For those that believe in the Big Bang, what was there before?

[MarkNigro]

 

Distant star light remains a problem for both camps, that is young universe/old universe, though it seems to be a bigger problem for the old universe.

 

This is one theory, of many...

 

 Good grief.  Distant star light does not remain a problem for both camps. It only remains a problem for young earth 'theorists' who begin with the assumption that the universe must conform to the idea of a 6000 yr old earth.  He's twisting the science horrifically.  

 

I think the issue for the Big Bang camp is that the universe is larger than the observable universe. 

To get around that issue Inflation theory had to be added to the original Big Bang theory.

 

Is that something that you can address?

 

BTW, The issue of starlight is just a religious assumption and not a problem for 6000 year old universe.

[JDavis]

Distant star light remains a problem for both camps, that is young universe/old universe, though it seems to be a bigger problem for the old universe.

This is one theory, of many...

Good grief. Distant star light does not remain a problem for both camps. It only remains a problem for young earth 'theorists' who begin with the assumption that the universe must conform to the idea of a 6000 yr old earth. He's twisting the science horrifically.

I think the issue for the Big Bang camp is that the universe is larger than the observable universe.

To get around that issue Inflation theory had to be added to the original Big Bang theory.

Is that something that you can address?

BTW, The issue of starlight is just a religious assumption and not a problem for 6000 year old universe.

Could you explain a bit more what you mean by this "problem" and why it is a problem.

Thanks

[MarkNigro]

 

 

 

Distant star light remains a problem for both camps, that is young universe/old universe, though it seems to be a bigger problem for the old universe.

This is one theory, of many...

 

Good grief. Distant star light does not remain a problem for both camps. It only remains a problem for young earth 'theorists' who begin with the assumption that the universe must conform to the idea of a 6000 yr old earth. He's twisting the science horrifically.

I think the issue for the Big Bang camp is that the universe is larger than the observable universe.

To get around that issue Inflation theory had to be added to the original Big Bang theory.

Is that something that you can address?

BTW, The issue of starlight is just a religious assumption and not a problem for 6000 year old universe.

Could you explain a bit more what you mean by this "problem" and why it is a problem.

Thanks

 

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe is estimated to be almost 14 billion years old.

The observable universe is estimated to be 46 billion light years in radius. 3x the age. Scientist say that this is due to the shape of space which is actually unknown

 

But the actual size of the universe may be over 50 times greater and even infinite.

 

How could the actual universe be 50x or more greater then the observable universe?

[Ninevite]

Thanks Mark.

 

Indeed, Mark is right, though numbers vary depending on the source material. If we based the age of the universe on the known speed of light (which we don't) then the universe would be closer to 70 billion years old. So, with a 14 billion year model the universe is far too young for distant starlight to have reached us.

 

It is a problem for everyone, and is scientific in nature. It begs questions, though I don't think it has ever been offered up for "proof" of creation. And I don't recall seeing anywhere a YEC using it to antagonize secular world views.

 

Furthermore, The theory presented by Dr. Lisle (above) is not twisting science in any way...he is proposing a theory. The original video is much longer and he offers all known theories dealing with this problem.

 

Edit: He does not offer ALL known theories...what I meant to say is that he offers the BEST known theories and he does not trash the secular theories, he simply points out the flaws in all of the theories he offers, including his own.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Ninevite

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

 

 

Distant star light remains a problem for both camps, that is young universe/old universe, though it seems to be a bigger problem for the old universe.

This is one theory, of many...

 

Good grief. Distant star light does not remain a problem for both camps. It only remains a problem for young earth 'theorists' who begin with the assumption that the universe must conform to the idea of a 6000 yr old earth. He's twisting the science horrifically.

I think the issue for the Big Bang camp is that the universe is larger than the observable universe.

To get around that issue Inflation theory had to be added to the original Big Bang theory.

Is that something that you can address?

BTW, The issue of starlight is just a religious assumption and not a problem for 6000 year old universe.

Could you explain a bit more what you mean by this "problem" and why it is a problem.

