The Bible

Originally posted by .😮U812:.
Yes I do know what the red shift is, all that is says is a shift of the red value of light which can determin if something is moving away or coming closer. The big ban is part of the oscillating model which is just a point in the cycle, you must take into account all the different aspects of the universe and can not disprove one thing with out taking into account the others. How does the red shift explain that the universe was created and not that it has always been? How does a closed universe expalian the the red shift shows that the universe is expanding at a faster rate? I'm just trying to understand what you are saying, it is hard if you do not tell me.

Originally posted by .😮U812:.
Yes I do know what the red shift is, all that is says is a shift of the red value of light which can determin if something is moving away or coming closer. The big ban is part of the oscillating model which is just a point in the cycle, you must take into account all the different aspects of the universe and can not disprove one thing with out taking into account the others. How does the red shift explain that the universe was created and not that it has always been? How does a closed universe expalian the the red shift shows that the universe is expanding at a faster rate? I'm just trying to understand what you are saying, it is hard if you do not tell me.

How is the big bang part of the Oscillating Model? The expansion of the universe is accelerating so how could it be subject to contraction?

Hubble's red shift findings prove that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
How is the big bang part of the Oscillating Model? The expansion of the universe is accelerating so how could it be subject to contraction?

Hubble's red shift findings prove that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning.

We do not know enough to answer that question yet, but the lack of knowledge on the part of science is not evidence of magic.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
You should just give up now and save yourself some headaches, he will not give you the answers that you need. All he will do is just say read this and post links but he doesn't have enough grasp of the things that he is talking about. He will just pick and choose one thing to debate but not look at the whole.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
How is the big bang part of the Oscillating Model? The expansion of the universe is accelerating so how could it be subject to contraction?

Hubble's red shift findings prove that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning.

Originally posted by .😮U812:.
Everyone needs to be understood sometimes it might be harder than others but that is life. The oscillating universe model consits of the big bang and the big crunch, this is only one accepted theory involving the big bang. Some do not believe this to be true and have opposings ideas as to the creation, while none have been proven true and might never they are not illogical or irrational for thinking them. I still don't understand how that the red shift proves that the universe started from nothing.

Red shift does not prove that the universe started from nothing, it proves that the universe is expanding in all directions (from a starting point)--which is evidence that the universe is not eternal.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Red shift does not prove that the universe started from nothing, it proves that the universe is expanding in all directions (from a starting point)--which is evidence that the universe is not eternal.

Actually redshift is caused by the universe expanding from all points at once not from any starting point. It is only evidence of itself, you cannot logically extrapolate that the universe was created due to the presence of redshift only that the universe is expanding.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Red shift does not prove that the universe started from nothing, it proves that the universe is expanding in all directions (from a starting point)--which is evidence that the universe is not eternal.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Just because it's expanding does not mean it's not eternal. In fact, i'd go so far as to say that the very existence of the expansion proves it is eternal.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. the law of entropy) refutes your claim.

Look up heat death.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. the law of entropy) refutes your claim.

Look up heat death.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually redshift is caused by the universe expanding from all points at once not from any starting point. It is only evidence of itself, you cannot logically extrapolate that the universe was created due to the presence of redshift only that the universe is expanding.

Look up the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the law of entropy refutes your stance.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Look up the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the law of entropy refutes your stance.

Originally posted by King Kandy
There is still energy during heat death, it is merely inert and uniform.

Red shift shows that the universe must have began from a smaller point which is proof that it is not eternal. It has never been static.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The second law has nothing to do with redshift.

The universe is losing usable energy which is proof that it is not eternal.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The universe is losing usable energy which is proof that it is not eternal.

it isnt LOSING anything. your understanding of the concept of entropy is stupid. it is merely being REDEISTRIBUTED in a more uniform way. so explain to me how entropy would cause space/time/matter/energy to be ANNIHLATED/END. and btw, your providing contradicting evidence. if the rate of expansion is INCREASING that means the universe will never DIE. just continuously keep on expanding.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The universe is losing usable energy which is proof that it is not eternal.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
it isnt LOSING anything. your understanding of the concept of entropy is stupid. it is merely being REDEISTRIBUTED in a more uniform way. so explain to me how entropy would cause space/time/matter/energy to be ANNIHLATED/END. and btw, your providing contradicting evidence. if the rate of expansion is INCREASING that means the universe will never DIE. just continuously keep on expanding.

True or false: entropy is increasing.

True or false: the universe had a beginning.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Red shift shows that the universe must have began from a smaller point which is proof that it is not eternal. It has never been static.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
True or false: entropy is increasing.

True or false: the universe had a beginning.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Nah, the universe can still be eternal, I see no reason why the energy must be usable to be counted.

The universe is losing usable energy but not gaining any. If the universe were eternal stars would have already burned out due to the 2nd L.o.T.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So it used to be smaller... and what? Where's the evidence that there was a point where it didn't exist at all? A small universe still exists.

The universe has never been static which means that it started (i.e. came into being) and continued to expand.