NationStates Jolt Archive

:-0

I find it hilarious that the page in question uses rainbow divider bars which I traditionally associate with pages containing homosexual information of one type or another.

As for the actual content, it seems a simple case of "yes, and your point is what?" No one made the claim that the Big Bang Theory was scientific law or completely understood. Saying that there are problems with it is not the same as saying that it's inherantly faulty or untrue. Furthermore, establishing that there are problems with it in no way supports any other theory. Finally, posting information from a domain named www.biblelife.org is highly specious right from the get go.

I find it hilarious that the page in question uses rainbow divider bars which I traditionally associate with pages containing homosexual information of one type or another.

As for the actual content, it seems a simple case of "yes, and your point is what?" No one made the claim that the Big Bang Theory was scientific law or completely understood. Saying that there are problems with it is not the same as saying that it's inherantly faulty or untrue. Furthermore, establishing that there are problems with it in no way supports any other theory. Finally, posting information from a domain named www.biblelife.org is highly specious right from the get go.

Dubious at best I whole heartedly agree with you. PRESUMPTIOS RUDE &VERY VERY UNSCIENTIFIC. You are only using one biased source in your study. Clownish!

[QUOTE=BerkylvaniaII]I find it hilarious that the page in question uses rainbow divider bars which I traditionally associate with pages containing homosexual information of one type or another.[QUOTE]
The rainbow being of course, the symbol of God's promise after the flood ;)

Dammit, I was hoping this might be a thread I could learn from. Unfortunately, I don't know enough of the Big Bang to dispel the article, meanwhile the article appears to be unaccredited and comes from a incredibly biased source.

Oh well, some other thread perhaps.

EDIT: The article is even poorly written. There is no way the author has anywhere near the authority to write an article like this and have it taken seriously.

Dude. If they can't even get the equation E = MC^2 right, they're too fucking stupid to argue anythign having to do with physics.

(They put E = 1/2(MC^2). Seriously. What a group of dumbasses.)

[QUOTE=BerkylvaniaII]I find it hilarious that the page in question uses rainbow divider bars which I traditionally associate with pages containing homosexual information of one type or another.[QUOTE]
The rainbow being of course, the symbol of God's promise after the flood ;)
He promised gay sex?

The rainbow being of course, the symbol of God's promise after the flood ;)

I never really got why god flooded the world and killed innocent people without warning them. Someone explain that to me :confused:

I never really got why god flooded the world and killed innocent people without warning them. Someone explain that to me :confused:

He was sick of the sinful nature of people -- ahem, nobody respected/followed Him, ahem -- and wanted to wipe us out... all except for the few righteous ones... Noah and his ilk. Talk about a show of power.

The people that made that site favoured creation over evolution. To even think that the bible is more real than a respected theory is fatally flawed. The Bible is the greatest story ever told. Ever though Star Wars is getting pretty close. :D

I never really got why god flooded the world and killed innocent people without warning them. Someone explain that to me :confused:

The premise is that they were not, in fact, innocent. The people of the world were rife with wickedness, so God decided to pick out a handful of good ones to be saved, and start over.

Flood myths are very common worldwide. There's something archetypal about them that seems to have universal appeal to humanity.

1) I know jack shit about the Big Bang Theory (as do the majority of people).

2) I hate reading very long articles. I really REALLY hate reading stuff critiquing things I know nothing about.

3) Any false info present in the page may bias my opinion when I read a legit information source.

4) A religious organization's opinion on science can be trusted about as much as by barber's opinion on my stock portfolio. I'll leave the science to the scientists thank you very much. Churchies should get a move on that whole "bring the community together" thing.

My thanks go out to Fragland and Riverlund for explaining that to me.

Well, the site iteself has flaws with understanding the idea. They are limiting it into newtonian physics and general relativity.... That is not the case in trying to postulate the actual particulars of the occurance of the "Big Bang"... For one, in early stages it has been known that newtonian gravity, einstein's general theory, as well as quantum fluctuations and the strong nuclear forces would have more or less been acting the same.... This is why the "Universal Theory" which combines these seperate theories and laws into a single entity is being looked into now. As out understanding progresses, we are able to push closer to the "begining" the actual event where the "Big Bang" occured.

