Kylie's Apple Challenge

[HARK!]

While you're eating it, perhaps you can share the scientific evidence that the Big Bang never happened

Here is my assertion:

Since that thread was created, new evidence has come forth which would suggest that the Big Bang didn't happen.

Here is the evidence which makes that suggestion:

One of the growing concerns for these new images is that it has begun to produce papers that might be indirectly stating that the Big Bang Theory has been debunked, which would be massively heartbreaking for many people.

The Big Bang Theory Has Been Debunked?

I already suggested (as it seems that you are very interested in this subject) that if you would like to review the scientific papers on this subject; that you might seek them out. Maybe you missed that suggestion.

 

[SelfSim]

Here is my assertion:
Here is the evidence which makes that suggestion:
I already suggested (as it seems that you are very interested in this subject) that if you would like to review the scientific papers on this subject; that you might seek them out. Maybe you missed that suggestion.

These media-hyped reports were discussed in the James Web Challenge to existing theories thread. In a nutshell, the BBT is 'holding strong' (when measured against its purpose). Galaxy formation theories are in need of updates, based on the JWST data.

 

[AV1611VET]

These media-hyped reports were discussed in the James Web Challenge to existing theories thread. In a nutshell, the BBT is 'holding strong' (when measured against its purpose). Galaxy formation theories are in need of updates, based on the JWST data.

Science in crisis?

 

[Kylie]

Again, those are opinions. I was looking for proof. Did you watch the video that I posted on Gen 1:1?

Did any of the sources I provided use Gen 1:1 as their basis?

 

[Kylie]

Here is my assertion:

And your assertion clearly states that NEW EVIDENCE has come forth to suggest that the Big Bang never happened.

Now, presumably, this evidence was discovered by scientists, and these scientists presented it to the wider scientific community. Scientists do this by writing scientific papers. Thus, if some scientists have discovered evidence that the Big Bang never happened, they presented it to the world in a paper which outlines the data they gathered, how they gathered the data and why that data is inconsistent with the Big Bang model.

I have merely asked you to present such a paper.

Here is the evidence which makes that suggestion:

You post here two links:

Link 1.

Link 2.

Are either of these scientific papers?

Link 1 is NOT a scientific paper. It was written by Jazz Shaw, who freely admits, "I’m not going to pretend that I have the scientific mental horsepower to understand the mechanics behind all of this." I pointed this out in post 85. It states that there are scientific papers, but does not actually link to any of them.

Link 2 was written by James Brizuela. According to his own website, he is, "a Section Editor for Giant Freakin Robot, where I cover articles that are heavily involved with pop culture subject matter, while also editing my team's work, and offering feedback so that I can better serve my purpose in writing. I just graduated from the University of California, Riverside on December 10th, where I secured a double major in Screenwriting and Creative Writing." Again, I pointed this out in post 85.

And neither of these articles actually states that the Big Bang has been proven wrong. All either of them does is say, "Hey, we found some data that doesn't match up with what we expected." There could be any number of explanations for this other than the Big Bang being wrong. I remember when we found a jet of matter that seemed to be going faster than light, and that turned out to have a perfectly rational explanation. It's far more likely that this new evidence will have some explanation like this than it is that we'll have to discard a theory that has withstood scrutiny for almost a century.

I already suggested (as it seems that you are very interested in this subject) that if you would like to review the scientific papers on this subject; that you might seek them out. Maybe you missed that suggestion.

And here you are shifting the burden of proof.

It's like if I said to you that God doesn't exist, and if you disagreed with me you should go and look for all the arguments to support my view. You would cry foul at that, and rightly so. I made the claim that God doesn't exist, so it would be up to me to provide the evidence for it. And likewise, here you made the claim that there is evidence that the Big Bang never happened, so it is up to you to provide the evidence to support it. You have failed to do so.

 

[SimonPeter111]

There are passages in the Bible which speak of God creating the universe from nothing.



I'm an atheist, so I don't believe that it ever actually happened. So it's not my responsibility to come up with a way for it to be done.



Apple trees are a type of tree on which apples grow.

