Science Cannot Explain History: Errors of Big Bang Cosmology
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
Every form of evolutionary theory violates one of the first principles of philosophy, including (but not limited to): "red shift" theory, missing matter and energy, and the cosmological constant. Perhaps the largest problem is the false premise that there is no God, which leads to scientific explanation concluding that there is no God (error of circular reasoning). Because the origin of the universe is an historical question, science alone is unable to give a full account. Christ asks: "If you do not believe the writings of Moses, how will you believe my Word?" The writings of Moses -- the first five books of the Bible -- begin with the historical account of creation. http://www.romans10seventeen.org to comment & please say 3 Hail Marys for the priest http://www.amazon.com/The-Metaphysics-Evolution-Chad-Ripperger/dp/3848216256/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363795353&sr=8-1&keywords=Ripperger book Fr mentions http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/ watch this movie!
Comments
-
creationism may be right, but that doesn't mean evolution is wrong
-
the big bang was GODS ALMIGHTY VOICE SAYING LET THERE BE LIFE with in a instant the universe was created
-
JUST BECAUSE Scientists have a bias against creationism does not mean that their research is necessarily flawed. Equally imagine a creationist agenda being pursued by creationists regardless of the evidence presented. As a creationist, i do not deny the big bang theory as the possible theory which explains the origin of the universe. Personally i find it possible that God could have initiated the big bang. Would not the lack of 96% of the energy and mass calculated to be needed for a big bang to occur point to the work of a powerful being? To me it does, and i am not asserting an argument about this possibility, only an argument for one to Consider the possibility. If creationists cared about the origin of the universe they would spend more time understanding science and less time debunking it. Science and God are not mutually exclusive concepts, nor should either party be inhabited by those who believe that science and God are mutually exclusive.
This argument disappoints me from someone who paints himself as an intellectual (of course he could be, but I don't know his credentials), for the centerpiece of his argument was a seemingly subliminal line that he repeated exhaustively to trick those who didn't understand everything he said into coming away thinking that the argument was simply explained by that line he kept repeating. -
Metaphysics = BS
-
Good points. The big bang and most of cosmology is indeed nonsense!
-
if everything was "squished" into one "proton"/ball of energy the size would be irrelevant. there would be no meaning of measurements.
-
Where did Hawking got his Information from? From Thinking and Intelligence.
Are you a scientist? Of course you are, and you are a Cosmologist. And a Biologist (specialised in evolutionary theory), Physicist, a Chemist,, economist, . And you are All-Knowing. Let me call you God, Knowing all without knowledge. Where do you get your Information from ?
The Bible is no History Book, just a book of lies and some historical hints. -
Does anyone else think the new casting of Saints (some 800+ I have heard) by the New Catholic Church are crediable? If so why?
-
Very good. If people would only understand the anti-supernatural bias of most of these scientists and do their own research.
-
Good grief. Aaaaaand lets get this one out of the way. Scientists like Hawking aren't talking about belief that there is no designer to the universe because they've got something up their posteriors about religion. They're talking about it because it really looks like there's no dad-gum designer. 99.999999999% of the observable universe is hostile to life, but it obviously must have been made for us. How does that follow?
To paraphrase the speaker, this sermon is a bunch of circular-reasoning bunko that quote hunts interviews and scientific literature to take both egregiously out of context. What a crock. -
Ugh. And that last bit was only concerning the first ~7 min of this video. The portion covering the missing matter is full of so many out-of-context unsubstantiated conceptual leaps in such a short time, it boggles the mind. Once again, lets bring out the multiple corroborating lines of evidence criterion and set the record straight.
Cosmologists were only put of the trail of the "missing matter' problem when looking at individual galaxies. When observing a nearby galaxy, using nothing more that Newton's laws of motion, the stars in that galaxy were orbiting its gravitational center faster than they 'should" have. When they accounted for all the matter (i.e. stars) they could see, the orbital velocities of those stars using Newton's laws implied a gravitational force far higher than their combined masses could generate. They were observing a gravitational effect far greater than could be generated by what the could observe. When they looked at another galaxy, they saw the same phenomenon. And again when they measured another. And another. This experiment has been repeated (the measuring of orbital velocities stars in galaxies vs their combined masses) literally billions of times now. The result is exactly the same each time. This result has not been observed to contradicted by even a single observed galaxy.
So how far off are the observed masses of galaxies vs the masses their orbital velocities imply? About 50 times. Therefore, based of the orbital velocities of the stars in all galaxies, astronomers are only able to see ~2% of what comprises those galaxies. Further inquiry has put an upper bound on the amount the matter we can't see that is in the form of non-shining material like clouds of dust and gas, or even black holes. This material can make up at most 5% of the "missing matter". What the other 95% of what we can't see is, we have very little idea.
In the last ~20 years, the 'missing matter' question has popped up in the question of how the large-scale universe we observe today has come to be. Repeated computer simulations of our best reasonable guesses of how the cosmos formed after the postulated 'big bang' suggest that in order to end up with a cosmos like the one we see today, you would need about 50x more matter than astronomers currently observe. That figure fits interestingly well with the figure of the missing matter from the stellar orbital velocity issue mentioned above. While not an ace in the hole per se, these kinds of agreeing observations tend to mean we are on to something; as according to Bayesean reasoning, the explanatory power of agreeing hypotheses multiply each other.
