Changes

:::::::"it is a '''fact''' the Big Bang hangs only on the lack of understanding" - you are the only person I have ever seen make such a claim, so I find it incredibly hard to believe. The absurdity also makes me doubt that you have ever worked at the graduate level in physics, especially with such strong terms which I have never seen any physicist use. As such, I do not think I can, in clean conscience, continue discussing the matter with you. Sorry. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 00:05, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::"it is a '''fact''' the Big Bang hangs only on the lack of understanding" - you are the only person I have ever seen make such a claim, so I find it incredibly hard to believe. The absurdity also makes me doubt that you have ever worked at the graduate level in physics, especially with such strong terms which I have never seen any physicist use. As such, I do not think I can, in clean conscience, continue discussing the matter with you. Sorry. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 00:05, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Before we part for good I'd like to appologise for hurting your feelings by doubtind the infallibility of the Pope, and tell you briefly why I'm sure that the big bang is a fake. And BTW, why didn't you ask that question, before labeling me a lier, while the answer may satisfy your curiosity (as I believe you are a curious person).  

::::::::Before we part for good I'd like to appologise for hurting your feelings by doubting the infallibility of the Pope, and tell you briefly why I'm sure that the big bang is a fake. And BTW, why didn't you ask that question, before labeling me a lier, while the answer may satisfy your curiosity (as I believe you are a curious person).  

::::::::You may ask your friends physicists who believe that the big bang is not a fake whether they know what is the [[intrinsic redshift]] in our universe. The possible answers are (i) "don't know", (ii) "negligible, I guess", (iii) "depending on density of universe, but I don't know how", (iv) "ca. 72km/s/Mpc".  

::::::::You may ask your friends physicists who believe that the big bang is not a fake whether they know what is the [[intrinsic redshift]] in our universe. The possible answers are (i) "don't know", (ii) "negligible, I guess", (iii) "depending on density of universe, but I don't know how", (iv) "ca. 72km/s/Mpc".  

::::::::I calculated this [[intrinsic redshift]] with very simple, easy to repete for an intelligent high school student calculation, and the last answer is true. It means that there is no expansion of the universe since it is the redshift that astrophysicists observe but can't calculate since they don't know how. There is no such calculation in the whole scientific literature. The BBH theorists assumed answer (ii) ("negligible"). Why, if I calculated it and got 72km/s/Mpc, which incidentally the Hubble redshift is observed as such?  

::::::::I calculated this [[intrinsic redshift]] with very simple, easy to repeate for an intelligent high school student calculation, and the last answer is true. It means that there is no expansion of the universe since it is the redshift that astrophysicists observe but can't calculate since they don't know how. There is no such calculation in the whole scientific literature. The BBH theorists assume answer (ii) ("negligible"). Why, if I calculated it and got 72km/s/Mpc, which incidentally the Hubble redshift is observed as such?  

::::::::And then I invented a relativistic theory explaining the illusion of expanding universe which predicted the illusion of accelerating expansion exacctly as Supernova Cosmology Project observed in 1998 with one standard deviation accuracy (max possible to confirm agreemant of theory with observations, predicted by little me 13 years earlier). Never published though (except in conservapedia) since editors '''belive''' that the universe is expanding and my university blocked my access to the university server so that I had to typed the results into conservapedia manually instead just showing a link to them. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 20:19, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::And then I invented a relativistic theory explaining the illusion of expanding universe which predicted the illusion of accelerating expansion exacctly as Supernova Cosmology Project observed in 1998 with one standard deviation accuracy (max possible to confirm agreemant of theory with observations, predicted by little me 13 years earlier). Never published though (except in conservapedia) since editors '''belive''' that the universe is expanding and my university blocked my access to the university server so that I had to type the results into conservapedia manually instead just showing a link to them. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 20:19, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

My understanding is the Catholic Church has given ''qualified'' acceptance to Big Bang / evolution / etc., on the basis that that was the predominant scientific opinion, and they want Catholicism and Science to coexist harmoniously. The major qualification, as I understand it, is the need for a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Fall. But God could have say, permitted life to evolve up to higher animals, but then as a special act of creation God created Adam. (Maybe he created Adam out of some evolved primate species). The Church doesn't insist that Genesis need be read completely literally, but some elements (existence of Adam/Eve) are so important theologically they can't be dispensed with. How can Christ be the New Adam if there never was an old one? If the Fall never happened, who needs Redemption? Of course, while I understand this to be the official position, not all Catholics agree with it, or are even aware of it, which is not an uncommon thing in the Catholic church. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

My understanding is the Catholic Church has given ''qualified'' acceptance to Big Bang / evolution / etc., on the basis that that was the predominant scientific opinion, and they want Catholicism and Science to coexist harmoniously. The major qualification, as I understand it, is the need for a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Fall. But God could have say, permitted life to evolve up to higher animals, but then as a special act of creation God created Adam. (Maybe he created Adam out of some evolved primate species). The Church doesn't insist that Genesis need be read completely literally, but some elements (existence of Adam/Eve) are so important theologically they can't be dispensed with. How can Christ be the New Adam if there never was an old one? If the Fall never happened, who needs Redemption? Of course, while I understand this to be the official position, not all Catholics agree with it, or are even aware of it, which is not an uncommon thing in the Catholic church. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)