in one spot.Moving may not be that bad of an idea.

[thesometimesaint]

I too really believe that Christ, and for a short time Peter, walked on water. Nor can I expalin the turnng of water into wine. What I really can't do is use a natural explanation for a supernatural event.

In the immensity of the Eternities we probably move a few times.

[Calm]

BTW the sun is a giant ball of gas. There is nothing for us to stand on.

Except it is plasma under extreme pressure, not gas with great spaces between the atoms/nuclei so theoretically if one could survive such an environment and counteract the gravity squashing one, perhaps at some point the plasma would be dense enough to float on. At least several sci fic authors have suggested this....

Edited April 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[bcuzbcuz]

Why is standing on the sun even an issue? I had enough trouble in Tucson just making it from my brother's air-conditioned car into the nearest air-conditioned shopping mall. I can't think of anything more useless than trying to stand on the sun. What possible service could such a feat be good for?

Aren't there more important issues?

[Rivers]

Why is standing on the sun even an issue? I had enough trouble in Tucson just making it from my brother's air-conditioned car into the nearest air-conditioned shopping mall. I can't think of anything more useless than trying to stand on the sun. What possible service could such a feat be good for?

Aren't there more important issues?

Yes. The location of Kolob is one of them.

[cdowis]

cdowis:

http://en.fairmormon...n_are_inhabited

Thanks, now let's read what he actually said in context:

We are called ignorant; so we are: but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?

When we view its face we may see what is termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows.

He clearly begins a philosophical discussion. He is speculating, showing that we are all ignorant of certain facts. "Are we not all ignorant -- yes, indeed that is my opinion."

He is not speaking as a prophet, he is not expounding doctrine, but doing a thought experiment, pure speculation, to demonstrate how little we really know about the world and the universe. He does not say that there are men on the moon, but "who can tell", "we simply don't know".

He is giving speculation on the possibility of men on the moon, and shows that we are ignorant of whether this is fact.

Now let's move on to the sun.

"So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.

What could be clearer. He continues his speculation, his thought experiment, with "I rather think" the sun is inhabited because "it was not made in vain." No authoritative statement, no prophetic declaration, no statement of belief (as you declare) but his simple "I rather think it is" speculation.

The antis have poisoned your mind.

[Franktalk]

Why all of the concern about someone mocking the big bang? It is just a theory of science. I mean it is not like science denies the existence of God. Oh, maybe they do.

Is it fair for a believer to mock the big bang? I mean if the theory of the big bang takes the power of creation away from God's hands and gives it to the pot, or the thing created then who cast the first stone so to speak? But there are some of us who give God credit for making the first stone.

Myself I like the idea that the universe did not come from nothing, or a quantum unbalance, or some other idea of man. Even when I look into this event using scientific restraints I have problems with it. I think that Arp pretty much crushed the redshift distance relationship. But just because the data shows the redshift distance theory is broken does not mean that a bulk of scientist will change their collective minds and throw out what they "know" to be true.

http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

I mean just because we have anomalies in the stars who cares. The theory is mostly right. And for those who do look at the anomalies NASA has the perfect answer. (from same website)

"Appearances can be deceiving. In this NASA Hubble Space Telescope image, an odd celestial duo, the spiral galaxy NGC 4319

and a quasar called Markarian 205 [upper right], appear to be neighbors. In reality, the two objects don't even live in the same city. They are separated by time and space. NGC 4319 is 80 million light-years from Earth. Markarian 205 (Mrk 205) is more than 14 times farther away, residing 1 billion light-years from Earth. The apparent close alignment of Mrk 205 and NGC 4319 is simply a matter of chance."

So please don't believe your lying eyes, instead believe in our theory.

I just wonder why the science types get them self in a tizzy when someone has the gall to question their favorite pet theories?

