Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just seen there what you were talking about regarding the new info from the satellite,it's saying the universe is not expanding lol

Was reading a few crackers last night from 'evolutionary biologists' there in meltdown over it,crying about how there lifes work could be founded on a lie.

In reality they shouldn't be because that's what science is all about,but they made it dogmatic an tryed to use it as a worldview instead on a theory.

Quality jon?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ive listened to that Calvin Robinson on the word of someone on here if i remember right....and yes he speaks a lot of sense......but so what,he speaks no more sense than many others but this is where

Not going to comment on the rest of your post, everyone’s entitled to believe what they want about religion….no problem with that. But the above passage stuck out a mile to me so here is what I t

Discussing anthropology, quantum mechanics, gamma radiation on THL ? I think I'm in a alternative dimension ! ? ! Cheers.

Posted Images

Just now, Francie said:

Just seen there what you were talking about regarding the new info from the satellite,it's saying the universe is not expanding lol

Was reading a few crackers last night from 'evolutionary biologists' there in meltdown over it,crying about how there lifes work could be founded on a lie.

In reality they shouldn't be because that's what science is all about,but they made it dogmatic an tryed to use it as a worldview instead on a theory.

Quality jon?

You have staggeringly managed to conflate two entirely different fields of science.

I know why you have, but ffs fella. :laugh:

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Francie said:

What you reckon born that it doesn't change much?

Think they were saying the satellites show the universe is not expanding,so the big bang theory could be in jeporday?

What's your take on it?

My take is you've probably got it completely round your neck. I expect what they have actually seen is observations which suggest the cosmological constant might have a different value, meaning the rate of expansion is different to previously thought. But I can't know unless you post the link.

Cosmic inflation has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary biology and doesn't effect the big bang model either. It effects what the topology (shape) and fate of the universe is only.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

My take is you've probably got it completely round your neck. I expect what they have actually seen is observations which suggest the cosmological constant might have a different value, meaning the rate of expansion is different to previously thought. But I can't know unless you post the link.

Cosmic inflation has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary biology and doesn't effect the big bang model either. It effects what the topology (shape) and fate of the universe is only.

I’ll get my coat ! 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

My take is you've probably got it completely round your neck. I expect what they have actually seen is observations which suggest the cosmological constant might have a different value, meaning the rate of expansion is different to previously thought. But I can't know unless you post the link.

Cosmic inflation has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary biology and doesn't effect the big bang model either. It effects what the topology (shape) and fate of the universe is only.

MINDMATTERS.AI

Webb was expected to merely confirm the Standard Model of the universe but its images are “surprisingly smooth...

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

Thank you. :good:

Theists posing as science reporters? Mate, no.

I couldn't find the podcast,That was the first link that came up on Google.

Are these new images saying thst the universe is not expanding at all or not as much as once thought?

Is it only atheists then that can talk about science then born?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

My take is you've probably got it completely round your neck. I expect what they have actually seen is observations which suggest the cosmological constant might have a different value, meaning the rate of expansion is different to previously thought. But I can't know unless you post the link.

Cosmic inflation has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary biology and doesn't effect the big bang model either. It effects what the topology (shape) and fate of the universe is only.

So what your saying is ...Mowbray will get promotion ...or did I read it wrong ?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Francie said:

I couldn't find the podcast,That was the first link that came up on Google.

Are these new images saying thst the universe is not expanding at all or not as much as once thought?

This is the first I'm reading about these new images being at all troubling. LOL. You're supposed to be the one telling me. Far as I'm aware the research is just ticking over in the way it does normally. Nothing particularly paradigm shifting happening.

18 minutes ago, Francie said:

Is it only atheists then that can talk about science then born?

Of course not. But I'm not putting much effort chasing up the claims of sources with a clear science twisting agenda. They tactically make no reference to religion but only cover subjects which threaten Christian beliefs....

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Bang theory crucially depends on the ‘inflation’ hypothesis that at the outset the universe expanded many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. But experiments have failed to prove evidence of cosmic inflation and since the theory’s inception it has been beset by deep puzzles. Now one of its founders, Paul Steinhardt has denounced the theory as mistaken and ‘scientifically meaningless’.

Do we have to give up the theory of cosmic inflation and seek a radical alternative? Might alternative theories like the Big Bounce, or abandoning the speed of light provide a solution? Or are such alternatives merely sticking plasters to avoid the more radical conclusion that it is time to give up on the Big Bang altogether?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...