Like Fish in a Barrel
More fun science from Conservapedia.
Big Bang Theory
You don't usually see something cite Max Tegmark and Answers in Genesis at the same time.The Big Bang Theory has had many dissenters including the British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, the Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven, and astronomers Geoffrey Burbidge and Halton Arp. It was Hoyle who coined the term, although he used it disparagingly.
Well, Hoyle was a 'reasonable' dissenter when the Big Bang was still controversial, but since the evidence soundly defeated the steady-state model he's just been a crank. Burbidge and Arp are at least honest cranks, but they are not what you would consider 'relevant.' It also says something that all of these people are a bit past their prime. Hannes Alfven is actually so far past his prime as to be dead. He won a Nobel Prize for his work in Plasma Physics, not astrophysics, and his model is a joke which is conclusively ruled out by the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background's blackbody spectrum. He thought that establishing a starting point for the universe was sneaky creationism. Which is interesting in light of the next passage:Most Atheists believe in the Big Bang theory. There is active research and speculation into what caused the Big Bang, but atheists agree it was not a deity.
Do I need to comment on this stuff? Scientists 'believe' in evolution because they are scientists, and the phrase 'Young earth creationist scientists' is an oxymoron.
Many scientists who believe in the Big Bang Theory are Evolutionists, though not all are. One can believe that God both created the Universe AND laid out the plan for all life in the Big Bang, as opposed to the idea that life evolved randomly after the Big Bang.
Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound, though few creationist criticisms are found in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
I also enjoy this sneaky little phrase, which is backed up by nothing at all.Professional cosmologists are actively creating models (some of which contradict the Bing Bang scenario) and collecting data that probe the specific nature of the earliest observable aspects of the Universe.
Actually, no professional cosmologists are creating models that contradict the big bang. Anywhere.
Isn't is sad that in this day in age blah blah blah...
2 comments:
Actually, no professional cosmologists are creating models that contradict the big bang. Anywhere.
It seems that these 33 scientists would disagree with you.
As well as this physicist from Princeton University And then there is this guy here
To quote from the first article "The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.
In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors."
"...which is conclusively ruled out by the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background's blackbody spectrum"
This Blackbody spectrum is a gigantic science fraud. See
THE 2006 PHYSICS NOBEL PRIZE FRAUD:
http://www.geocities.com/bibhasde/blackbody.html
Post a Comment