For one, matter as we know it, did not exist at the points we are at now. Even nano-seconds after the start-point, there was no matter... Matter was a consequence.... The entire "universe" was "small" dense, and composed entirely of exotic sub-particles (like photons, Gluons, exotic leptons, quarks and the like)... in a "soup"... Gravity as we know it did not even exist... Everything was being governed in quantum fluctuations and the much stronger nuclear forces.

The process of the "Big Bang" didn't just form "matter" in the universe, it resulted in the formation of the universe itself, as a whole, including the principles and governing fabric of space and time. That is, the nuclear forces, and gravitic forces... and all of the fancy governing theories of this universe "evolved" after the "big bang"... seperating out from a single principle (this Universal Force) that would have been the only governing principle by which the early (beginning to handful of nanoseconds) universe would have operated on.... You're simply not dealing with a "small point" that explodes into "space"... But a small-point which explodes and forms space-time as we know it... The "Expansion" is not a "wave" to which the universe has an edge... But rather an expansion of the fabric of space-time as it's known. That is, the universe is "infinite" in size... There is no "outter-edge" in our three dimentions... And it contains an "infinite amount" of matter in "infinite" space-time... The expansion isn't an "edge" but rather the fact that all points in the universe are expanding away from one another... That is, the very "fabric" of the universe is expanding... Time, distance, energy, matter, are all products of the formation, and not governing principles.

The problem is the general human falacy of trying to think of everything in limited view points of the three dimentions we are used to..... This kind of thought does not apply to the actual "Big Bang", because none of those "conveniences" existed yet.

The premise is that they were not, in fact, innocent. The people of the world were rife with wickedness, so God decided to pick out a handful of good ones to be saved, and start over.

Flood myths are very common worldwide. There's something archetypal about them that seems to have universal appeal to humanity.

The pessimistic and anti-social sentiment that the world is full of bastards is no rare thing. We all watch the news and come away with this exact same feeling.

We all get hurt. We all hear about and witness the pain of others and come back with a "How could this be?!" sentiment. Just God(s), therefore would find this offensive and open up a six pack of whoopass, or so the people worshipping them would believe. A nice, tidy justification behind such disasters.

Group this together with the fact that humans tend to live near water and experience floods often; add survivor guilt (Why Mary and not me?) when disaster claims a life and add the fact that humans rationalize scary things to take the fear away (It was only a dream!) even if they have to lean on the supernatural (common where you don't have knowledge of the natural world).

"Noah's Flood" may have been based on a real event and the story of Noah would be a suitable explanation of such a indescribable event.

Rationalize the event and you take the fear away.

The people that made that site favoured creation over evolution. To even think that the bible is more real than a respected theory is fatally flawed. The Bible is the greatest story ever told. Ever though Star Wars is getting pretty close. :D
Yes!!! We should all worship Star Wars!
Anakin, I bow down to you.

www.biblelife.org Is an unbiased site and the article is written by a person who has set aside his religious convictions to create an objective look on the subject.

Laffo

He's a moron who can't even copy the formula for the rest energy of matter let alone derive it. (I can only assume he though he was really smart and confused it with the Newtonian formula for Kinetic Energy.) Naturally he goes on to misunderstand other far more difficult concepts, like the inflationary epoch (which really no one has a complete picture of). There is no mechanism we understand with the respect to the expansion of "space" itself, and there's also speed limit for that mechanism. Oddly enough, there is enough evidence to support such a contrivance, in fact enough to demand one. But just the fact that he's stuck in Newtonian physics talking about the speed of light and the big bang as the kind of explosion one sees on MaxX, should end any further criticism. But later on he asserts, among other things, that there is no such thing as antimatter, and then starts rambling about aether. No, I'm not kidding.

All in all, it's brutally funny, but in a VERY sad way.

I never really got why god flooded the world and killed innocent people without warning them. Someone explain that to me :confused:

Virtually any society that goes back 10,000 years has a story about how there was a great flood, almost everyone was killed, and a handful of people were left to rebuild society.

