Is it possible that the universe could be eternal??...

[Deesse23]

Physical cosmologists who have commented on the book have generally dismissed it. In particular, American astrophysicist and cosmologist Edward L. Wright criticized Lerner for making errors of fact and interpretation, arguing that:

• Lerner's alternative model for Hubble's Law is dynamically unstable
  
• the number density of distant radio sources falsifies Lerner's explanation for the cosmic microwave background
  
• Lerner's explanation that the helium abundance is due to stellar nucleosynthesis fails because of the small observed abundance of heavier elements
  

Made a response to this that wasn't posted. Strange

Generally we can't fact check things about the Big Bang Theory or other scientific theories because that's just not our specialty, we just take it at Faith that they're telling us the truth. And here's a truth for you out of 200 billion galaxies do you want to know how many galaxies are blue shifted compared to redshifted? 100, those in our local cluster and those in the virgo cluster which we're heading towards.

You don't think its strange at all that the all the other 199,999,999,900 galaxies are heading away from us?

You see The Big Bang Theory is asserting that 

(copy and pasted)red shift

1. the displacement of spectral lines toward longer wavelengths (the red end of the spectrum) in radiation from distant galaxies and celestial objects. This is interpreted as a Doppler shift that is proportional to the velocity of recession and thus to distance.(end paste)
   

that means that every other galaxy not in our local cluster or the virgo cluster is heading away from us, stating quite plainly that we are at the center of the universe. Good old Catholic Dogma.

But you don't see a problem with that model because clearly to think that there should be other galaxies heading towards us out of that astronomical number is just asking to much.

Do you have anything to say about the number density of distant radio sources, or are you trying to rehabilitate your/Lehrners hogwash?
What is your reply to the falsification based on this? Thats the only relevant issue on the conversation between the two of us.

Also:
Wtf are you doing on an atheist forum? Did they laugh you out of all the astrophysicist forums?

Generally we can't fact check things about the Big Bang Theory or other scientific theories because that's just not our specialty, we just take it at Faith that they're telling us the truth.

Nope, we have at least three completely independent methods of measurement that all match the BBT.
Did you lie, or was that your ignorance speaking?

But to shortly address your deflection:

You see The Big Bang Theory is asserting that 

(copy and pasted)red shift

1. the displacement of spectral lines toward longer wavelengths (the red end of the spectrum) in radiation from distant galaxies and celestial objects. This is interpreted as a Doppler shift that is proportional to the velocity of recession and thus to distance.(end paste)
   

that means that every other galaxy not in our local cluster or the virgo cluster is heading away from us, stating quite plainly that we are at the center of the universe. Good old Catholic Dogma.

But you don't see a problem with that model because clearly to think that there should be other galaxies heading towards us out of that astronomical number is just asking to much.

Are you really so ignorant to not see the faulty thinking of yours?
I am just asking to offer you a way out of this corner you have painted yourself into, before you humiliate yourself further.

Back to number density of distant radio sources? Got something, anything?

[Authari]

Do you have anything to say about the number density of distant radio sources, or are you trying to rehabilitate your/Lehrners hogwash?
What is your reply to the falsification based on this? Thats the only relevant issue on the conversation between the two of us.

Also:
Wtf are you doing on an atheist forum? Did they laugh you out of all the astrophysicist forums?

Nope, we have at least three completely independent methods of measurement that all match the BBT.
Did you lie, or was that your ignorance speaking?

But to shortly address your deflection:

Are you really so ignorant to not see the faulty thinking of yours?
I am just asking to offer you a way out of this corner you have painted yourself into, before you humiliate yourself further.

Back to number density of distant radio sources? Got something, anything?

Oh no why don't you tell me about this 'number density of distant radio sources' and why its the hail mary that proves the BBT. :T

[Deesse23]

Do you have anything to say about the number density of distant radio sources, or are you trying to rehabilitate your/Lehrners hogwash?
What is your reply to the falsification based on this? Thats the only relevant issue on the conversation between the two of us.

Also:
Wtf are you doing on an atheist forum? Did they laugh you out of all the astrophysicist forums?

Nope, we have at least three completely independent methods of measurement that all match the BBT.
Did you lie, or was that your ignorance speaking?

But to shortly address your deflection:

Are you really so ignorant to not see the faulty thinking of yours?
I am just asking to offer you a way out of this corner you have painted yourself into, before you humiliate yourself further.

Back to number density of distant radio sources? Got something, anything?

