Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[Doveaman]

...except that God communicates with you through the scripture in the Bible, which is the basis for all of your Christian doctrine. I have yet to discuss God with a Christian who doesn't end up spouting Bible verses as answers. If the Bible weren't your source of guidance, you'd throw it out the window like garbage and rely solely on prophets, priests, intermediaries, or personal prayer time. Why place so much emphasis on scripture (which is supposed to be "God-breathed") when the Bible isn't your source for guidance?

At least with the Bible you have some semblance of uniformity, although it's clear that it wasn't enough to keep Christianity from shattering into a thousand different denominations who all think each other wrong.

And that's exactly my point. If the Bible is our source of guidance, we wouldn't be so 'shattered', since we all read the same Bible.

The Bible is vital to our faith, but it can do nothing by itself, otherwise more Atheists would be converted whenever they read it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Right. To accomplish what, exactly? Thread derailment?

It's not a mirror, Coder -- it's a spotlight. And you've just helped AV shine it on himself.

 

[sandwiches]

I find it quite odd that some people can come onto a board and flatout accuse an entire group of people of genocide and then when called on their generalisation get all defensive.

If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Exactly. There's several differences between Christians and Atheists that most Christians don't seem to realize.

1) Unlike Christians, we don't defend or rationalize atrocities we believe to have been done by our role model and leader. We don't even have a single role model or leader, for that matter.

2) Some Christians, if not most, not only defend immoral and unethical actions by their deity but also insist that regardless of what their deity does, it's always moral

3) Christians insist on defending and participating in their religion despite the explicit things that it advocates or supports, including slavery, genocide, xenophobia, irrationality, discrimination, male superiority, racial superiority, religious intolerance, transference of guilt and sin from the guilty to the innocent, etc.

4) Christians have been moticated SPECIFICALLY by the their Christian beliefs and doctrines to seek out, silence, kill, or otherwise harm those who they view as not "true Christians." Just look at the never ending "Troubles of Northern Ireland.

So, the day that Christians stop defending immorality, stop promoting a belief that support immorality, and stop doing immoral acts BECAUSE of their religion, is the day that they'll have room to legitimately say "tu quoque."

 

[BananaSlug]

Consensus Cosmology believes that the higher an objects redshift light is in space the farther away it is moving from us. Using this idea to measure the size of the Universe, Consensus Cosmology determined that the universe is expanding, and that the expansion was caused by an initial Bang, the Big Bang - Cause and effect.

The Big Bang theory is therefore based on the idea that higher redshift objects in space are always farther away from objects with lower redshift, therefore it is impossible for objects with vastly differing redshifts to be connected since they are so far apart.

I cannot see why not.

Which is obviously not the case:

The fact that we do observe objects of vastly differing redshifts connected falsifies the idea on which the Big Bang theory is based, and therefore falsifies the Big Bang itself. It has no base.

How does two celestial objects flying apart disprove the Big Bang?Physically connected galaxies with wildly different redshifts suggest that some of the disparities in redshifts may actually be due to the related objects flying apart from each other. In the illustration, the small companion might have been "shot out" of its parent galaxy at high velocity by some unappreciated galactic gun (dark energy?).

An ad hoc illusory base has been put in place to hold the dead theory together with the use of mathemagic.
It is because the objects falsify the Big Bang that they are considered “anomalous”. Anything that falsifies the Big Bang is considered by Consensus Cosmology to be “anomalous”.

I just explained it. Now it is no longer anomalous and still does not disprove the Big Bang.

Even “God did it” is considered “anomalous”, as this thread demonstrates.

No, "anomalous" is evidence that does not have an explanation. "God did it" is an explanation that does not have evidence.

The reason why observations are considered “anomalous” by Consensus Cosmology is because the Big Bang model cannot scientifically explain them. They do not fit the Big Bang model. But, yet, we observe them. This suggests that the Big Bang model is not based on observations, but on magic, mathemagic.

I still don't see how two objects separating from each other disproves the Big Bang. Am I missing something?

That fact that Plasma Cosmology scientifically explains the observations quit well, and even predicts them, using the scientific method, demonstrates that the observations can be explained scientifically.

