The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Solarwind on January 08, 2020, 03:44:33 AM
-
OK so as requested, here is a new topic for debate. John Davis posted under Q&A..
Is it really explained by scientists? The number of issues with their little big bang idea are many. It is essentially a new Genesis, in so much as it is as provable as Genesis is. It's quite silly to hold these views as "true", and there are a great number of reasons why there are still, even in the astrophysics community, doubt about these.
Science has no business trying to determine questions of this nature. We are not, unlike pre-scientific revolution scholars, searching for cause.
My contention with the first comment is that JD seems to be asserting that the 'big bang' theory is about the formation of the Earth. It isn't. The big bang theory is a theory about the origin and creation of the Universe. The Earth did not come about until about 9 billion years after the beginning of the Universe. So it would be a mistake to claim that astronomers 'little big bang idea' has anything to do with the proposed formation of the Earth.
Science, astrophysics or cosmology never holds anything as definitively 'true'. That's why the Big Bang model is called a theory. It seems to me if anyone holds anything as being 'true' it is the belief among flat Earthers that the Earth is flat. Is that not also just a 'theory' and if so based on what evidence?
The theory that the Earth was born along with the rest of the solar solar system from an accretion disk of material that formed around the Sun is quite a strong one up to now in that there is a lot of observational evidence to support it. I have yet to see anything equally convincing to come from the FE side.
The Earth did indeed form from a flat disk of material that formed around the Sun as I've just said. But that disk was made of debris which formed clumps. Any clumps which developed beyond a certain minimal mass threshold were sculpted into spherical bodies under their the effects of gravity and these eventually became the planets. The Earth included.
-
The Big Bang theory explains more than just that initial step.
It also covers the expansion of the universe, and to some degree how matter isolated into clumps.
No, FE is not a theory, it is a refuted hypothesis.
But more to the point of JD's comment, there is a lot more evidence for the Big Bang, than there is for Genesis. The sole "evidence" for the contradictory fables found in the book of Genesis, is the book of Genesis. There is as much evidence for any fictional story (at least those on Earth) as there is for Genesis (if not more).
But there is actually evidence in reality for the Big Bang, such as the observed expansion of the universe, and existence of various isotopes such as deuterium.
-
Genesis is part of the bible and the bible is an interpretation of the creation story based on faith.
I'm not sure whether FE 'hypothesis' is some kind of religion but one thing that FE people seem to have in common is that they regard everything that science cannot fully explain completely as a 'weakness'. Yet they cannot provide any better theories themselves.
So what is FE theory sorry FE hypothesis based on exactly?
-
John Davis I-have come to learn is the man of the sweeping statement.
Is it really explained by scientists? The number of issues with their little big bang idea are many. It is essentially a new Genesis, in so much as it is as provable as Genesis is. It's quite silly to hold these views as "true", and there are a great number of reasons why there are still, even in the astrophysics community, doubt about these.
I would like to know for starters what these ‘great number of reasons’ are. Doubt, of course there is doubt, it’s doubt that makes science tick. There is a big difference between informed and uniformed doubt.
What Mr Davis has to accept are there are and have been many many physicists and astronomers over the years who have researched this very question producing along the way a number of facts and evidence that appear to fit and support the theory. I’m not sure how many professional astronomers and others scientists there are currently working on the subject, but one thing I do know, none of them are published flat earth believers, or if there are they keep their research and work a secret.
The problem is Mr. Davis the Big Bang theory has credible scientific evidence behind it while your views and beliefs have none, that is unless you wish to provide some, possibly from the secret flat earth astronomers you eluded to in one of your recent posts.