Thanks

 

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe is estimated to be almost 14 billion years old.

The observable universe is estimated to be 46 billion light years in radius. 3x the age. Scientist say that this is due to the shape of space which is actually unknown

 

But the actual size of the universe may be over 50 times greater and even infinite.

 

How could the actual universe be 50x or more greater then the observable universe?

 

 

The same way the world can be not flat even though we can only see as far as the horizon.  Our vision is limited.  Even technologically boosted vision is limited.

[neil_]

    God created a fruit that would make us mortal therefore wouldn't you agree that He did create mortality?   

 

No, I’m not sure I would phrase it like that. But I’m not sure how exactly I would phrase it. That has always puzzled me. If anyone has a pertinent answer, looking forward -  and thanks.

[neil_]

  That paper in no way advocates a young universe the way YEC's see it.  

 

I didn’t’ say that.

 

 

   By "young" the author is suggesting it is millions of years old   

 

Which, even true, would still say farewell to a billions-of-years-old universe - just as I said. So, what is it exactly you wanted to say?

 

Moreover, millions of years are not enough even for biological evolution, let alone geological evolution, let alone cosmic evolution and chemical evolution.

[neil_]

  It only remains a problem for young earth 'theorists' who begin with the assumption that the universe must conform to the idea of a 6000 yr old earth. 

 

Well, it’s not a problem for me, so your sentence is wrong.

 

One way to solve that is to further develop Joao Magueijo’s idea.

 

Another is to attack the formal foundation for stellar distances. Quite easy to do, since for example no one is able to explain the negative parallaxes. Nor that the basis for the initial calculation (the diameter of Earth’s presumed orbit) is actually real - and if it’s not real, the universe suddenly becomes more than 20000 times smaller.

 

And yet another is this: the Bible says God stretches the heavens (expansion). For example:

Job 9:8 He alone stretches out the heavens, and treads on the waves of the sea.

Psalms 104:2 You are clothed with light as with a robe; stretching out the heavens like a curtain

Isaiah 44:24 I am the Lord who makes all things; stretching out the heavens by myself, and giving the earth its limits; who was with me?

 

And many more instances. But the Bible also says God stretched the heavens. Since it doesn’t say “has stretched”, “stretched” must refer to the Creation days. For example, he made the space near Earth, and stretched it throughout. And He made the celestial objects near Earth and then He threw them away, into distant places, with their light trailing, always pointing towards Earth (the point of focus in a Biblical universe). Or He made the celestial objects and only then stretched FTL the space.

 

So there you are: billions of light years as distance in a thousands of years timeframe.

All cosmic events are preserved, only pushed away from Earth.

 

What about scientific evidence, is there any in support of this? Yes: the expansion started rather close to Earth (if you correct for a 6000 years expansion age, you’d get even closer):

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.1148v1.pdf

Edited August 21, 2013 by neil_

[neil_]

   I think the issue for the Big Bang camp is that the universe is larger than the observable universe.    

 

I’m sorry to say no. Anyway, a universe larger than the observable universe is UNPROVABLE BY DEFINITION. So, we’re talking about nothing.

 

 

   To get around that issue Inflation theory had to be added to the original Big Bang theory.   

 

Inflation was meant to solve several problems, not just that. It’s hard to say what was Guth’s focus. Especially since current inflation theory is not Guth’s.

 

 

  The observable universe is estimated to be 46 billion light years in radius.  

 

Theoretically. Practically, it’s only 13.3 bly. Currently…

 

That is, only if you want to admit all the assumptions they make for stellar distances, in the first place.

[neil_]

I find it VERY interesting that evolutionists take YECs as easy prey (moreover, they usually call them as fools and uneducated). However, each time a YEC shows scientific evidence in support of their view, nothing happens. No replies whatsoever…

 

So, AGAIN, it’s not about science. It’s about religion (yes, to believe in a universe without God is nothing but FAITH). And only one religion CAN be true. Would you guess which one?

Edited August 31, 2013 by neil_