What explanations does "plasma cosmology" give us for the phenomena?

The problem with dark matter and dark energy is that they are precisely the way Atheists describe God – Never observed, Never touched, Never detected.

It has been detected.

So if those dark invisible entities are real, so is God. This is why I consider Big Bang a mathemagical religion; its proponents faith relies heavily on the invisible and undetected.

So what accounts for galaxies having more gravity than what the observable matter would indicate?

Space plasma consists of electrically charged particles (electrons and ions), making it an excellent conductor of electricity, far better than copper. Electricity generates electromagnetic force. Electromagnetic force is 1000, billion, billion, billion, billion times stronger than gravitational force.

It is this electromagnetic force generated in electrified Cosmic Plasma that forms, drives, and sustains galaxies, not gravity.

A Plasma Galaxy Simulation using basic electrical principles found in Nature:​

_____________________

No fictitious dark matter or black holes are required, because, in the Universe, gravitational force is secondary; Electromagnetic force is primary.

They don’t teach that in Consensus Cosmology school, because Big Bang is their pet theory.

If this is so, what accounts for the fact that galaxies are moving farther apart?

 

[magisterfaust]

no! No! No!

 

[pgp_protector]

New irony meters ahoy.

It astounds me how those commanded not to bear false witness do so with such regularity. Your comments about atheism show nothing but your ignorance of atheism, as I think people have been trying to point out to you.

I've learned that when visiting any section / sub section of Physical & Life Sciences / heck the whole Society area actually Just keep the Irony Meters off & out of range of the site.

 

[Freodin]

Consensus Cosmology believes that the higher an objects redshift light is in space the farther away it is moving from us. Using this idea to measure the size of the Universe, Consensus Cosmology assumes that the universe is rapidly expanding, and that the expansion was caused by an initial Bang, the Big Bang - cause and effect. (This "cause and effect" idea alone tells us that the Big Bang is just a Big Assumption.)

The Big Bang theory is therefore based on the assumption that higher redshift objects in space are always farther away from objects with lower redshift, therefore it is impossible for objects with vastly differing redshifts to be connected since they are so far apart.

Which is obviously not the case:

The fact that we do observe objects of vastly differing redshifts connected falsifies the idea on which the Big Bang theory is based, and therefore falsifies the Big Bang itself. It has no base.

An ad hoc illusory base has been put in place to hold the dead theory together with the use of mathemagic.
It is because the objects falsify the Big Bang that they are considered “anomalous”. Anything that falsifies the Big Bang is considered by Consensus Cosmology to be “anomalous”.

Even “God did it” is considered “anomalous”, as this thread demonstrates.

The reason why observations are considered “anomalous” by Consensus Cosmology is because the Big Bang model cannot scientifically explain them. They do not fit the Big Bang model. But, yet, we observe them. This suggests that the Big Bang model is not based on observations, but on magic, mathemagic.

The fact that Plasma Cosmology scientifically explains the observations quit well, and even predicts them, using the scientific method, demonstrates that the observations can be explained scientifically.

The fact that they are explained scientifically, and the scientific explanation does not fit the Big Bang model, falsifies the Big Bang model, because the Big Bang model is not consistent with what is considered to be a scientific explanation. It is consistent only with what is mathemagic.
Well, it is scientifically dead already. But it has been mathemagically resurrected and is now being kept mathemagically alive like a cosmic Frankenstein monster.

Remove the mathemagic and it remains as dead as dead could be.

The Big Bang is a scientifically dead theory. It is now a living mathemagical religion.
The problem with dark matter and dark energy is that they are precisely the way Atheists describe God – Never observed, Never touched, Never detected.

So if those dark invisible entities are real, so is God. This is why I consider Big Bang a mathemagical religion; its proponents faith relies heavily on the invisible and undetected.
Space plasma consists of electrically charged particles (electrons and ions), making it an excellent conductor of electricity, far better than copper. Electricity generates electromagnetic force. Electromagnetic force is 1000, billion, billion, billion, billion times stronger than gravitational force.

