Naah. The large scale structures of the universe fit very well within the big bang model.
http://cosmicweb.uchicago.edu/filaments.html
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Big Bang theology is also indistinguishable from Omphalos.
According to the Big Bang model, the universe is only around 13.7 billion years old yet shows signs that it is 75 to 150 billion.
*A team of the British, American, and Hungarian astronomers have reported even larger structures. As per their findings, the universe is crossed by at least 13 'Great Walls', apparent rivers of galaxies 100Mpc long in the surveyed domain of 7 billion light years. They found galaxies clustered into bands spaced about 600 millon light years apart. The pattern of these clusters stretches across about one-fourth of the diameter of the universe, or about seven billion light years. This huge shell and void pattern would have required nearly 150 billion years to form, based on their speed of movement, if produced by the standard Big Bang cosmology (Lerner 1990).
Discovery of the Great Walls of galaxies and filamentary clumping of galactic mater has greatly upset the traditional notion that galactic matter should be uniformly distributed. If the universe began with a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, the awesome size of these large-scale structures is baffling because there is apparently not sufficient time available for such massive objects to form and to become organized.* -- Source
According to the Big Bang model, there are objects in the universe that are much more mature than the universe itself -- embedded age.
Holy guacamole they keep changing the number for how old the universe is.the universe is only around 13.7 billion years old
Holy guacamole they keep changing the number for how old the universe is.
Big Bang theology is also indistinguishable from Omphalos.
According to the Big Bang model, the universe is only around 13.7 billion years old yet shows signs that it is 75 to 150 billion.
*A team of the British, American, and Hungarian astronomers have reported even larger structures. As per their findings, the universe is crossed by at least 13 'Great Walls', apparent rivers of galaxies 100Mpc long in the surveyed domain of 7 billion light years. They found galaxies clustered into bands spaced about 600 millon light years apart. The pattern of these clusters stretches across about one-fourth of the diameter of the universe, or about seven billion light years. This huge shell and void pattern would have required nearly 150 billion years to form, based on their speed of movement, if produced by the standard Big Bang cosmology (Lerner 1990).
Discovery of the Great Walls of galaxies and filamentary clumping of galactic mater has greatly upset the traditional notion that galactic matter should be uniformly distributed. If the universe began with a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, the awesome size of these large-scale structures is baffling because there is apparently not sufficient time available for such massive objects to form and to become organized.* -- Source
According to the Big Bang model, there are objects in the universe that are much more mature than the universe itself -- embedded age.
They keep adjusting the atomic clock also.<ggggg> refining. They keep refining it.
Even after recalculations, oldest known star still older than the universe itself.
http://www.space.com/20112-oldest-known-star-universe.html
Keep recalibrating guys.
The uncertainty Bond refers to is plus or minus 800 million years, which means the star could actually be 13.7 billion years old — younger than the universe as it's currently understood, though just barely.
Oh, I read it just fine. I also understand the meaning of the word "could."Gee, I guess you didn't read the whole article, because it has this in it:
The star could be as old as 15.3 billion years old.
Oh, I read it just fine. I also understand the meaning of the word "could."
The star could be as old as 15.3 billion years old. The Big Bang theory claims that the universe was created some 13.8 billion years ago. The best estimate of the age of the star is 14.5 billion years old. Again, this is older than the supposed age of the universe.
Holy guacamole they keep changing the number for how old the universe is.
I never ran the math on that myself. It does not much matter to me. I ran the math once to try and figure out the length of the first day. To figure out the spindown rate of the earth. That was pretty easy to do.Sorry, what number did you come up with?
Bumped for RealityCheck01Rather --- what He created it with.
How He created it is called creatio ex nihilo.Correct.Incorrect --- the earth is not 6000 years old --- it is 4.57 billion years old. Remember: God embedded age into it. If the earth was 6000 years old, then that means that God embedded only 6000 years into it the day he created it some 6100 years ago, making it some 12,100 years old now.Incorrect --- Embedded Age is defined as "maturity without history" (qv 1), whereas Omphalos is defined as "maturity with history". In other words, Omphalos is embedded history, not embedded age.There is none, as embedding age did not leave an audit trail.I don't know about "all other coal", but for the most part, that is correct. Before the Flood, during the Flood, after the Flood --- whenever.Not in Genesis 1, though --- you're making a leap of 2500 years into the future by bringing up the Flood, which has nothing to do with the Creation Week. Of course it would "appear old" --- because it is old.No it wasn't --- you're making it sound like it only appears old --- it is, however, in actuality --- old.
OTOH the cash value of evolution for some of us, is sometimes it can be used as leverage to de-convert Christians.
Think of all those variations in the philosophy of quantum mechanics. Now, if one of them could be shown to undermine faith, would there be a motivation to believe in it from an atheist perspective?
Thank you for the kind words.Ty to AV for sharing his theory. Its a good example of a counterexample to mainstream thought.
Science not realizing it is inspired, does not mean it is not inspired.Speaking for myself, science and scientific theories do not have a cash value in terms of de-converting Christians. Nor would I be more likely to believe in something due to 'added value' if it de-converted Christians.
Not all things it enables sinners to do are good for the planet..or mankind.And science has incredible value in enabling the human race to do things, and do things better.
Dog eat dog animalistic godless morals are not the best set on the block actually.Or morals being enforced (e.g. laws) which are not the best set of societal morals that we could have.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?