Edited April 15, 2012 by Franktalk

[shalamabobbi]

"dogs bark at anyone they don't recognize." Anything they don't understand makes dogs and people uncomfortable, distrusting, and dangerous. - Nibley

We have the privilege of becoming classical scholars—of commencing at the rudiments of all knowledge—we might say, of perfection. We might study and add knowledge to knowledge, from the time that we are capable of knowing anything until we go down to the grave. If we enjoy healthy bodies, so as not to wear upon the functions of the mind, there is no end to man's learning.

We are made expressly to dwell with those who continue to learn.

[The greatest and] most important labour we have to perform is to cultivate ourselves.

Every accomplishment, every polished grace, every useful attainment in mathematics, music, and in all science and art belong to the Saints, and they should avail themselves as expeditiously as possible of the wealth of knowledge the sciences offer to every diligent and persevering scholar.

- Brigham Young

I think secular scientists started this letter. Not creationists.

Yes, started by Halton Arp and cronies. Halton has invested pretty much his whole life in his own theories of cosmology and just cannot bear to let go - despite being in a desperate minority and despite having each bit of "evidence" he brings forth refuted and explained (though to be fair sometimes these refutations and explanations take a little time to come forth)

The signatories are those few astrophysicists in Halton's extended group plus a few hangers on. The rest of the list is made up of "independent researchers" - i.e. wishful thinkers who would like to think they can do science, and engineers who don't have a clue.

The simple fact is to understand and thus critically examine big bang cosmology, you need to fully understand General Relativity, alternate theories of gravitation, and relevant parts of cosmology and astrophysics. If you satisfy these requirements, you are by definition a physicist and not an engineer. And 99.9% of physicists do not satisfy these criteria either...

Take Bill Mitchell's essay reproduced in the references - this guy reveals his utter ignorance of General Relativity in his first few lines but this does not stop him from making a total idiot of himself by writing that entire "critique".

This is the most specialist of fields and just because it is popularised out of all proportion because it is "interesting" does not mean that anyone with a technical degree has a valid comment... this IS rocket science.

quote taken from EvC forum, populated with real scientists..

[Franktalk]

shalamabobbi,

A show of hands means nothing to me. If you wish to live your life by the majority opinion you can. Just be aware that the majority opinion changes from country to country. So based on your physical location your whole mind set would have to change.

The collective wisdom of the scientific community has been wrong so many times in the past. Anyone with just a little knowledge of the history of science knows that. It is only those who blindly follow and not lead that make the kind of comments you seem to embrace.

To make sure the relationship is valid you can see a jet from the center of the galaxy extend to the quasar. Now according to the redshift distance relationship the quasar is 90 times farther away than the galaxy.

Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to Authority is not using his intelligence, he is just using his memory.

Leonardo da Vinci, 1452-1519

To hear you one would think that nobody is working on anything which upsets the redshift distance relationship. But maybe you just need to read some more. Here is an interesting chat about Cygnus A.

http://laserstars.org/news/3C405.html

[shalamabobbi]

Yes, that's exactly how the scientific review process proceeds, by a show of hands.. or is it an appeal to authority? um.. er..

Anyway you've moved away from Hovind so I'll take that as an improvement, congratulations! and good for you, keep plodding on!

The basic error of the creationist, IDist movement again is the following:

An apparent error is looked for in current scientific models to discount those models but nothing is offered in place of that model to explain the data.

We wouldn't expect this from Arp as he is an astronomer not a creationist, but what do we find with respect to red shift?

I will also touch on possible physical mechanisms for intrinsic redshift (in a nutshell, there are none).

http://wkfisher.blog...ontroversy.html

Edited April 16, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

I didn't say he was acting as a prophet. Only that he believed it. I allow others to believe anything they want, and as long as I'm not required to believe it. It's fine with me.

I was aware of his quotes before I became a member. They didn't stop me then from joining the Church. I highly doubt they'll stop me now from being a TBM.

