Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
photon your above posts lacks information. You accuse me of being ignorant of the big bang theory and misrepresenting it and thats that. You make no attempt to impart knowledge yourself.
|
I would gladly enter into a discussion if you gave any sort of indication that you'd actually have one, but unfortunately I haven't seen that yet.
Do some reading about BBT, and find out why what you represented as evidence that supports both BBT and creation isn't the observed reality at all. I'm not doing your homework for you.
Quote:
Here is a link to an article on the big bang theory. The fellow is a scientist but, he is also a creationist so I guess that gives you permission to disregard him.
http://www.icr.org/article/343/
|
See, typical passive aggressive crap mixed in with an appeal to authority, how is one supposed to address that in a discussion?
Do I address the passive aggressive part that accuses me (and probably all of science) of disregarding works just because of the direction a work of science takes? That's of course absurd of course, tons of journals challenging the established views are published every year. But you hang onto that scrap since you seem to take comfort from it.
Or do I address the appeal to authority, you found a link so it must be true right? I've already talked about things that BBT doesn't cover, and yet in the SECOND PARAGRAPH this link makes the same mistake.
If he can't even get what a theory covers right, what hope is there for the rest of the piece?
Let's see, he starts out with a presumption of truth, "we know that the universe did not begin with a big bang", so automatically this piece isn't science at all, it's dogma; he's operating from a pre-formed conclusion not based on any observations or evidence.
He names a few names from history that dissented, but doesn't mention why (which is VERY funny since Hoyle liked the steady state universe model because he thought the Big Bang model pointed towards God, which he didn't believe).
He then talks about homogeneous distribution and somehow says the clumps of galaxies disproves the BBT, which is another straw man. In fact the clumps are one of the most successful predictions of the BBT. It predicted what we should see with respect to cosmic background radiation, and the sizes of the clumps of galaxies, and what we observe is what is predicted. So either the article was written a while ago (there's no date), or they're ignorant of or misrepresenting scientific data.
The rest of the article is a mash of outdated information.
The funniest part is when he sets up the part where if the universe is homogeneous and he's right, then the cosmic background radiation will be smooth. If it's lumpy and BBT is right, the CBR will also be lumpy. Then he trumpets that the "discovery" that the background radiation is smooth proves his point, when in fact measurements show the background radiation is not smooth!!!!! Owned comes to mind.
I wonder if he changed his mind when he found out he was wrong? Doubtful, since he set out at the beginning with an assumed conclusion, then proceeded to find evidence to support it.
To top it all off, the author is a biochemist, not a cosmologist.
So anyway, I'm bored now. I went through a useless exercise of looking at one random article you googled and didn't even read (otherwise you'd have seen the glaring problem at the end (assuming you knew anything about cosmology EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean this as a dig or insult, it's poorly worded, I just meant I assumed you did know some and thus didn't read it)). And what will it accomplish? Nothing I suspect, there's no end of articles on AiG et al that will get it wrong in such a way to support the pre-made conclusion.
Sorry Cheese, I killed the humour in your thread. Bad form for a moderator.
I've always wondered, how do people that see a divine figure on their toast know it's them when there's no picture of that divine figure in the first place?