I honestly have no idea how the universe could have been created. The physics required are, as is my understanding, only partially known to us, and even that is immensely complex.



I believe that the universe as we know it started in the Big Bang, but I'm not sure if it will last forever, or at some point stop expanding and then come back together in a Big Crunch. And as for whether it needed a cause, I don't know that either. There are certain areas of physics that suggest that an actual nothing (as in an absence of matter and energy and dimension and everything, not just a "nothing" like we find in outer space) is unstable, but I'm not well-versed enough in that area to make any comments.

In fact, I feel that you haven't answered my question head-on. With all due respect, these are some questions I have in another form
You prefer what the universe (apple) depends on (apple tree) to create or produce. I ask you what the apple tree is. What is the role of the apple tree in your article? The creator of the universe (Apple)? Or something else?
God is the cause of this universe (apple), indeed. But I don't understand. How do you understand this? I think you can understand the process of God's creation of the world as magic or something, but I don't understand why you think God can't be its cause? Do you think it's wrong that God created the universe in a flash?
1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep

 

[Kylie]

In fact, I feel that you haven't answered my question head-on. With all due respect, these are some questions I have in another form
You prefer what the universe (apple) depends on (apple tree) to create or produce. I ask you what the apple tree is. What is the role of the apple tree in your article? The creator of the universe (Apple)? Or something else?
God is the cause of this universe (apple), indeed. But I don't understand. How do you understand this? I think you can understand the process of God's creation of the world as magic or something, but I don't understand why you think God can't be its cause? Do you think it's wrong that God created the universe in a flash?
1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep

In my analogy, the apple tree represents the natural way things happen. The way that science describes. If the apple in my OP represents the universe, then the apple tree is the natural process which resulted in the formation of the universe.

 

[SimonPeter111]

In my analogy, the apple tree represents the natural way things happen. The way that science describes. If the apple in my OP represents the universe, then the apple tree is the natural process which resulted in the formation of the universe.

Is the universe created by natural causes? It's hard for me to understand that before the birth of the universe, there was no natural cause

 

[Kylie]

Is the universe created by natural causes? It's hard for me to understand that before the birth of the universe, there was no natural cause

I believe that current understanding is that the Big Bang marked a reset switch of sorts. Nothing from "before" then could have had any consequences in our current universe.

Think of it like ice. You can freeze water in a mold of a star, say, and when you take it out, it will be in the shape of a star. But you can melt that water, pout it into a spherical mold, and then refreeze it. The melting is a reset switch, there's no way to look at the sphere of ice and discover that it was previously a star shape. You can't look back before the melting event. Likewise, there is no way to look back before the Big Bang.

 

[SimonPeter111]

I believe that current understanding is that the Big Bang marked a reset switch of sorts. Nothing from "before" then could have had any consequences in our current universe.

Think of it like ice. You can freeze water in a mold of a star, say, and when you take it out, it will be in the shape of a star. But you can melt that water, pout it into a spherical mold, and then refreeze it. The melting is a reset switch, there's no way to look at the sphere of ice and discover that it was previously a star shape. You can't look back before the melting event. Likewise, there is no way to look back before the Big Bang.

Oh, I see. This is what you believe. We also have something to believe in. The exchange is over.We don't need to argue anymore。Goodbye, Kelly
This is a more peaceful exchange. If I made these remarks in China, I would have been sent to the juvenile detention center

 

[Mountainmike]

The analogy was about the universe coming about through creation ex nihilo by God, or coming about in a naturalistic way (even if we don't know what that way was). It did not require that it be something that actually churns out universes in the way a tree churns out apples.

But as I said, if that’s what you meant, the analogy doesn’t work.
There is no tree that is creating universes you can observe or test. Or other apple universes you can observe if indeed they exist.
So you have no test to confirm whether our apple or universe is cut from the same cloth as others if they exist, or falls from the same tree.

There is just an apple and supposition as to where it came from.
No other apples. No provable tree.

A far better example which is real and testable on creation is whether the cardiac tissue of Eucharistic miracles was created ex nihilo or by transformation , and whether that cardiac tissue is cut from the same cloth as hearts usually are.

