[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Unfortunately the rest of the article requires a subscription but, as of May 2004 the background radiation was smooth. I wish you could read the whole article because Dr. Lerner speaks in length about the difficulty of being heard within the scientific community if you dare question the big bang theory.

Of course there's going to be difficulty when trying to go upstream of an established theory, no one claims it's easy. Out of the dozens of questions I ask you but you never answer, one was your definition of a theory. I asked for a reason, because that's relevant right here, what a theory is in terms of science is directly relevant to why publishing upstream a dominant theory is more difficult.

Yes sometimes scientists are slower to change their minds than they should be, but time and again history has shown that science is self correcting; if Lerner's theory is better eventually it will rise to the top, even if it's not in the timespan Lerner would like.

In Lerner's specific case, there are quite a few problems with his theory that need to be resolved for it to be a serious contender: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

The problem again is that you've pre-determined BBT is wrong, so you need to find things that challenge it, and when you do and the challenge isn't successful then you assume it's because of a grand conspiracy. You've always had this point of view, at least since you've posted here. What if the failed theory is actually weak, maybe it's rejected for that reason. Until you see how the reasoning you have is flawed, you'll be stuck in the position you are in.

Two thing I've been trying to tell you for a while now but, you keep denying the problem. I'm confident that if Dr. Lerner was a Creationist the difficulty he finds today would turn into an impossibilty.

You being confident of something doesn't make your position any stronger. You're confident in that not because of any evidence, but because of the reasons I described above.

Difficult != Impossible

It wouldn't be impossible if they brought evidence to support their theory, I've been trying to tell you that for a while now but you keep denying the problem.

By the way, if the link I provided was unscientific because it started with "a presumption of truth" do you think your post passes as scientific using the same standard?

Where have I presumed truth? I'll say it again, and I'm sure you'll ignore it again. Science doesn't presume truth, in science there IS NO TRUTH. There is only the best theory to describe reality at any given time.

Your way of knowing runs contrary to this, and is the root of why you can't accept any scientific evidence. For you, the possibility of an absolute unquestionable correctness (which you call Truth) exists, and you apply that to science when it isn't applicable. Most other Christians realize that Truth is in the realm of the spiritual, not the scientific.

You think I started with a presumption of truth about BBT because that's the way you approach the world. However I didn't. I know all scientific knowledge is provisional, I know theories have places where they break down, and I know the kinds of evidence it would take to overturn a theory.

Here's another question for you to ignore, God created Adam with a belly button and fully grown. God created trees with the rings already in place. God created coral reefs full sized and operational. God created the earth in such a way that it appeared older than it was, correct? God didn't create Adam as an embryo and all the plants and animals as embryos and germinated seeds.

Why can't this same logic be applied to the earth and the universe? Why fight against an old universe, when it's consistent to believe that God created the universe to appear old. There's no difference between the universe appearing to be billions of years old and Adam wandering around after being booted from the garden, cutting down a tree, and counting thousands of rings in that tree (indicating the tree is older than creation) is there?