The Bible predicted many things which have come true in exact detail and with exact timing. This proves that the Bible is the true word of God.

[Temujin]

What do you make of this?

Scientists Say There May Have Been a Second Big Bang

Instead of a single Big Bang bringing the universe into existence billions of years ago, cosmologists are starting to suspect there may have been a second, transformative event that could explain the vast abundance of suspected dark matter. As New Scientist reports, our recent glimpses into the...

www.yahoo.com

An interesting speculation, which would be an exciting leap forward in knowledge of confirmed. Also if it is confirmed to be wrong.

 

[Gus Bovona]

What do you make of this?

Scientists Say There May Have Been a Second Big Bang

Instead of a single Big Bang bringing the universe into existence billions of years ago, cosmologists are starting to suspect there may have been a second, transformative event that could explain the vast abundance of suspected dark matter. As New Scientist reports, our recent glimpses into the...

www.yahoo.com

I think that catchy turns of phrases used to explain very complex physics and math get blown out of proportion.

I also think that science is self-correcting. When science is corrected, it’s always science doing the correcting.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I think that catchy turns of phrases used to explain very complex physics and math get blown out of proportion.

I also think that science is self-correcting. When science is corrected, it’s always science doing the correcting.

It seems like in this case, the "science" is self refuting.

 

[Temujin]

It seems like in this case, the "science" is self refuting.

Nope. No, it wouldn't. Learn to read.

 

[Gus Bovona]

It seems like in this case, the "science" is self refuting.

Not without you explaining why.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Not without you explaining why.

Simple. There was supposedly just a Big Bang, now there may have been a second.
What makes you think that if the single Big Bang theory was false, the 2 Big Bangs are true?
What happens if a 3rd one is proposed?
Then both we’re false,

 

[Temujin]

Simple. There was supposedly just a Big Bang, now there may have been a second.
What makes you think that if the single Big Bang theory was false, the 2 Big Bangs are true?
What happens if a 3rd one is proposed?
Then both we’re false,

What makes you think that postulating a second big bang renders the first theory false? No-one claims that the big bang is God, responsible for everything.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Simple. There was supposedly just a Big Bang, now there may have been a second.
What makes you think that if the single Big Bang theory was false, the 2 Big Bangs are true?
What happens if a 3rd one is proposed?
Then both we’re false,

What makes you think that the second Big Bang is actually a duplicate of the first one rather than a shorthand expression for something that doesn’t challenge the first one in any way?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What makes you think that the second Big Bang is actually a duplicate of the first one rather than a shorthand expression for something that doesn’t challenge the first one in any way?

According to the article it does seem to be a smaller version of the first in some way.

So, it is now 1.3 Big Bangs.

 

[Gus Bovona]

According to the article it does seem to be a smaller version of the first in some way.

So, it is now 1.3 Big Bangs.

The real issue is that nothing about this new phenomenon in any way challenges all the data for the Big Bang.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The real issue is that nothing about this new phenomenon in any way challenges all the data for the Big Bang.

Then why did they need to add a 2nd Big Bang?

 

[Gus Bovona]

Then why did they need to add a 2nd Big Bang?

Because it explains some data. More data being explained doesn’t mean old data isn’t still explained.

 

[Temujin]

Because it explains some data. More data being explained doesn’t mean old data isn’t still explained.

This is his problem. There's no such thing as new data in religion. Any new idea must be at the expense of old ideas. The notion of growing knowledge is just impossible to grasp of you are a creationist.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Because it explains some data. More data being explained doesn’t mean old data isn’t still explained.

That is true sometimes, but the old theory had to change because the old theory was being refuted by new data.

 

[Temujin]

That is true sometimes, but the old theory had to change because the old theory was being refuted by new data.

What data specifically are you claiming refutes the Big Bang?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What data specifically are you claiming refutes the Big Bang?

The redshift anomalies have always refuted the Big Bang.
The lack of pop 3 stars.
The inability to predict the smoothness of the background radiation.
The fact that there have not been enough supernova remnants
The presence of long period comets in out solar system.
The faint young sun paradox.
High speed stars within globular star clusters.
The presence of spiral galaxies.
And the Webb telescope is finding more all the time,
That is why many are proposing many alternatives to the Big Bang.

 

[Temujin]

The redshift anomalies have always refuted the Big Bang.
The lack of pop 3 stars.
The inability to predict the smoothness of the background radiation.
The fact that there have not been enough supernova remnants
The presence of long period comets in out solar system.
The faint young sun paradox.
High speed stars within globular star clusters.
The presence of spiral galaxies.
And the Webb telescope is finding more all the time,
That is why many are proposing many alternatives to the Big Bang.

You are just reading a list. You need to explain exactly how such observations threaten the big bang. What data do you mean? The presence of spiral galaxies is predicted not to happen? What specific aspect of the Big Bang predicts no long period comets in our solar system? What red shift anomalies?

This is like me saying that Genesis is refuted because the Plymouth Brethren exist.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You are just reading a list. You need to explain exactly how such observations threaten the big bang. What data do you mean? The presence of spiral galaxies is predicted not to happen? What specific aspect of the Big Bang predicts no long period comets in our solar system? What red shift anomalies?

This is like me saying that Genesis is refuted because the Plymouth Brethren exist.

The spiral arms would have long ago wrapped around so tightly as to now longer appear as spiral arms.
And what is the source of comets since all would have been evaporated by now.
And for the red shift, objects that are in front of another have higher red shift than the one behind and some which are joined to another have very different red shifts.

 

[Temujin]

The spiral arms would have long ago wrapped around so tightly as to now longer appear as spiral arms.
And what is the source of comets since all would have been evaporated by now.
And for the red shift, objects that are in front of another have higher red shift than the one behind and some which are joined to another have very different red shifts.

On what do you base these claims? I asked for details, data, observations, not waffle. "Would all have evaporated by now" is meaningless unless you give rates of evaporation, plus an explanation of why the big bang of 23 billion years ago would affect the behaviour of comet's created 4 billion years ago. Red shift "anomalies" are because different objects are travelling in different directions. The Andromeda galaxy for example, is travelling towards us so has a blue shift, not a red one. And what on earth do you mean by "some which are joined to another have very different red shifts."? This is arrant nonsense. Objects that are joined together are not travelling away from us at different rates.

If this is your idea of specific data, then your shopping list must consist of one word, "shopping".

 

[Gus Bovona]

That is true sometimes, but the old theory had to change because the old theory was being refuted by new data.

Was anything about the old theory actually changed apart from the addition of the second “bang?”