The Noah story was a rip-off of a Babylonian story about a guy named Utnapishtim (sp).

The real-world theory is that a global warming trend caused glaciers to begin melting at the top, forming large lakes. Then a series of warming and cooling trends cause the glaciers (some of which were the size of entire modern countries) to form huge pools of water wrapped up behind towering walls of ice. Eventually one of those walls breaks unleashing a thousand foot tall wall of water. If you're wondering what will happen when a thousand foot wall of water hits, well the Sri Lanka one was 30 feet.

On another note, after the Sri Lanka Tsunami a lost Indian city (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4257181.stm) was uncovered.

Flaws of The Big Bang Theory

Any flaws you state are completely meaningless to me. I believe in the Big Bang Theory with all my heart. Why??? Because I have faith. You can use all the logic against it you want, but in my gut I just know that the Big Bang is 100% true.

Anybody who had the courage to read all the way through the article care to summarise his points so I can refute them brutally?

I had just struggled to keep a straight face while reading that The Big Bang and Redshift Theories Have Many Big Flaws, Errors and Problems

when I encountered this piece of brilliance, in large, friendly letters: E = 1/2MC^2

I rather liked this bit:
Big Bang Flaw No. 7 - The Impossible Computer Calculation

Scientists and computer geniuses cannot model the Big Bang Theory because the computer would simply say, "Cannot compute, cannot compute, cannot compute." Einstein's Theory of Relativity and other laws of science cannot be used in a computer program because the computer would simply say, "The Big Bang Theory is a myth."

The site also contains a 'disproof' of evolution that not only 'disproves' evolution, but all natural selection as well! Not only that, it 'disproves' mutations ever happening in DNA!
Whod'a thunk it.
:D

Flaws in creationist theory

1. it was some invisible, mystical, magical, omnipotent guy in the sky


:rolleyes:


see? its easy to poke holes in both arguments. it just so happens that the hole in the creationist argument is rather larger.

The decay in the speed of light theory is also supported by the Bible which states that God "stretched out the heavens" in Isaiah 42:5, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13 and Jeremiah 10:12. The stretching out of the heavens and the decay in the speed of light make present day galaxies appear to be billions of light years away as calculated by the current speed of light. In fact, they could be much closer and the age of the universe much less because of this "stretching" and the associated higher speed of light.

Yes, this makes sense. God was bored, so he decided to trick humans in to believing that the universe had expanded by temporarily violating physical laws to make it happen in a short time. Does this make sense, that God would deliberately mislead people away from proof of divine creation because he could?

Space exists between the stars that make up a galaxy. The expanding space proponents simply sidestep this problem by saying space expands all around a galaxy but not within the galaxy.

We can't see it because either:

A. The space has expanded later than the actual Big Bang
B. The space has increased proportionate to the entire amount of space, so there is no real size change.


Big Bang Flaw No. 9 - The Expanding Gas Cloud Dilemma

Not all gas becomes a star. There are billions of failed stars that failed because they didn't have enough heat to form, which has to do with the amount present at the time when fusion heat was reached. This gas wasn't parcelled out equally and so not all of it will form stars.

Any flaws you state are completely meaningless to me. I believe in the Big Bang Theory with all my heart. Why??? Because I have faith. You can use all the logic against it you want, but in my gut I just know that the Big Bang is 100% true.
ahahhahahah lmao. very nice

Any site that tries to refute Evolution using geology should not be trusted as a site that is actually going to give you accurate information.

www.biblelife.org Is an unbiased site and the article is written by a person who has set aside his religious convictions to create an objective look on the subject.

Laffo

Good one.

Newton's second law of motion has never failed in theory or in observation. Newton's second law, which we can restate as force (F) equals the mass (M) multiplied by the acceleration (A) rate. This formula is very simple, but it is the foundation for calculations engineers and scientists use every day.

Ironic, because he's wrong. Things like Newton's laws and basically all of classical physics on work in a constant reference frame. In fact, this is why Einstien's ideas were such a revolution, they filled in vast gaps in classical theory.

Also, it starts to fail at speeds near C, another gap Einstien filled in.