Oh no why don't you tell me about this 'number density of distant radio sources' and why its the hail mary that proves the BBT. :T

Your reading comprehension sucks.
It falsifies Lehrners BS. Go back up and read, again. Maybe this time you will be able to parse this simple fact.

Try again...to comment on that.

[Authari]

Oh no why don't you tell me about this 'number density of distant radio sources' and why its the hail mary that proves the BBT. :T

Your reading comprehension sucks.
It falsifies Lehrners BS. Go back up and read, again. Maybe this time you will be able to parse this simple fact.

Try again...to comment on that.

All you did was link me to wikipedia without explaining any of it. Or how the Number Density of Radio Sources disproves his assertion.

The burden of proof layeth on you dear friend.

[polymath257]

Water requires the exchange of virtual photons to hold the hydrogen and oxygen atoms together. Genesis says photons were first created after water already existed.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
So no, the first two verses of Genesis are not scientific.  Fifty points from House Hufflepuff.

In all fairness to Genesis, virtual photons cannot be seen.

I've seen a physicist comment that ALL photons are virtual. We see them when they disappear.

[Deesse23]

Your reading comprehension sucks.
It falsifies Lehrners BS. Go back up and read, again. Maybe this time you will be able to parse this simple fact.

Try again...to comment on that.

All you did was link me to wikipedia without explaining any of it. Or how the Number Density of Radio Sources disproves his assertion.

The burden of proof layeth on you dear friend.

1. YOU posted a link to a Video of Lehrner who makes assertions about the CMB (between 12:00 and 18:00). How the current understanding is wrong and how he has a different idea.
   
2. Thus YOU tell us how Wrights (or anyone elses) objections are justified or not, before you come to this atheist board (full of non-experts, including yourself) and try to spread fringe ideas
   
3. Unless you do, the currently publicly accepted theory of the CMB stands, and this is not Lehrners´
   

Im not gonna do YOUR homework

[snowtracks]

How do you know that it is a summary of a long period of time as opposed to a literal account of a short one?  This is just shameless retconning.

Meh, I'd rather have them distort their religion to fit science than vice versa.

The Hebrew word translated “day” (Yom) in Genesis 1 has four distinct literal (yes literal) definitions: 
(1) part of the daylight hours, for example, noon to 3 PM; (2) all of the daylight hours; (3) one rotation period of Earth—currently 24 hours; and (4) an extended, but finite period of time. 

[LinuxGal]

Meh, I'd rather have them distort their religion to fit science than vice versa.

The Hebrew word translated “day” (Yom) in Genesis 1 has four distinct literal (yes literal) definitions: 
(1) part of the daylight hours, for example, noon to 3 PM; (2) all of the daylight hours; (3) one rotation period of Earth—currently 24 hours; and (4) an extended, but finite period of time. 

Sure, but when Genesis is talking about the seven yoms of creation week, each yom has one light period and one dark period.  So that's seven 24 hour days.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The Hebrew word translated “day” (Yom) in Genesis 1 has four distinct literal (yes literal) definitions: 

(1) part of the daylight hours, for example, noon to 3 PM; (2) all of the daylight hours; (3) one rotation period of Earth—currently 24 hours; and (4) an extended, but finite period of time. 

It's talking about standard days. Stop distorting the texts meaning.

[snowtracks]

Going through Genesis (previously posted section). 'New' below*.
=======================================
Genesis 1 is a summary. In just one page, a flawless overview of 13.79 B. years of natural history was written some 3 tya that miraculously describes the sequential steps (which perfectly align with the scientific record) by which Earth became ready for human habitation. Genesis 2 like all other references adds details to the summary. Gen 2, in particular, gives a spiritual perspective on creation; thus, it begins to elaborate on the ‘purpose’ of creation.
Gen 1:1 to 1:2 is 9 1/2 billion years; nothing explicitly biblical is stated. For correct interpretation, the point of reference changes from above to the Earth's surface looking up, with verse 2.
=======================================
*New:  Creation Day 1 (biblically in this context, "a long but finite period of time").
Commences with: Genesis 1:2. “Let there be light” is when the visible light of the Sun, Moon, and stars first appears on Earth’s surface. The date for transforming Earth’s atmosphere from opaque to translucent is around 4 bya.
The atmosphere remained overcast (much like on a rainy day), but light could finally reach the planet's surface. Therefore, the celestial lights would not yet be visible at the surface of the Earth.  Again, the point of view for the six creation days is that of an observer on Earth’s surface.

And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.