What is the whole point of Christianity anyways?

[otseng]

What is the whole point of being a Christian?

Is it just to escape hell?
It is to just "believe in Jesus"?
Is it to enter heaven?
Is it just to have something to do on Sunday mornings?
Or is it something else?

[Curious]

So couldn't you cite a significant number of experts in this field who agree with Gentry?

im surprised that you would ask this question when google is just a click away lol but since you insist on me inserting more big bang controversies or people who are willing to expound upon them i will entertain you with more:

how about 33 scientists in one?

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/Book-BBB.html

http://zyx.org/CONTRA.html

These objections do not take into account quantum fluctuation and the possibility that universal inflation could be driven by transient matter. The observed inflation, which is apparent to anyone who studies the facts, need not be due to the matter observed at this time alone but could be driven by matter that has existed AT SOME POINT in the universe. I find it astonishing that these so-called scientists speak so loudly about a subject they obviously know so little about.

[perplexed101]

These objections do not take into account quantum fluctuation and the possibility that universal inflation could be driven by transient matter. The observed inflation, which is apparent to anyone who studies the facts, need not be due to the matter observed at this time alone but could be driven by matter that has existed AT SOME POINT in the universe. I find it astonishing that these so-called scientists speak so loudly about a subject they obviously know so little about.

why not debate the issue with the 33 scientists who are in unison agreement?

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

or you can start a nice debate with the following team and i am more that positive that they will jump at the opportunity:

http://www.tccsa.tc/debate.html

[Curious]

why not debate the issue with the 33 scientists who are in unison agreement?

or you can start a nice debate with the following team and i am more that positive that they will jump at the opportunity:

http://www.tccsa.tc/

33 vs countless hundreds. While they may have a point about the scientific communities objections to dissent and their objections regarding certain additions to the theory, this does not mean that the underlying theory is invalid(although hardly complete). While complaining that new ideas within the field are frowned upon they complain that the theory is constantly modified so this is contradictory in itself. It is stated that such modification would not be tolerated in any other field which is obvious nonsense as theories in all fields are constantly modified until all observations can be accounted for. Since the universe is so big and contains so much data it is not unreasonable that such a theory would require extensive modification from initial conception to final concept. As for going to debate at another site, I am debating the thread here, but if you can convince any of them to enter into the debate i am more than willing to point out their obvious misconceptions.

BTW how can you be more than positive?

[perplexed101]

this does not mean that the underlying theory is invalid(although hardly complete).

are you asleep? they present an open letter to the scientific community with the following in big letters: RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY

The question is: does the title of their assertion not fit towards the content of what follows?

[Curious]

this does not mean that the underlying theory is invalid(although hardly complete).

are you asleep? they present an open letter to the scientific community with the following in big letters: RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY

Are you asleep?
I am quite aware what the title says. Since I disagree with their assumption that it is invalid what is wrong with saying that their objections do not make it so?

[perplexed101]

this does not mean that the underlying theory is invalid(although hardly complete).

are you asleep? they present an open letter to the scientific community with the following in big letters: RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY

Are you asleep?
I am quite aware what the title says. Since I disagree with their assumption that it is invalid what is wrong with saying that their objections do not make it so?

LOL, did i touch a nerve? funny they havent been challenged as of yet.. perhap you should be the first since you disagree wholeheartedly.

[Curious]

The question is: does the title of their assertion not fit towards the content of what follows?

Are you asking whether they believe that it does or whether it actually does. I would assume that they believe that it does or why write it? The fact is though that nothing they forwarded in any way challenges the validity of the underlying theory of inflation from a central origin.

BTW you didn't touch a nerve, I was just surprised you didn't make the connection. The only thing that touches a nerve in this forum is the hopeless links which seem to take an age to redirect.

[perplexed101]

Are you asking whether they believe that it does or whether it actually does. I would assume that they believe that it does or why write it? The fact is though that nothing they forwarded in any way challenges the validity of the underlying theory if inflation from a central origin.

are you going to refute their claim? yes or no?

[Curious]

are you going to refute their claim? yes or no?

I already stated why it was incorrect to assume that the underlying theory was invalid based on the evidence they put forward. Or do you mean refute it to them in person. Since this is a debate forum, the evidence that you put forward citing this document has been refuted. For you to state that I would be the first to challenge the arguments put forward by them is incorrect as all the arguments have been already challenged, that is why they complain about the community not listening to and agreeing with them. If you wish to use evidence supporting your case then you must expect to have to defend it when it is challenged rather than endlessly cutting and pasting articles which you clearly have not the expertise to evaluate yourself. That is what people do in debating forums. If you use an argument to back a claim then you must be able to back the argument if an argument is countered. It is no good just saying "well argue with them about it".

[perplexed101]

are you going to refute their claim? yes or no?

I already stated why it was incorrect to assume that the underlying theory was invalid based on the evidence they put forward. Or do you mean refute it to them in person. Since this is a debate forum, the evidence that you put forward citing this document has been refuted. For you to state that I would be the first to challenge the arguments put forward by them is incorrect as all the arguments have been already challenged, that is why they complain about the community not listening to and agreeing with them. If you wish to use evidence supporting your case then you must expect to have to defend it when it is challenged rather than endlessly cutting and pasting articles which you clearly have not the expertise to evaluate yourself. That is what people do in debating forums. If you use an argument to back a claim then you must be able to back the argument if an argument is countered. It is no good just saying "well argue with them about it".

i dont know how to evaluate the evidence? ROFL here is what i see as a problem:

Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.

Large-scale Voids are too old
The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.

Angular diameters don't increase
A third important prediction is that the angular diameters of galaxies will start to increase at high redshifts, rather than decrease as they do at low redshifts. Yet observations have shown that the angular diameters of high redshift galaxies approach a constant value with increasing redshift, and show no evidence for the predicted increase.

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy.

No room for dark matter
While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.

No Conservation of Energy
The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.

Alignment of CBR with the Local Supercluster
The largest angular scale components of the fluctuations(anisotropy) of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. (Big Bang theorists have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident and have scrambled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption that entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by Big Bang supporters.)


now refute that ROFL