Longloadr wrote:

Dolorosa wrote: And, FYI, matter spontaneously comes into existence all the time, you should google it. Whilst you are there brush up on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ?? yes...and??? What does that have to do with anything? Energy can 'create' matter, but how does that relate to anything in this thread?

You constantly question how something can come from nothing, it was an example

Longloadr wrote:

... the 2nd law..... It allows for an increasing order within a given system but with a decreasing amount of energy. Thats a simple explanation amongst many ways of defining it. No matter which big bang model you use... you have to deny known physical laws.

As I said before, I won't get into the discussion of physical laws with you. You are more than welcome to respond to Sunny, she asked you a direct question. What I will say is that if you actually bothered to check out the research the scientists in your OP were talking about you would see this is exactly the question that gets address by them. Quantum gravity allows for the spontaneous creation of the universes, and the inflation allows for them to grow. So rather than claim that something is impossible and rely on your 'quote mining' and plugging the holes with the Scripture, why don't you just try and read the research from people who actually ask these questions and see what that research says. Yeah, I know, stupid of me even suggesting you read something like that... A girl can dream

Dolorosa wrote:

Longloadr wrote: Dolorosa wrote: And, FYI, matter spontaneously comes into existence all the time, you should google it. Whilst you are there brush up on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ?? yes...and??? What does that have to do with anything? Energy can 'create' matter, but how does that relate to anything in this thread? You constantly question how something can come from nothing, it was an example

Can you point out to me where I "constantly question how something can come from nothing"? I'm not so sure I said that... although I believe that statement is correct.

Dolorosa wrote:

As I said before, I won't get into the discussion of physical laws with you. You are more than welcome to respond to Sunny, she asked you a direct question. What I will say is that if you actually bothered to check out the research the scientists in your OP were talking about you would see this is exactly the question that gets address by them. Quantum gravity allows for the spontaneous creation of the universes, and the inflation allows for them to grow. So rather than claim that something is impossible and rely on your 'quote mining' and plugging the holes with the Scripture, why don't you just try and read the research from people who actually ask these questions and see what that research says. Yeah, I know, stupid of me even suggesting you read something like that... A girl can dream

Haha... Oh Dolorosa,,,such a dreamer!!
Sorry it bothers you that I 'quote mine' but the research scientists I quoted are supporting my provactive title "Bye bye big bang". I realize that they are incorporating variations of the 'big bang' into their different hypothesis. And I realize that they are attempting to explain their views within known physical laws.
And as someone else pointed out, these different views are really not new. There are many other 'theories' on how the universe came into existence. But... still the point of this thread is correct that more and more scientists are moving away from the traditional model of the Big Bang. This is old news but in New Scientist 2004 an article was published by 30 scientists criticicizing the "stranglehold" of big bang cosmology. 300 scientists quickly signed a letter of agreement that alternative views needed to be considered. One of the original signatories was Hilton Ratcliffe
Astronomical Society of Southern Africa.

Ratcliffe wrote:

This writer was one of the early signatories to the letter, and holding the view that the Big Bang explanation of the Universe is scientifically untenable, patently illogical, and without any solid observational support whatsoever

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2005/PP-03-03.PDF

Longloadr, you do realise that I can and do dismiss every single thing you said in this thread based on 3 little things (the rest is irrelevant since you can’t even get the simplest of facts right).

1) The Big Bang Theory is NOT a theory of how the Universe came into existence but rather how it evolved. The BBT is not about the actual “Big Bang” (a misconception in its own right) and what lead to it but the events following it. It is about the expansion and cooling of the universe from its initial dense and hot state. Do any of your quotes contradict that?

2) The BBT doesn’t contradict any of the physical laws, full stop. If you disagree feel free to answer Sunny’s question, because, Jebus knows, you need to work on your 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The questions of physical laws arise when dealing with the point of origin but, as I said before, THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE BIG BANG THEORY.

3) The name of the BBC program in question was What Happened BEFORE the Big Bang. And the “Big Bang” in that case was not the actual reference to the theory but the laymen term for the point of origin of the Universe.

If you can find something in your quotes that contradicts the above statements we can then have a dialogue. Otherwise, the subject of your thread is without merit and can be abandoned (better yet, needs to be, since you can't even get the subject of a program right). Not surprising, as all you seem to do is post rubbish from your favourite creationist sites without any desire to appear credible (by verifying your information) or to understand the subject. You do much better at Verse quoting.