[cinepro]

Don't know if anyone's pointed this out yet, but Elder Nelson said almost the exact same thing back in 1987:

Through the ages, some without scriptural understanding have tried to explain our existence by pretentious words such as ex nihilo (out of nothing). Others have deduced that, because of certain similarities between different forms of life, there has been a natural selection of the species, or organic evolution from one form to another. Many of these people have concluded that the universe began as a “big bang” that eventually resulted in the creation of our planet and life upon it.

To me, such theories are unbelievable! Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary? It is unthinkable! Even if it could be argued to be within a remote realm of possibility, such a dictionary could certainly not heal its own torn pages or renew its own worn corners or reproduce its own subsequent editions!

[David T]

This has his own personal crusade for decades. He's been giving some form of his 'magnificence of man' talk since at least the late 1970s (a form of it is in the very personal concluding thoughts in his 1979 privately published pre-apostolic autobiography 'From Heart To Heart' - extoling his awe at the body, but without feeling the need to call out evolution or the big Bang). It seems drawn from a genuine - and proper - awe of the fascinating and beautiful biology of the body. I think he feels scientific theories of its development and origin devalue the body in some way, or somehow makes it appear less magnificent. Which is the opposite view I've heard from evolutionary biologists.

I feel his intended message is good - but I feel at times his means of expressing his reverence for something he holds sacred ends up instead devolving into ridiculing offence against perceived insults to his Divine Miracle.

I'm sure he has met people, or encountered the writings of those who insulted or degraded the body using evolution or the big bang as an excuse. The memory still bugs him, it seems.

Edited April 16, 2012 by David T

[cdowis]

I didn't say he was acting as a prophet. Only that he believed it.

Now I see! You see no difference between "I rather think it is (speculate)" and "I believe". And... hahahahahah... you find yourself being ever so clever mocking BY with your superior knowledge. Showing him up as a fool who "believes" people live on the sun.

Well, I think you should be ashamed of yourself for joining the choir of those who mock Brigham Young. I wish you all the best if you don't even recognize what the antis have done to you. You will carry around this attitude until you go somewhere you do not foresee.

Just some friendly advice.

cdowis has left the building.

[Calm]

Now I see! You see no difference between "I rather think it is (speculate)" and "I believe". And... hahahahahah... you find yourself being ever so clever mocking BY with your superior knowledge. Showing him up as a fool who "believes" people live on the sun.

FWIW, I see no mocking in tss's comments or in the link he gave.

[Franktalk]

Whether the big bang happened the way science says it did or the universe came into existence another way does not matter. The point is man overreaches with his ideas and thinks he knows things with just a few data points. Reconstruction of the past is hard and the errors may be huge. It is possible that to know the past in any complete way we must know all of the forces that were involved. If we try and construct a complete view with limited data we are sure to fail. In my worldview there is an active God who has been involved in the formation of the universe and everything in it. Exactly what God did I sure don't know. But everything in the universe is subject to His commands. So exactly what He did and what He let unfold by the laws which He established I could not say. But it pains me to see people who ignore a guiding hand in the creation and then demean anyone who has the gall to suggest that their view as accepted by a godless construct is the only truth. This is why I question the conclusions of science. I want to make sure that people know that the theories of man are full of assumptions and do not rest on the solid ground that many believe it does. I hold a great deal of respect for those who do seek knowledge but I hold a greater respect for those who seek answers that science can't give. And I take great offense to theories of man that may interfere with a soul's path to spiritual enlightenment. Especially when they are used to divert a seeking heart. I find too many people who have wrapped them self with science as truth and use it as a weapon to attack someone who is searching for answers. There are many questions that science has no answers. So when others declare ultimate truth I will try and tear down. I know that truth will rise and things of this world will all go away one day.

