47-million-year-old primate fossil unveiled Scientists on Tuesday unveiled fossilized remains of one of the oldest and most complete skeletons of an early primate, a finding they say could further our understanding of what our own ancestors might have looked likeCommentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
But that's impossible! We were made from absolutely nothing all at once 5000 years ago!
Take that you stinky Christians.
...and what existed before the Big Bang, except a sub-atomic singularity?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4
In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.
Something doesn't come from nothing.
What about the quoted text? From a website created by these guys:
Many people refer to us as “Christians,” but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus.
That site also explains why intelligent design is a better 'theory' than evolution, and all kinds of other unscientific garbage.
Wholly incorrect. Such a construct would be contrary to all available data, and itself based on philosophy alone.
But that's impossible! We were made from absolutely nothing all at once 5000 years ago!
Not all at once, it took seven days, you know. And it was more like 6000 years ago than 5000.
Wholly incorrect. Such a construct would be contrary to all available data, and itself based on philosophy alone.
If I recall correctly, observations do show essentially perfect spherical symmetry to the universe. However it is postulated that such an observation would be made from no matter where in the universe one stood, and thus the universe has no "center."
So in essence, the claim isn't wholly incorrect, it's just a wholly inappropriate interpretation of the observations and of the theory.
Dick Cheney?
Wholly incorrect. Such a construct would be contrary to all available data, and itself based on philosophy alone.
If I recall correctly, observations do show essentially perfect spherical symmetry to the universe. However it is postulated that such an observation would be made from no matter where in the universe one stood, and thus the universe has no "center."
So in essence, the claim isn't wholly incorrect, it's just a wholly inappropriate interpretation of the observations and of the theory.
1) It has no 'centre' because that is a flawed concept. (Assuming!) that the big bang created the universe, therefore the centre of the big bang is 'everywhere'. We also don't know the '' of the Universe - it's 'shape'. Anywhere could arbitrarily be the 'centre', but 'centre' is a flawed concept.
This is the 'shape' of the cosmic background radiation, with brighter spots being occupied by mass.
2) Observations also show that everything is moving away from everything else (Hubble showed us this). If the Earth were the centre, or if we were to designate the earth as the centre; then we must be able to observe everything moving away from us at a constant rate. But that is incorrect, as some things are observed to be moving away from us, but in the same direction as us. We are also moving away from other things, all at different rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe
So, to designate Earth as 'centre' is inappropriate, and does not fit available data.
But that's impossible! We were made from absolutely nothing all at once 5000 years ago!
Dick Cheney?