It is this electromagnetic force generated in electrified Cosmic Plasma that forms, drives, and sustains galaxies, not gravity.

A Plasma Galaxy Simulation using basic electrical principles found in Nature:

_____________________

​

No fictitious dark matter or black holes are required, because, in the Universe, gravitational force is secondary; Electromagnetic force is primary.

They don’t teach that in Consensus Cosmology school, because Big Bang is their pet theory.

While I admit that this hypothesis of an "electrical universe" is rather interesting, and far beyond the scope of a debate thread in a christian internet forum, I don´t like the way it is presented. Or rather, I don´t like the way YOU present it here.

You go out and rant against the assumtions of "consensus cosmology". You try to belittle the theoretical background of their theories by calling them "dead" and "religion". You slander their tools as "mathemagic".

But in doing so, you undermine your own base. You have to invoke "assumptions" of your own... and if your "simulation" isn´t based on mathematics, then I don´t know on what.

Yet nothing will keep you from "your way baaaad, my way gooood" bleating.
Back up your own assumptions, show your models, do the math... then we´d have something to talk about.

 

[CoderHead]

And that's exactly my point.

No, I'm not sure that's your point. You spout scripture just as much as the next Christian in the discussion and then go on to say that the Bible isn't your source of guidance. Does that make sense to you?

If the Bible is our source of guidance, we wouldn't be so 'shattered', since we all read the same Bible.

You all worship the same God too. Shouldn't your God have the power and/or the credibility to keep this shattering from happening?

The Bible is vital to our faith, but it can do nothing by itself, otherwise more Atheists would be converted whenever they read it.

Again, shouldn't your God have the power and/or the credibility to make this happen?

 

[Doveaman]

While I admit that this hypothesis of an "electrical universe" is rather interesting,

So will you check it out?

and far beyond the scope of a debate thread in a christian internet forum,

Why is that? God is a Scientists!

I don´t like the way it is presented.

Of course you don't.

Or rather, I don´t like the way YOU present it here.

Of course you don't.

You go out and rant against the assumtions of "consensus cosmology".

Because Big Bang over does it.

You try to belittle the theoretical background of their theories by calling them "dead"

Because they are.

and "religion".

Because it is.

You slander their tools as "mathemagic".

Because they are.

But in doing so, you undermine your own base. You have to invoke "assumptions" of your own...

There is a measure of assumptions in all science, but Big Bang over does it.

There seem to be no end to Big Bang assumptions, and that's because the science is lacking.

and if your "simulation" isn´t based on mathematics, then I don´t know on what.

It is based on mathematics and physics.

Much more than can be said about the dark, invisible, undetected stuff Big Bang proponents put their faith in.

Yet nothing will keep you from "your way baaaad, my way gooood" bleating.
Back up your own assumptions, show your models, do the math... then we´d have something to talk about.

Does this mean you don't agree?

Oh, well...

 

[Doveaman]

No, I'm not sure that's your point.

I guess you know my point better than I do.

You spout scripture just as much as the next Christian in the discussion and then go on to say that the Bible isn't your source of guidance. Does that make sense to you?

Yes

You all worship the same God too. Shouldn't your God have the power and/or the credibility to keep this shattering from happening?

There is no "shattering" among those who worship God.

Again, shouldn't your God have the power and/or the credibility to make this happen?

Only if He wanted us to be puppets.

 

[Freodin]

Of course you don't.
Of course you don't.
Because Big Bang over does it.
Because they are.
Because it is.
Because they are.

Yes, of course it is. Whatever you say.

There is a measure of assumptions in all science, but Big Bang over does it.

There seem to be no end to Big Bang assumptions, and that's because the science is lacking.
It is based on mathematics and physics.

Much more than can be said about those dark, invisible, undetected stuff Big Bang proponents put their faith in.
Does this mean you don't agree?

Back up your assumtions, show your models, do the math... else what you are doing is not better than what you accuse the "consensus cosmology" of.

 

[Doveaman]

Yes, of course it is. Whatever you say.

Back up your assumtions, show your models, do the math... else what you are doing is not better than what you accuse the "consensus cosmology" of.