Any flaws you state are completely meaningless to me. I believe in the Big Bang Theory with all my heart. Why??? Because I have faith. You can use all the logic against it you want, but in my gut I just know that the Big Bang is 100% true.


Although I agree that the Big Bang Theory is very probable, but at the moment your using the logic that the religious nuts use saying that their FAITH is enough to disprove scientific theories. At least show the intelligence that I know you have by stating scientific facts to support your beliefs. Facts are the only thing keeping us science dudes afloat. Although religious dudes seem to be getting by without using facts so who knows?

Unless of course that was your point, if so ignore the statement above.

Although I agree that the Big Bang Theory is very probable, but at the moment your using the logic that the religious nuts use saying that their FAITH is enough to disprove scientific theories. At least show the intelligence that I know you have by stating scientific facts to support your beliefs. Facts are the only thing keeping us science dudes afloat. Although religious dudes seem to be getting by without using facts so who knows?

That was exactly my point. Why on Earth would you argue logically with someone who doesn't rely on logic in the first place?

That was exactly my point. Why on Earth would you argue logically with someone who doesn't rely on logic in the first place?

Logic is a tool of Satan to decieve people away from blind faith! :rolleyes:

Any site that tries to refute Evolution using geology should not be trusted as a site that is actually going to give you accurate information.

My friend says he can disprove evolution, just because of how objects sink in a sandbox. WTF? And I stopped reading the article once it said "E=1/2(MC^2)". The theory is Energy=Mass x The Speed of Light Squared.

Virtually any society that goes back 10,000 years has a story about how there was a great flood, almost everyone was killed, and a handful of people were left to rebuild society.

The Noah story was a rip-off of a Babylonian story about a guy named Utnapishtim (sp).

The real-world theory is that a global warming trend caused glaciers to begin melting at the top, forming large lakes. Then a series of warming and cooling trends cause the glaciers (some of which were the size of entire modern countries) to form huge pools of water wrapped up behind towering walls of ice. Eventually one of those walls breaks unleashing a thousand foot tall wall of water. If you're wondering what will happen when a thousand foot wall of water hits, well the Sri Lanka one was 30 feet.

On another note, after the Sri Lanka Tsunami a lost Indian city (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4257181.stm) was uncovered.

There is also evidence supporting it as a "local event" to the mid-east... When the landbridge between the Black Sea and the Med. ruptured, flooding the region. They have even found tree stumps preserved at the bottom of the sea in some areas.

Virtually any society that goes back 10,000 years has a story about how there was a great flood, almost everyone was killed, and a handful of people were left to rebuild society.

The Noah story was a rip-off of a Babylonian story about a guy named Utnapishtim (sp).

The real-world theory is that a global warming trend caused glaciers to begin melting at the top, forming large lakes. Then a series of warming and cooling trends cause the glaciers (some of which were the size of entire modern countries) to form huge pools of water wrapped up behind towering walls of ice. Eventually one of those walls breaks unleashing a thousand foot tall wall of water. If you're wondering what will happen when a thousand foot wall of water hits, well the Sri Lanka one was 30 feet.

On another note, after the Sri Lanka Tsunami a lost Indian city (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4257181.stm) was uncovered.

Of course, the flaw here in your argument is that according to your beliefs, the World was created only 4500 years ago. So how exactly can we have societies stretching back 10 000 years? Did they just float around in the ether for 6 millineum until God decided to give them something solid to live on?
Sort of refutes your whole argument there, one would think.

Oh wait. That's right. I forgot the main tenet in creationist arguments: It's ok to use whatever you want (science, legends, fossils, etc etc) if it 'proves' your point, only be sure to ignore those annoying little bits that show that you're wrong. And if challenged, just ignore them. They are heathens after all.
Creationist 'logic' in a nutshell.


Speaking of the 'Great Flood', one does have to wonder why God, an omnipotent being, had to resort to using water to make a point. Why didn't he just make all those bad people to disappear. A lot easier. And still would prove his point too, I might add.

His other flaw deals with light:

"Light has mass and the bullet has mass."