This mangling of the issue of the 'missing matter' is clever piece of rhetorical sleight-of-hand. By framing the 'missing matter' question in terms of its much more recently outlined implications for the long-ago formation of the cosmos, the speaker is trying to make it seem like those implications are mere conjecture. However, the 'missing matter' of galaxies is a phenomenon we can observe right now, today, using laws of motion outlined by Newton centuries ago. That current simulations of the universe need missing matter to end up like the one we see today do not weaken the explanatory power of them or the existence of something called 'dark matter', they strengthen it. -
I went ahead and looked into Segal's work on the redshift issue. In the sermon (for that is really whit this video is, both by apparent venue and genre) the details of this work are glossed over and his conclusions are taken as, forgive the pun, gospel.
Firstly, the paper referred to was published in the early nineties. One of the arguments given against Hubble-the-man's linear redshift to distance relationship is his small sample size. Since the publication of Segal's paper, Hubble-the-telescope has been able to greatly expand on it's namesake's dataset size from 10 into the billions. This massively larger dataset, coupled with the deeply verified method of using Type-1a supernovae as a 'standard candle' have produced agreeing results as to the general principle that a galaxy's redshift correlates to its distance. As to the linearity of Hubble-the-man's prediction, he admitted it was rough at the time. Indeed, Einstein came along less than 20 years later and predicted that the further away a galaxy was, the more extreme it's redshift would be, thus diverging from Hubble's linear prediction. Hubble the telescope has indeed corroborated this observation through a number of methods.
Secondly Segal's Chronometric Cosmology depended on a universe whose large scale space-time topology was curved. Further evidence from multiple lines of inquiry have conclusively shown the topology of the observable universe is flat. Perhaps there is curvature in the area outside the observable universe, but since that curvature would take place or becomes significant only beyond the scale we can currently study, it really doesn't matter at this point when considering whether redshift is in principle a reliable predictor of the distance of a galaxy from us.
Thirdly, you seem to not believe in the concept of 'deep time', that the processes that produced the universe we see today too several orders of magnitude more time than the ~6000 year cosmological epoch that a literal Biblical interpretation traditionally lends. Even if, for the sake of argument, Segal was right, his being right does you no favors on your overall thesis, as deep time is an implicit consideration in his work.
I haven't even gotten into the fact that modern measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background further invalidate Segal's work, but you're beginning to catch my drift, I believe.
To have any hope of an empirically accurate view of the cosmos, or any scientific subject, is it not enough to simply be right on this or that count, but one's view must be supported by multiple converging lines of evidence. The Mosaic account of the universe categorically fails on that criterion. -
Infinite Wave Theory, there was no big bang or creation, the universe is infinite and had no beginning.
-
If i may add to this info, the sun gets its light from another diamention this is a fact now. The known universe had to have been greated or began in another diamention and after coming in to beign it created its on diamention which then time came into excistence. So it had to be created in eternity.
-
"Living in this vast world that is by turns kind and cruel, and gazing at the immense heavens above, people have always asked a multitude of questions: How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worrying about these questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time. Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead." Stephen Hawkings inThe Grand Design
And this is passed off as ACTUAL science...more like a false religion masquerading as science. -
The speakers tells the truth about a "missing" 96% of the universe. It is "missing" and no one can find it. So to solve this problem some scientists simply made up the answer themselves and called it "dark matter". Keep in mind dark matter was simply made up only 10 years ago, so the instruments to detect it are not even built yet. The next thing you know they make up "dark energy" ...
· -
Having listened to the whole honest sermon, I would urge anyone with a desire for true knowledge and wisdom to seriously consider this holy priests words and listen to more of his sermons. What he says is in perfect alignment with reality and common sense. People have been brainwashed from youth that evolution and big bang cosmology is true and a fact (even though they are only theories). They believe people are too weak of mind to seek the truth. If anyone dares challenge them they try to demean and belittle them calling them liars and ignorant. They elevate "science" as a god. But if you search the truth, their pseudo religion will crumble and false "god" will disappear. Don't let those deceivers win. Discover the truth revealed by the one true living God and shout back at them. Their lies are unnecessary. They came up with a theory first to explain the universe without God and make up stuff to fit their theory even if not in line with the evidence. For example they made up "Dark matter" which is a kind of matter hypothesized in astronomy and cosmology to account for gravitational effects that appear to be the result of invisible mass. They made up "Dark Energy" which is a hypothetical form of energy which permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe. They made up theories about multiple universes, and string theories. String theories, popular with many particle physicists, make it possible, even desirable, to think that the observable universe is just one of 10500 universes in a grander multiverse. Because the evidence did not fit their theory. Its like putting around peg in a square hole.
-
Having listened to the whole dishonest sermon, I would urge anyone with a desire for knowledge to disregard this snakes words. Literally every he says is false or misleading and to take him at his word would be to believe in a scientific world that is the polar opposite from reality. He lies because he thinks you, the listener, are too weak of mind and faith. He lies because he thinks that if you learn what he learns, your faith will crumble and god will disappear. Don't let this deceiver win. Knowledge of the universe does not change the nature of god or faith. He is wrong to lie in service to faith and it does a disservice to your god to let the words of a liar stand unchallenged. Discover the truth and shout back at him, your faith is able to know truth and god. His lies are unnecessary.
-
Contrary to the speakers lies, science does not deny a designer or a god and does not go looking for evidence against god. Science is a process of observations and discovery. The reason science does not take god into account is there is nothing to observe or test. One man will say god is A, another will say he is B and yet another will say he is C. Unless there is something to test, science cannot work on an issue that cannot be observed. As a scientific question, god is meaningless to a scientist because he has nothing to study. So he will search for observations that he CAN study. The moment they discover evidence of gods hand in the universe, they will study god too. But so far the universe can be explained without god.
I suppose that is why the speaker chooses to lie in defence of his faith. He fears that the things he knows might cause weaker minds to question the role or existence of god and so he deceives the congregation, using lies to deflect their questions and search for understanding. He is a man without honor or virtue.
29m 55sLenght
81Rating