[shalamabobbi]

Whether the big bang happened the way science says it did or the universe came into existence another way does not matter. The point is man overreaches with his ideas and thinks he knows things with just a few data points. Reconstruction of the past is hard and the errors may be huge. It is possible that to know the past in any complete way we must know all of the forces that were involved. If we try and construct a complete view with limited data we are sure to fail. In my worldview there is an active God who has been involved in the formation of the universe and everything in it. Exactly what God did I sure don't know. But everything in the universe is subject to His commands. So exactly what He did and what He let unfold by the laws which He established I could not say. But it pains me to see people who ignore a guiding hand in the creation and then demean anyone who has the gall to suggest that their view as accepted by a godless construct is the only truth. This is why I question the conclusions of science. I want to make sure that people know that the theories of man are full of assumptions and do not rest on the solid ground that many believe it does. I hold a great deal of respect for those who do seek knowledge but I hold a greater respect for those who seek answers that science can't give. And I take great offense to theories of man that may interfere with a soul's path to spiritual enlightenment. Especially when they are used to divert a seeking heart. I find too many people who have wrapped them self with science as truth and use it as a weapon to attack someone who is searching for answers. There are many questions that science has no answers. So when others declare ultimate truth I will try and tear down. I know that truth will rise and things of this world will all go away one day.

I think your complaint may be with scientism rather than science. Taking into account the divergent views of God in the world might you suggest how to include God in the scientific process please. When you've achieved a unification of the discipline of science with the field of theology get back to me.

[Eldwynn]

Cdowis said:

Scientists are not able to demonstrate that process.Here on earth, they are unable to answer some of the most basic questions, such as how the first man and the first woman came together to procreate.Did they evolve independently, or as one organism which split apart and then became functionally dependent. The answer that there was no "first" man or woman is intellectually bankrupt.

If you are going to denounce scientific theories, you should at least take the effort to learn them properly in the first place. There are question marks in the evolution of life on earth. The problem of the "first man or woman" is not one of them. It's been explained ad naseum, to the satisfaction of the entire field.

If you mean the first human, then there really isn't a problem. If you mean why life stopped reproducing asexually, and started producing sexually, that is an equally easy problem to answer. I would encourage you to utilize Google for the answer.

I would suggest that you focus on things that are actually controversial or require deep reading in the subject. The evolution of RNA is a good one- it takes a good biochemist to properly explain how that happened. This one is one of those "basic" objections that a high school biology student can answer now days.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Eldwynn

[Mariner]

Cdowis said:

Scientists are not able to demonstrate that process.Here on earth, they are unable to answer some of the most basic questions, such as how the first man and the first woman came together to procreate.Did they evolve independently, or as one organism which split apart and then became functionally dependent. The answer that there was no "first" man or woman is intellectually bankrupt.

If you are going to denounce scientific theories, you should at least take the effort to learn them properly in the first place. There are question marks in the evolution of life on earth. The problem of the "first man or woman" is not one of them. It's been explained ad naseum, to the satisfaction of the entire field.

If you mean the first human, then there really isn't a problem. If you mean why life stopped reproducing asexually, and started producing sexually, that is an equally easy problem to answer. I would encourage you to utilize Google for the answer.

I would suggest that you focus on things that are actually controversial or require deep reading in the subject. The evolution of RNA is a good one- it takes a good biochemist to properly explain how that happened. This one is one of those "basic" objections that a high school biology student can answer now days.

Great response, Eldwynn.

However, I think the red text on cdowis' last post above means what it says - that he has left the building (been escorted out, actually), so there is no need to anticipate a response from him on this thread. (Probably a good thing for him, though.)

[Franktalk]

I think your complaint may be with scientism rather than science. Taking into account the divergent views of God in the world might you suggest how to include God in the scientific process please. When you've achieved a unification of the discipline of science with the field of theology get back to me.