Few have seen the fundamental issue. It is not easily dismissed, If it wasn’t created 1/ , then either 2/ it came from a cadaver or 3/ someone was murdered. 2/ is ruled out by white cells, 3/ ruled out by DNA identify - indeed in Poland the skeptic society got the prosecutor to investigate a possible murder. There was no missing person they could find!

This is very relevant as a test case for determining whether a conjectured created entity heart ( the apple ) came from the same process ( tree) normallly giving rise to apples ( hearts) . The tests conclude it can’t have been, on DNA profile alone.

 

[Estrid]

Oh, I see. This is what you believe. We also have something to believe in. The exchange is over.We don't need to argue anymore。Goodbye, Kelly
This is a more peaceful exchange. If I made these remarks in China, I would have been sent to the juvenile detention center

Re China...huh?

 

[AV1611VET]

Re China...huh?

That would be the place.

 

[SelfSim]

Oh, I see. This is what you believe. We also have something to believe in. The exchange is over.We don't need to argue anymore。Goodbye, Kelly
This is a more peaceful exchange. If I made these remarks in China, I would have been sent to the juvenile detention center

I don't believe it .. am I in trouble in China, too?

 

[grasping the after wind]

But those assumptions must be tested wherever possible, shouldn't they? Otherwise, how can we claim they reflect reality at all?

You can question assumptions but there is no objective way to test for deciding what one trusts. For example, say one were to assume that one has only five senses and that those five senses invariably tell one the truth. What objective test could one devise to convince one that one's senses are actually deceptive? What objective test could one devise to prove to oneself that one's five senses are insufficient to distinguish all that is real from all that is not?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I'd say, speak for yourself.

I already have, but if you disagree with what I am saying, perhaps you could give a reason why you do?

 

[SelfSim]

You can question assumptions but there is no objective way to test for deciding what one trusts.

Science tests objectively testable assumptions.

For example, say one were to assume that one has only five senses and that those five senses invariably tell one the truth.

Science wouldn't assume that, without testing the tentative hypothesis: 'Humans might have only five senses'. The purpose is to be practically useful, so the results of that test are not about 'invariably telling one the truth', as though some kind of 'truth exists' .. and is just not yet discovered.

What objective test could one devise to convince one that one's senses are actually deceptive?

Can't think of any leading towards practical value .. so I'd have to proceed with the hypothesis above, where its results are provisional and subject to change with new (objective) data.

What objective test could one devise to prove to oneself that one's five senses are insufficient to distinguish all that is real from all that is not?

See my response immediately prior to this one.

 

[Estrid]

I already have, but if you disagree with what I am saying, perhaps you could give a reason why you do?

Include the post I responded to if you
want a answer, svp.

 

[Kylie]

You can question assumptions but there is no objective way to test for deciding what one trusts. For example, say one were to assume that one has only five senses and that those five senses invariably tell one the truth. What objective test could one devise to convince one that one's senses are actually deceptive? What objective test could one devise to prove to oneself that one's five senses are insufficient to distinguish all that is real from all that is not?

Look at what the five senses tell us, and use that information to develop a hypothesis about what's going on.

See if that hypothesis says that something will happen that our five senses can't detect (such as if an event will emit radio waves, for example).

Construct a device to measure radio waves.

Make the event happen and see if radio waves are detected.

If radio waves are detected, it is evidence that the hypothesis based on the five senses is correct. If radio waves are not detected, it is evidence the hypothesis is wrong, and the information provided by our five senses is flawed.

This is basic scientific method stuff.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You post here two links:

Link 1.

Link 2.

Are either of these scientific papers?

Link 1 is NOT a scientific paper. It was written by Jazz Shaw, who freely admits, "I’m not going to pretend that I have the scientific mental horsepower to understand the mechanics behind all of this." I pointed this out in post 85. It states that there are scientific papers, but does not actually link to any of them.

The first link is written by some one who clearly views science (or perhaps just things like the Big Bang) as forms of liberalism backed by the main stream media that have to be fought for that reason. Some one (Jazz Shaw) clearly doesn't understand what science is. Ugh.