P.S. I find it hilarious that you chose to quote Ratcliffe, since he is a proponent of the static universe. How are you gonna reconcile your creation story with that self-aggrandizing cretin? Pardon my French.

This is good stuff. This little conversation should be dramatized and put on youtube. Uproariously comical.

religious troll in the Science channel alert

about as genuine and honest as 'giant man tracks'

peace be upon him

Pagliacci wrote:

religious troll in the Science channel alert about as genuine and honest as 'giant man tracks' peace be upon him

No worse than an atheist troll in the religion channel.....

FLZapped wrote:

Pagliacci wrote: religious troll in the Science channel alert about as genuine and honest as 'giant man tracks' peace be upon him No worse than an atheist troll in the religion channel.....

I thought Atheism was a religion

FLZapped wrote:

Pagliacci wrote: religious troll in the Science channel alert about as genuine and honest as 'giant man tracks' peace be upon him No worse than an atheist troll in the religion channel.....

YAWN....SOS - different day

Dolorosa wrote:

Longloadr, you do realise that I can and do dismiss every single thing you said in this thread based on 3 little things

Hmmmm
1. Blind faith of yours?

2. Your evolutionary bias?

3. your lack of knowledge?

Dolorosa wrote:

The Big Bang Theory is NOT a theory of how the Universe came into existence but rather how it evolved.

Cute word play differentiating between the Big Bang, and BBT. I'm sure that Space.Com (As well as many scientists) would appreciate you correcting them from saying "Our universe was born about 13.7 billion years ago in a massive expansion that blew space up like a gigantic balloon. That, in a nutshell, is the Big Bang theory, which virtually all cosmologists and theoretical physicists endorse."

Dolorosa wrote:

The BBT doesn’t contradict any of the physical laws, full stop.

Some scientists agree with you on that!

Some don't
Would you like quotes from physicists saying Big Bang Theory contradicts first and second law of thermodynamics, the law of angular momentim and others. Full stop.

Dolorosa wrote:

The name of the BBC program in question was What Happened BEFORE the Big Bang. And the “Big Bang” in that case was not the actual reference to the theory but the laymen term for the point of origin of the Universe.

Exactly... And this contradicts the traditional theory that the Big Bang was the beginning. Many scientists are now looking at alternative explanations since they realize problems in the theory.

As one of the scientists (Singh) says in the BBC program about how the universe came into existance " It was certainly not the big bang. That is impossible".

Dolorosa wrote:

P.S. I find it hilarious that you chose to quote Ratcliffe, since he is a proponent of the static universe. How are you gonna reconcile your creation story with that self-aggrandizing cretin? Pardon my French.

And its hilarious that 300 other scientists signed onto the statement along with Ratcliffe? (you dismiss them all with an ad hominem comment).
You won't acknowledge that I'm correct... more and more scientists are jumping off the Big Bang bandwagon.

However the BBC realizes that this is happening...

BBC wrote:

They would be easier to dismiss as the half-baked musings of the lunatic fringe were it not for the fact that some of the very people who constructed the everything-from-nothing big bang model are themselves starting to dismantle it

The BBC program shows that even many secular scientists are realizing how un-scientific the 'theory' is. And that is why there are so many different theories and variations being proposed.

Dolorosa wrote:

Longloadr wrote: I'm saying that these new theories which bring in the element of eternity, are not possible with 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I'm not an expert, and willing to hear you explain how matter and energy might have existed for all of eternity past. I also said that the existing Big Bang theory that everything (matter, energy and time) came into existence as an uncaused cause is not scientifically possible. (Although S. Hawkins and others deny the law of cause and effect) What a lot of gibberish I'm disappointed in you Longloadr. You are not even attempting to make any sense nowadays. Listen, that's absolutely fine if all you wanted was to aggravate, but where is your Christian spirit? You're just so angry lately Is it because a bunch of kids half your age are constantly embarrassing you here by pointing out your mistakes? And, FYI, matter spontaneously comes into existence all the time, you should google it. Whilst you are there brush up on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

"You're so angry lately" is what I've noticed about Longloadr too. He tries to come across as this kindly Christian grandpa. But he's actually full of hostility and bitterness which often rise to the surface - especially when someone points out that he has no clue what he is talking about.