Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: FredZarguna
You sir, are an abrupt idiot.

Contrary to the nonsense you spewed AND your condescending demeanor, the current condition of the universe came from outside of the theory.

Self-referential is the assumption that the current condition of the universe provides evidence of the theory based on observation of the current condition of the universe, which provides evidence... blah, blah, blah

It is not my intention to disprove your religious beliefs. I only take issue with the idea that
"The Big Bang theory cannot seriously be questioned, due to the enormous volume of evidence".
Clear, as that's what I replied to.

As to laughable baloney, you've certainly contributed your share.
61 posted on 05/30/2017 1:02:56 PM PDT by Hugh the Scot ( Total War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]


To: Hugh the Scot
the current condition of the universe came from outside of the theory.

Nope. It doesn't. It came from the preceding state, which was well known.

Self-referential is the assumption that the current condition of the universe provides evidence of the theory based on observation of the current condition of the universe

It doesn't do that. Learn some science in general, and educate yourself -- preferably somewhere other than The Creation Institute or some other humbug -- about cosmology in particular.

The current condition of the universe is based on past conditions. We can run that clock backward to within literally a few microseconds after the singularity. In particular, as just one example, the relative abundances of light elements in the universe is entirely dictated by very elementary thermodynamic principles. They are not consistent with any literal creation myth, which all make entirely different predictions if one tries to press them into science. (They are legends, so this can't be done.)

"The Big Bang theory cannot seriously be questioned, due to the enormous volume of evidence".

There is roughly as much evidence of what happened in the universe after the first several microseconds as there is that the world is round. That's not my "religion" or anyone else's.

It is not my intention to disprove your religious beliefs.

You would not be able to do that, even in principle, since religious beliefs are outside of that kind of argumentation. What you will not do, is argue that a scientific fact is not a fact because a bogus interpretation of the Bible says it isn't.

The sad thing is that Young Earth Creationism is a relatively new phenomenon, largely created as a reactionary opposition to science. Before the Reformation, there was literally no one who believed that the creation account of Genesis was anything other than a metaphor. Even in the earliest years of Protestant literalism, no serious theologian had waded into those waters. It's strange how the scientific thinking of some (but not all) parts of Reformed Christianity have gone backwards to far more primitive thinking. The original church did not set an age for the Earth; wisely. The Catholics never have.

91 posted on 05/30/2017 2:54:47 PM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson