perhaps he is pompous and obese as well. let’s just wait for someone to come and tell us. (elevator music). (awkward glances).
He’s also obsequious, purple, and clairvoyant.
I think I know what the problem in his reasoning is.
He keeps referring to the redshifts of distant objects as *doppler *redshifts – i.e. redshifts that are produced by velocity of the object relative to Earth at the moment the photons were emitted. He then tries to show that the observed doppler redshifts don’t match a model where the rate of expansion changes.
But, of course, the redshifts of distant objects are NOT doppler redshifts. They’re caused by the metric expansion of space during the entire flight time of the photon. The wavelength of the light slowly gets stretched as it travels to earth. So information about the current rate of expansion doesn’t get “frozen” into the photon at its moment of emission. Instead the effect of a varying rate of expansion gets “smeared out” during the photon’s entire trip.
There may be other mistakes in his reasoning. But the fact that he doesn’t seem to have a clear handle on the mechanics of redshift is a pretty strong indication that he’s in over his head.
but does he eat cactus?
Ok, fine, I will get sucked back in…
My original point was: You must decide for yourself. I also stated: It is very difficult to have a discussion with them on a foundational level.
Both have been proven true in this thread. The first because there is still nothing absolute pertaining to it being the big bang. The second point was also proven true. A discussion can not get any more foundational than the terms being used…you must be able to use like terms. If two different people are using two different meanings to words, they are obviously stating two different things.
Of course it matters that you were not there…you can not steal that argument. I understand why people can not allow that to be used, just as I understand why they can not allow the word faith to creep into what they believe.
As a matter of foundation, there are only two world views (when you boil everything down to its base), you either believe what man says…or you believe what God says. Those are the only two options. Depending you which you believe, you have a different starting point. It has been stated: Science is willing to change when the facts are changed. May I ask two things? If it was fact…why did it change? Is science willing to change and make the Bible its starting point? (Guess not so willing to change huh?)
We do not know why the bumble bee can fly. We do not know how gravity works. We have never been to the bottom of the ocean at it deepest points. Love? Laughter? Consciousness? Yawning? The brain? (yes…science even can not tell you about the very thing that they are using to give us all this fact) Give me a break…please tell me what it is again that you “know”?
Foundations…very important if you intend to build.
Btw…for me being so stupid and you all being so intelligent…I am really shocked you have not figured out even the basic things of life yet…examples you want?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Alternate+theories+to+the+big+bang
there ya go
You are speaking gibberish.
You’re not listening to what people are saying. You are STILL arguing against things that nobody has said.
This is pointless. You can’t even understand the posts in this thread, let alone the theories you claim to debunk.
What do I not understand? Please explain it to me.
I have done. I’m not typing it all out again. Use the scroll wheel on your mouse and actually read the ousts in the thread.
I think you mean, “You either believe what man says, or you believe what man claims that God says.”
OR, “You either believe what different people say, or you believe what different people claim the particular deity they worship says.”
Much better. Thank you.
And let’s not forget that there is a chance that none of is true. The best bet is to go where the available evidence leads you, and be willing to change your mind as available evidence changes.
Alright then. If it is everything that has been posted, I do understand. What seems to not be able to be grasped is the idea that you can not have a discussion based (founded) on a flawed idea with flawed terminology. Oh wait! I do understand now, if we can make whatever we want fact/proven/understood without it needing to be fact/proven/understood…well…by golly…the world is at our finger tips, we can be our own god…ah…now where have I read that before?
Also, man has nothing to do with what God says. Have you even ever read what you are so afraid of? Of course you have…not one person has ever admitted they haven’t. The real question is…Have you ever read it without the assumption that it was wrong?
Of course. I read it, and when things that were obviously wrong popped up I made note of it, and if I was unsure about it I did further research. Did you read it with the possibility that it might not be right?
That reply indicates that you don’t understand. You’re not replying to any argument other than the imaginary one in your head. As I have repeatedly said, nobody is claiming proof, and everyone will accept the existence of a God if provided evidence. Scientists especially.
Scientists are weird bogeymen in your head who hold beliefs that you invent for them, and then argue against.
And yes, I have read the Bible. I was brought up Catholic.
I know your query was not directed at me but yes I did and yes I do. Of course I have doubts but I still have yet to find a better way of life.
Unfortunately your statement about scientists being weird bogeymen in some peoples heads is true about many who claim to be Christians but not all.
Fact is there are plenty who claim to be both Christian and scientists and science is certainly not an evil but rather a blessing. It is applied for the good of mankind everyday but at times twisted to our detriment.
BTW not Catholic here but New Testament Christian…you would probaly think of me as Protestant and that is close enough for a MB.
Oh man, those Christian Scientists are really off the wall! 
For the OP like many here I do not at all see where you are coming from.
Let me add to the objections.
The Godhead is one in purpose and motive.
Inflation, dark energy and dark matter have no purpose or motive.
Uh, no. That might be what you believe if you are a religious person, but if you’re an atheist, both religion and science are “what man says.” The difference is that one of them is essentially unquestionable and inscrutable, and the other is arrived at through a logical and open process of inquiry.
Yes, we do. The idea that bees shouldn’t be able to fly is an urban legend.
I would say that’s debatable.
Yes we have, although I don’t know that it would be relevant if we hadn’t.
We know a great deal about the brain, and we’re learning more about it all the time. I think you’re trying to use ignorance as an argument against science, and if you knew very much about science, you would understand that that doesn’t work. Nobody would disagree that there is plenty we still don’t know about the universe and many things in it, but that doesn’t argue against science. Science is a method, not a religion. And in any case how does ignorance show that we can’t rely on the scientific method? If you think we don’t know much about the brain or about bees, what’s your suggestion? That we turn to religion? I don’t think the Bible or the Quran or the Book of Mormon has much to say about gravity, the human brain, or the physics of bee flight.