Except, light does not actually have "mass"... It has "inertial mass", not exactly the same thing. When a bullet passes through an object it looses speed.... When a bullet passes through a medium, it looses speed and its speed remains slow. It has both mass (actual mass) and inertial mass (from its velocity) it looses "inertial mass" as its speed changes, because it has real mass. When the bullet exits the medium, it remains at the same inertial mass (as a product of its velocity) that was lost due to its traverse through the medium.

Light, on the other hand, has inertial mass from its velocity, but the particle itself has no real mass... It looses inertial mass traveling through a medium... As a product of its slower velocity in that medium.... However, once it leaves its medium, it's inertial mass returns to its normal state and it returns to its normative velocity (lacking any real mass).

For example, when a bullet passes through water, due to friction, it looses velocity... When it exits this medium of water, its velocity remains at the rate at the time it exits this medium.... Light on the other hand, looses speed through diffusion in the medium of water (for example). When it exists the medium, it returns to its original speed (c). PHotons are a class of "massless" particles.... Something the author seems to fail to understand.

The aparant mass of a photon is due to inertial mass:
M1 = M0 / SQRT(1 - v^2 / c^2)

An object with real mass (M0) as it approaches the velocity of light (c) its inertial mass approaches infinity... That is, any object with real mass traveling at the velocity of light, would have an infinite inertial mass(M0). Light, on the other hand traveling at c has a quantifiable inertial mass... From the above equation it can be shown that it's actual mass = 0...

That is, light has no rest mass, because it can never be at rest... It always maintains a constant speed in relation to its medium. The top speed being that of it in a vacuum.... Once it exits a medium it imediately returns to its maximum velocity at that medium.

Light can "slow" due to diffusion through a medium, but only remains "slow" as it travels in that medium.

One cosmologist has suggested that the material forming our universe blasted out from the "Big Bang" at a speed greater than the speed of light. At least this guy can see the speed of light as a barrier to the expanding universe theory. However, having matter move at a greater speed than the speed of light is totally devoid of any theoretical formulas, violates Dr. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, and lacks astronomical observations to prove it. Nothing in the universe has been shown to travel at a speed greater than the speed of light except some forms of radiation.
A couple of points spring to mind reading this:
Actually, it wasn't just one cosmologist. It's every cosmologist worth their salt that's said it.
The author of this dribble is at least right about one thing (highlighted in bold). Nothing in THE UNIVERSE can go faster than the speed of light - including radiation (which shows how little this guy knows about science). The main point about the initial stages of the Big Bang (that this guy obviously ignored cause it blew his theories away) is that the faster-than-light expansion was not IN the universe. The Universe itself was expanding faster-than-light. It's a major distinction there that's conveniently overlooked and ignored by our hero here. But I refer you to my post above about creationist logic to explain this.

White light emitted from an object that is moving away at a high speed appears in the red spectrum. The light appears in the violet or blue spectrum when the object is moving toward the viewer. The concept is simple, perhaps too simple. The Redshift Theory has our little planet at the center of the universe because nearly all galaxies are moving away from us. This is ridiculous. It seems the myth that the Earth is the center of the universe will never die.
It's quite funny that he uses one of the major thinking of medieval Christianity (the Earth as center of the Universe) to ridicule modern science, but I digress.
Our hero has such little understanding about inflation theory that he doesn't realise that anywhere in the Universe, the edge of space is around 14 Billion light years away from you, in every direction. In a way those Christians that persecuted Gallileo and Copernicus were right. The Earth is at the centre of the Universe. But so is the Sun, Jupiter, Pluto, Sirius, Betelgeuse, the Andromeda galaxy and any other point in the Universe you care to mention.
Space-time is curved. There is no 'outside' the Universe. If you were to travel 14 Billion light years in a straight line, you wouldn't come to a bubble membrane that you could stick your head out of and see what the Universe is expanding into. All that would happen is that you still find yourself 14 Billion light years away from the edge of the Universe. Eventually continuing in a straight line, you might even find yourself back home.
Think about it if you were a 2-Dimensional being transported to our World. Everywhere around you would appear flat. Being 2-D, you could only walk forward or backward. But if you did start walking in one direction in a straight line (ignore mountains and seas here), you would eventually walk right around the world and come back to where you started. How could you explain this in 2-dimensional thinking? It has no logic there at all! Ohhh, must be God.
This is pretty much the 'logic' behind the diatribe on that offending website.