Our existence here in this world has meaning. This I know is true. To have meaning then what we perceive is not all of reality. If however the view of science is correct then there is no meaning and no purpose. This I know to be false. According to the God which I believe in we are to live in faith. That requires God to be a mystery to our senses in a general sense. But on a personal level we can know God and have an active relationship with Him. But since God does not take away our free will man is adrift with his own thoughts. This makes the wide range of religious beliefs you speak of. But the common thread is a being that transcends this existence. So in that sense your quest is satisfied. If you choose to deny that truth that is your choice. Now independent of any connection to God we still have the overreach of man. The pride of man and the quest for understanding is a powerful duo that brings forth conclusions that rest on vapor. But that is my opinion and you hold to another opinion. If things are so cut and dry in science then all in science would agree yet I find no universal agreement on many issues. It is almost like religion in that sense. Men do have free will and will use it to form their own thoughts regardless of how solid you imagine men to be. The construct of science with its natural bounds is very appropriate. I believe that one day the realm of natural will include much more than it does today. Just look at science today verses 100 or 200 years ago. Science has blossomed greatly and I predict it will continue to do so. Your idea of rejection of some possibilities is a personal choice and I find no such limit in the construct of science. All that is required is direct observation of a new unseen force. In science we have dark matter and dark energy which influence things we do see. One day as predicted by scriptures the mystery of God will end. Then men will include this new exposed force into his analysis of reality. If you reject this possibility then you expose your closed mind. Men in the past were not closed to new possibilities and that is why we have such a diverse branching of science. In my mind you seem as one who instead of watering the tree of science you intend to trim its branches to keep it in your own construct of reality. But the driving force to know and understand is way more powerful and no matter what you or I say it will have a life of its own. So just from a logical point of view which one of us has a more realistic view of the future? You who embrace what is currently known and refuses to extend our understanding or my view which sees an endless progression into currently unknown waters. I would hope that you see the folly of any limited view.

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

I didn't nor would I mock Brigham Young. I revere him as a prophet of God. However that doesn't mean that I have to agree with him on everything he ever said.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

Science doesn't speculate as to a meaning. That is beyond the realm of science.

Yes there was/is/ and hopefully will be a knowledge explosion. Whether you attribute that to God or to man the result is still the same.

[shalamabobbi]

Our existence here in this world has meaning. This I know is true. To have meaning then what we perceive is not all of reality. If however the view of science is correct then there is no meaning and no purpose. This I know to be false. According to the God which I believe in we are to live in faith. That requires God to be a mystery to our senses in a general sense. But on a personal level we can know God and have an active relationship with Him. But since God does not take away our free will man is adrift with his own thoughts. This makes the wide range of religious beliefs you speak of. But the common thread is a being that transcends this existence. So in that sense your quest is satisfied. If you choose to deny that truth that is your choice. Now independent of any connection to God we still have the overreach of man. The pride of man and the quest for understanding is a powerful duo that brings forth conclusions that rest on vapor. But that is my opinion and you hold to another opinion. If things are so cut and dry in science then all in science would agree yet I find no universal agreement on many issues. It is almost like religion in that sense. Men do have free will and will use it to form their own thoughts regardless of how solid you imagine men to be. The construct of science with its natural bounds is very appropriate. I believe that one day the realm of natural will include much more than it does today. Just look at science today verses 100 or 200 years ago. Science has blossomed greatly and I predict it will continue to do so. Your idea of rejection of some possibilities is a personal choice and I find no such limit in the construct of science. All that is required is direct observation of a new unseen force. In science we have dark matter and dark energy which influence things we do see. One day as predicted by scriptures the mystery of God will end. Then men will include this new exposed force into his analysis of reality. If you reject this possibility then you expose your closed mind. Men in the past were not closed to new possibilities and that is why we have such a diverse branching of science. In my mind you seem as one who instead of watering the tree of science you intend to trim its branches to keep it in your own construct of reality. But the driving force to know and understand is way more powerful and no matter what you or I say it will have a life of its own. So just from a logical point of view which one of us has a more realistic view of the future? You who embrace what is currently known and refuses to extend our understanding or my view which sees an endless progression into currently unknown waters. I would hope that you see the folly of any limited view.

My rejection of some possibilities (and trimming its branches) is rather a lack of rejection of some data, data that many choose to remain in the dark about I'm afraid.