We already did, but you guys are religiously stubborn. You don't want to see with the eyes, or hear with the ears, or understand with the heart. This is why modern cosmology is now viewed as a religion, the Big Bang religion, and not science.

 

[AV1611VET]

You slander their tools as "mathemagic".

Because they are.

Someone's got a sense of humor ---

 

[Freodin]

We already did, but you guys are religiously stubborn. You don't want to see with the eyes, or hear with the ears, or understand with the heart. This is why modern cosmology is now viewed as a religion, the Big Bang religion, and not science.

Don´t claim you already did... do it.

 

[CoderHead]

I guess you know my point better than I do.

I didn't really get your point, and that's why I used the phrase "I'm not sure that's your point."

There is no "shattering" among those who worship God.

So none of the different denominations of Protestant Christians or Catholics or Mormons worship the Biblical God?

You don't want to see with the eyes, or hear with the ears, or understand with the heart.

That's because when we do see with our eyes and hear with our ears, we understand with our brains. Your heart is for pumping blood.

 

[Doveaman]

The Big Bang theory is therefore based on the idea that higher redshift objects in space are always farther away from objects with lower redshift, therefore it is impossible for objects with vastly differing redshifts to be connected since they are so far apart.

I cannot see why not.

Then you are disagreeing with Consensus cosmology, and not with me. They are the ones who consider such connections to be "anomalous".

How does two celestial objects flying apart disprove the Big Bang?

That’s not what disproves it.

Physically connected galaxies with wildly different redshifts suggest that some of the disparities in redshifts may actually be due to the related objects flying apart from each other.

Consensus Cosmology is of the view that two objects that are billions of light years apart should not be connected.

“Flying apart” may explain the difference in redshift, but it does not explain the connection.

In the illustration, the small companion might have been "shot out" of its parent galaxy at high velocity by some unappreciated galactic gun (dark energy?).

I agree with the “shot out” part, but I don’t agree with the “dark energy” part.

Dark energy is hypothetical, there is no evidence for it other than assumption, so I don’t believe it does anything unless it can be empirically verified that it does.

Electrical discharge can be empirically verified, and does stuff, and would likely be the cause of the “shot out”, since galaxies are electrically driven, as was illustrated before.

Objects are “shot out” from galaxies similar to how mass is ejected from the sun during coronal mass ejection – Electrical discharge.

I just explained it. Now it is no longer anomalous and still does not disprove the Big Bang.

Are you aware that it is Consensus Cosmology that considers it to be “anomalous”, and not me? So it would seem like you are disagreeing with them, since you have an explanation and they don’t.

We are in agreement here on the most part, except for the “dark energy” stuff.

No, "anomalous" is evidence that does not have an explanation. "God did it" is an explanation that does not have evidence.

That’s your opinion. I’ve seen God. But that’s another story, a real story, based on real events.

I still don't see how two objects separating from each other disproves the Big Bang. Am I missing something?

What you are missing is that “two objects separating” is not what disproves it. It is the connection of those two objects that disproves it.

In Consensus Cosmology, two objects that are billions of light years apart being connected is considered to be impossible.

What explanations does "plasma cosmology" give us for the phenomena?

In Plasma Cosmology, all galaxies in the Universe are electrically linked through electrified Cosmic Plasma, similar to how all planets in our solar system are electrically linked to the sun.

All Planets are electrically linked to Stars, All Stars are electrically linked to Galaxies, and All Galaxies are electrically linked through Cosmic Plasma, which makes up more than 99% of the Universe, the Electric Universe.

In addition: Redshift:

"Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt.Palomar and Mt.Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance...

Arp believes that the observed redshift value of any object is made up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by mainstream astronomers. The inherent redshift is a property of the matter in the object. It apparently changes over time in discrete steps.

He suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their parent galaxies with inherent redshift values of up to z = 2. They continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing inherent redshift. Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings.

Any additional redshift (over and above its inherent value) is indeed indicative of the object's velocity. But the inherent part is an indication of the object's youth and usually makes up the larger fraction of a quasar's total redshift."