People like the guy that wrote this simply don't have the ability to think in terms of space-time curvature and multidimensional universes and try to rationalise it down into a 3 dimensional state. The Universe doesn't exist in just 3 dimensions. Whenever you try to compare to such, you'll always find 'problems' with relativity and Universe creation theories.

So, something on the big bang from a bible site. Nice to know it won't be biased in any way. :rolleyes:

The origin of the universe just prior to the proposed Big Bang would be trillions of trillions of times more massive than any suspected black hole. We could think of this center as having infinite mass and having an infinite gravitational field. Nothing could escape.
Here we go again. At that point in 'time' (and I use time here loosely because time didn't in fact exist until after the Big Bang), there was no gravitational field. All the four types of energy (weak and strong nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetic) were combined into one unifying force. They didn't split into their respective forces that we have today until after the initial explosion. Much much later too, I might add. That is comparative to the time it took for the Big Bang to happen of course.

I gave up at this point, because refuting every single one of his ludicrous ramblings will take too much of my precious time. Time used on other, more important things. Like scratching my nuts, or staring blankly at the wall for an hour.

Here we go again. At that point in 'time' (and I use time here loosely because time didn't in fact exist until after the Big Bang), there was no gravitational field. All the four types of energy (weak and strong nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetic) were combined into one unifying force. They didn't split into their respective forces that we have today until after the initial explosion. Much much later too, I might add. That is comparative to the time it took for the Big Bang to happen of course.

I gave up at this point, because refuting every single one of his ludicrous ramblings will take too much of my precious time. Time used on other, more important things. Like sratching my nuts, or staring blankly at the wall for an hour.

It's people like this bible dude, that I want to do the Borg Queen quote on...

"Your thinking is so..... three dimensional...."

The Big Bang theory: Yes, the site is right in a way--there are a lot of problems with the Big Bang theory, just as there are in ANY theory. And since when does relativity have to hold in critical conditions? Einstein disproved Newton under extreme conditions, but we still use Newton to send people into space even though he's "wrong"! And anyone who expects a scientific theory to be problem-free is an idiot. (And I happen to be very religious, but the people who wrote that website are idiots!)

Noah's flood: Well, it seems that there is very conclusive evidence that there was a flood--the Bible records it, the Epic of Gilgamesh from ancient Mesopotamia records it, the Popul Vuh from the ancient Mayans records it, so there must be an element of truth in the story, as far as I see.

They get E=MC^2 wrong...one of the most simplistic formulas and most repeted...and want to be respected?

Where are their sources? Why are there no citations? Did they have all this information in their head, or was it researched in a respectable way (hard copy texts, not internet sources)? And if it was, then there should be credit given to the source material (to not give credit is called Plagiarism, and is a federal offence)

I also think that a group of researchers at MIT or Harvard have discovered evidence that E=MC^2 could be wrong in certain rare cases...but this is, as stated, RARE, and therefore considered a fluke. After all, gravity doesn't hold up in space, but that doesn't mean it isn't correct in most cases


If you want to pose a compelling argument against something, my fist tip is do NOT use anything found online unless it can also be found in hard copy. And dope can post something to the internet. I can claim I have a heard of pink sparkly unicorns in my backyard that eat human souls for breakfast and wash it down with a cool refreshing glass of pigs blood. Doesn't make it true. Atleast with physical texts, they go through an editorial process and are generally reliable.

Going to biblelife.org for information on why the big bang is flawed is like going to stormfront.org to learn why Jews and blacks are bad.