I'm all for new knowledge. But some of what you were putting forth as new was indeed old news and debunked/dismissed from which the science community has moved on..

Since science as an enterprise is limited in that it cannot address the realm of God, the afterlife, etc do you propose it be shut down? Do you think mankind better off without its revelations? You are free to disagree with much of main stream science and have availed yourself of the liberty to do so. Are not others free to judge for themselves as well?

If you are all for science then why not accept its well supported findings? Most people have no problem with the limitations of science and accept it for what it is. They understand that science is not where one goes to find purpose or meaning about life. That does not mean that fossils are the devil's doing or the remnants from some other orb from which this earth was created.

I don't know anyone who blindly accepts all of science which appears to be your major concern in your posts that I have read. Students doubt what they are taught in class and wrestle with it until they come to the same conclusion or decide to change majors. I thought I saw an error in general relativity and so pursued my tangent, thinking at the time I saw some flaw that was missed, only to discover to my chagrin that Einstien had done the same. We all must learn or rather relearn for ourselves.

My perception of you (since you offered yours of me) is that you choose to remain secluded from what has been discovered and is known perhaps for the reason that it moves you too far too fast from your comfort zone. Perhaps because it raises more questions than you can answer or even imagine answers to. If I'm right welcome to the club! Hey I still know what spiritual experiences are mine and prize them most highly but I've found I've loosened my belt a notch or two where it comes to having to have a currently perfect explanation and answer for everything under the sun.

Edited April 17, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[Eldwynn]

I'm really confused why religion is better at speculating about meaning than science is? What gives a theologian more insights than a scientist? The fact that he has studied ancient scripture written by bronze age men trying to understand a world without science? Plenty of scientists have studied the bible too ya know. In fact, when quizzed, non-religous people are the most knowledgeable about the bible, followed by Jews and Mormons,

Why on earth should we trust these people about meaning more than a scientists? What is it about religions that makes it more of an authority?

Franktalk talks about KNOWING fundamental things about the universe are true. Well, sorry buddy, but you don't KNOW. If you can't admit that, then you are lying- hopefully not to yourself. Nobody could possibly know for sure. Scientists are at least honest about the limitations- finding things that are "more likely" to be true than not. They are honest about their ignorance- and call their most backed up data just theory. Meanwhile, a general authority stands in front of his flock, says whatever he feels like, and passes it off as absolute truth.

Why?

Edited April 17, 2012 by Eldwynn

[Franktalk]

Franktalk talks about KNOWING fundamental things about the universe are true. Well, sorry buddy, but you don't KNOW. If you can't admit that, then you are lying- hopefully not to yourself. Nobody could possibly know for sure. Scientists are at least honest about the limitations- finding things that are "more likely" to be true than not. They are honest about their ignorance- and call their most backed up data just theory. Meanwhile, a general authority stands in front of his flock, says whatever he feels like, and passes it off as absolute truth.

Why?

If you had the experiences in your life that I have had you would not say these things. You seem to feel that if something is not available for all to experience then it is impossible for one person to experience that thing. This is a collective consciousness which is not a truth. Truth exist as an absolute and is not bound by your conditional logic. I can experience something and determine for myself if that experience is real. I will then act on that assessment and change my life according to my new worldview. You are free to have your own views on reality and adjust your life as you see fit. But don't you think it is over the top to deny my personal experiences in my life? You can not be me and I can not be you. We must have different experiences in life. Your lack of respect is telling in that it seems you believe in some universal truth and refuse to allow the possibility that you might be wrong. I know I am wrong on many things and I know that man has overreached on many subjects. I continue to seek for knowledge but know it is a very hard thing to get enough data to make absolute statements. I can tell you what is true for me but each of us must find truth where we can. If you are happy with the path you are on then so be it. Just don't tell me that there are no other paths. This is a minority opinion and one that does not bring you much respect, at least in my eyes it does not.

I can not deny what I know to be true. No matter how much you jump up and down and shout.