This explains why objects of two different redshifts are seen to be connected. One is the baby quasar (higher redshift), and the other is the parent galaxy (lower redshift). The baby quasar was "shot out" or ejected from the core of the parent galaxy.

As the quasar speeds away by the ejection, a plasma tail trails behind that connects it to its parent galaxy. Eventually the quasar slows down, settles, and cools, becoming a part of a galaxy cluster family. This is how galaxies are born.

Mr. Arp’s scientific observations did not go down well with the Big Bang theologians. His scientific observations did not fit their religious belief in the Big Bang model, so he was subsequently excommunicated from among the Consensus.

Yes, we are still living in the dark ages, the dark ages of Consensus Cosmology.

It has been detected.

Nope. They’re still digging.

So what accounts for galaxies having more gravity than what the observable matter would indicate?

I told you earlier that galaxies are not held together or driven by gravity, it’s done by electromagnetism, which is 1000, billion, billion, billion, billion times more powerful than gravity. The infinitely weak force of gravity is secondary to the infinitely powerful force of electromagnetism.

It is the flawed Big Bang model that requires so much non-existent gravity. This is why they have to make up hypothetical dark stuff to account for what they consider to be missing. There is nothing missing. It’s all electromagnetism.

If this is so, what accounts for the fact that galaxies are moving farther apart?

Electromagnetic force move things around. It has been empirically verified to do so in the lab. Dark matter and dark energy has not.

 

[dawiyd]

Consensus Cosmology refuses to acknowledge any theory that explains the so called “anomalous” observations if those theories are not based on the Big Bang model.

Apart from it doesn't. Again:

"This system is at present the most spectacular case that we know among the candidates for anomalous redshift. Future studies of this system are clearly warranted."

I think that is a pretty good definition of what I meant by "ignore".

Yet it isn't the case.

They may acknowledge the observation, but completely ignore any explanation that does not fit their mathemagical cosmic monster, even though the explanation is scientific.

What other explanation has been offered? Sorry, none. Not to mention we have cosmic microwave background radiation that provides strong evidence that the univers expanded and has naturally cooled from an extremely hot, dense initial state. Or how about the relative proportion of light elements in the universe. The observed abundances of hydrogen and helium throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

Then why did you snip this:

Consensus Cosmology's response:

Mainly, because it was asinine tripe that had nothing to do with my objection.

 

[sandwiches]

So will you check it out?
Why is that? God is a Scientists!
Of course you don't.
Of course you don't.
Because Big Bang over does it.
Because they are.
Because it is.
Because they are.
There is a measure of assumptions in all science, but Big Bang over does it.

There seem to be no end to Big Bang assumptions, and that's because the science is lacking.
It is based on mathematics and physics.

Much more than can be said about the dark, invisible, undetected stuff Big Bang proponents put their faith in.
Does this mean you don't agree?

Oh, well...

Explain how the current astronomical cosmology is 'dead,' a 'religion,' and what is 'mathemagic.'

 

[dawiyd]

I don't know the details well enough to figure out what God is trying to say to you. But it seems to be working.
God had some comments on commemorating special dates
which has led me to steer away from such studies.

Come on, it's not even special dates it's a timespan of 10 years, between what one author of Matthew has wrote, and that of Luke. And since I tend to doubt what people mean when they say 'credible historian', as this tends to mean some guy on an apologetic website who supports your particular paradigm.

So for a refreshing breath of air, actual journal articles from respected institutions (since I am at my moms house and not on broadband, the internet takes ages), so head over to Oxford Journals, search for something like 'Census of Quirinius', 'Mark Luke Quirinius Census' et al.

Here's the thing, they agree the author of Luke is in error about dating Jesus and his birth, by almost a decade, this isn't the only example of the history within the bible to be shown incorrect.

 

[Nathan Poe]

We already did, but you guys are religiously stubborn.

Maybe it's just because you guys aren't that good at explanations? just a thought.

You don't want to see with the eyes, or hear with the ears, or understand with the heart.

The heart will not accept what the mind rejects. As much as you'd like to skip that ever-important step, you cannot.

This is why modern cosmology is now viewed as a religion, the Big Bang religion, and not science.

Viewed by whom? You? What difference do your views make?