A couple of points spring to mind reading this:
Actually, it wasn't just one cosmologist. It's every cosmologist worth their salt that's said it.
The author of this dribble is at least right about one thing (highlighted in bold). Nothing in THE UNIVERSE can go faster than the speed of light - including radiation (which shows how little this guy knows about science). The main point about the initial stages of the Big Bang (that this guy obviously ignored cause it blew his theories away) is that the faster-than-light expansion was not IN the universe. The Universe itself was expanding faster-than-light. It's a major distinction there that's conveniently overlooked and ignored by our hero here. But I refer you to my post above about creationist logic to explain this.


It's quite funny that he uses one of the major thinking of medieval Christianity (the Earth as center of the Universe) to ridicule modern science, but I digress.
Our hero has such little understanding about inflation theory that he doesn't realise that anywhere in the Universe, the edge of space is around 14 Billion light years away from you, in every direction. In a way those Christians that persecuted Gallileo and Copernicus were right. The Earth is at the centre of the Universe. But so is the Sun, Jupiter, Pluto, Sirius, Betelgeuse, the Andromeda galaxy and any other point in the Universe you care to mention.
Space-time is curved. There is no 'outside' the Universe. If you were to travel 14 Billion light years in a straight line, you wouldn't come to a bubble membrane that you could stick your head out of and see what the Universe is expanding into. All that would happen is that you still find yourself 14 Billion light years away from the edge of the Universe. Eventually continuing in a straight line, you might even find yourself back home.
Think about it if you were a 2-Dimensional being transported to our World. Everywhere around you would appear flat. Being 2-D, you could only walk forward or backward. But if you did start walking in one direction in a straight line (ignore mountains and seas here), you would eventually walk right around the world and come back to where you started. How could you explain this in 2-dimensional thinking? It has no logic there at all! Ohhh, must be God.
This is pretty much the 'logic' behind the diatribe on that offending website.

People like the guy that wrote this simply don't have the ability to think in terms of space-time curvature and multidimensional universes and try to rationalise it down into a 3 dimensional state. The Universe doesn't exist in just 3 dimensions. Whenever you try to compare to such, you'll always find 'problems' with relativity and Universe creation theories.

Actually, it's only a few cosmologists--Dr. Joao Magueijo is the preeminent one (his book Faster Than the Speed of Light is very interesting).

As for red-shift showing we're the center of the universe....for Pete's sake! Imagine the universe as a sphere (only the surface, not the internal points). If the sphere's radius grows, everything spreads farther apart. We can't be the "center of the universe" because there IS no center of the universe.

Bumping this, because I want to see if some YEC here will actually try to defend this.

Actually, it's only a few cosmologists--Dr. Joao Magueijo is the preeminent one (his book Faster Than the Speed of Light is very interesting).

As for red-shift showing we're the center of the universe....for Pete's sake! Imagine the universe as a sphere (only the surface, not the internal points). If the sphere's radius grows, everything spreads farther apart. We can't be the "center of the universe" because there IS no center of the universe.

Actually, both cases are right, there is no "literal" center of the universe, however, much as on a sphere, all points are the "center" from the relation of the viewer.

Regardless of where you go in the universe, you appear to be at its "center" with all points moving away from you... If you move, you still are at its "center" with all points moving away from you.

In the 3D sense, we are at the center of the universe (using their terminology), however, so is everything else in 3D space... It's all "at the center" in its own frame of refference. The literal "center" however, does not have bearing in our 3D space, since it exists behind us in time, a place we cannot "look" towards in the literal sense, but only in a conceptual way.

Bascially, you can look at our space-time view of the universe, as existing on a "barrier" at the "edge" of the universe on a multi-dimentional "curve" which is "expanding" away from the initial point "beginning" "where" the "Big Bang" occured.

More or less, the "biblelife.org" dude is a 2D creature on the surface of a 3D sphere, in the process of expansion, and getting confused when he can't contemplate the sphere he is on... because it is mostly outside of his "frame of thinking"... Bound to the relative 2D thinking, he assumes all other 2D people, making judgements off of the effects around them, and trying to contemplate this 3D sphere, are nut-cases for not paying attention to his rants about how it can't be possible, because his 2D thinking says so.

And invented this wacko pseudo-science, where light has real mass... The doppler shift has to be wrong because things are colliding, space-time isn't curved, and all physical laws operate always in all cases (since there is no curvature)....