Big bang theory disproved

[unitedistand]

MsAnne, that would probably have to be the best evidence/explination for the Big bang. But rather not in how these people would think that it happened.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by unitedistand
no drug use, we've got an electric range and stove (ceramic heating elements), also, there was no possible natural source of the mist.

You don't know that, but since I wasn't there, I won't argue. You saw what you saw, and used your finite mind to decide what it meant.

I will, however, refer you to the Hippocrates quote in my sig line.

I can agree to that sometimes,  but to really understand why either the Big bang theory or even evolution, for that matter, would be so seemingly ridiculous, one has to realize that not only are universes are moving further away from each other (which has been proven that they do travel further away from each other, no arguement here), but it's been noted that planets have also moved further apart, we're just a slight bit further away from the sun each year.  Scientists have measured a reletive number as to how much each year, but I cannot recall what that is.  Take the year that people have estimated when dragons (dinosaurs) were in existance and the timing would have been impossible, seeing as though that the earth was "lush and green" when dinosaurs lived throughout the world.  The distance between the earth and the sun would have been so close that this couldn't have been possible for any life to survive, especially for herbavores because of the nature of their diets.

First, I think you mean "galaxies," not "universes" are moving apart. Even an honest mistake such as this can ruin your credibility in a forum like this.

And nobody's denying that the Earth 65 million years ago was nothing like we know it today.

Since the sun would have been so much closer to the earth, it would have caused all the plant life to either burn up and die due to the intense heat, or the water would have been all gas until the earth was far enough from the sun to actually produce rain. 

That's just common sense.

Except that you haven't posted your sources. I've never heard the "planets drifting away" theory, and am not about to believe it just because you say "scientists" say so. I require names, credentials, and sources I can check for myself.

That's just common sense.

I realize that my mind on it's own is finite in it's own understanding, but the understanding I pull from is not of myself, but of he who sent me.

Either way, it passes though your finite, and falliable, mind, so there's always the possibility, even for the word of God, of getting something lost in the translation. 

We all have to accept our limitations, and correct our mistakes.

Well, since what I speak is truth, I do not speak lies to you, I cannot possibly be a hypocrite, now can I?

Of course you can! I don't know you from Elvis. All you've offered me to prove your honesty is your own say-so. If a hypocrite swears he's telling the truth, should I believe him?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by unitedistand
pretty interesting how "big bang" theorists still manage to use a word naming space that also disproves the theory:

Universe
let's break this down, shall we?

the prefix in the word: Uni-.  

Definition of Uni:  prefix signifying one, once; as in uniaxial, unicellular. Uni is of Latin origion.

the main part of the word, Verse

Definition of verse: one line of poetry, Spoken sentence. Verse is also of latin origion.

Litterally, Universe means "one spoken sentence". What was that "one spoken sentence" that was spoken?  Simple.

Genesis 1:3 says it clearly:  ". . . Let there be light . . ."

The derivation of the word universe disproofs the big bang theory?

huh?

So, all that must be done then, is giving the thing another name (let's use cosmos then!) and the disproof melts like snow under the sun...

hmmmmm....

So god explains it all, but how to explain god?
Just be giving something a name, and use it in whatever contexts as explaing it all, will not get us far, does it? It explains everything and at the sametime explains nothing at all. A rather contradictionary concept.

If we would change the name for the concept of "god" to "nature" would we then understand better how nature actually works?

I don't think so.
understanding is not giving things a name, and declare it to have all power.

And writing a verse like "let there be light" is not the same is creating the light or explaining where the light came from, what caused it, etc.

And besides that, the appearance of light was not the first thing to happen, although it might be we can't go further back then as to that event.

Actually there wasn't a first event, because there is only an ongoing process of natural events that has no begin or end.

Evolution theory and cosmology is just a scientific test case for explaining almost everything.

But perhaps it just should be stated that the universe probably wasn't a unique event, although we can never realy observe anything else but the phenomena we see in our universe.

There is a theory that can explain as to why the big bang happened, and explain how the universe looks, it's the theory of open or chaotic inflation.
The theory just states that such a thing was possible, and that once inflation starts, it will go on endlesly. No beginning of time, just an endless evolving process. It's a perfect explenation for the anthropic principle, the universe must be looking like this, else life wouldn't occur, and there were an infinite number of universes that happened before our universe came into being.

 

[HazyRigby]

From my word origins dictionary:

Rapture: Rapture is one of a large family of English words that go back ultimately to Latin rapere 'seize by force.' From the same source come rapacious, rape, rapid, rapine, ravage, ravenous, ravine, ravish, surreptitious, and usurp.

More questions, unitedistand?