Man, the last time I checked this thread it was all C&H cartoons! The intervening 100 posts are a veritable maelstrom of ignorance.
I scanned the thread...lots of crap by you know who, some good defence being played by Cheese and photon.
I'll add my 2 cents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
BIG bang theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities - things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions 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. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed
|
The CMB is not entirely isotropic. This is spoken as if it were fact, when the real fact is that if it were not for CMB anisotropies, we would not be here. On a sufficiently large scale the CMB is isotropic. On small scales it is not.
If you actually want to learn a little about the SCIENCE behind the big bang and the CMB specifically, have a little read through this link.
http://orca.phys.uvic.ca/%7Ejwillis/...5_lecture3.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Ahh... what passes for Science now days! Once upon a time something had to be observable to be considered fact. Today you can come up with a theory and if you can observe a few circumstances that could add weight to the hypothesis then your theory is anointed as truth. The observable fact that the universe appears to be moving away from a common origin could be seen as circumstantial evidence for the existence of a Creator but, instead scientist use it as proof for the big bang. If it isn't evidence for one it shouldn't be used as evidence for the other.
The "big bang theory" to quote you is just that: a theory. The reason why it doesn't try to answer where the material came from necessary for the hypothesis is it doesn't have an answer. Imagine that! It's like someone come up with a theory how a chocolate cake was formed without any help from a creator and without any idea where the ingredients came from.
|
Apparently you don't know the difference between a scientific theory and an OED theory.
Thought experiment time.
You go on vacation, leaving your house to your neighbours to keep an eye on. You come back and it's nothing but a pile of charred debris. What happened?
Fundies say God transformed it magically into that pile of charred debris. Scientists say it burned down.
Whose explanation is more plausible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
So if I started a post making fun of homosexuals knowing my view of their practice you would recomend that those offended should just ignore me. Come on! Me thinks there is a double standard here!  |
Non-sequitur.
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.
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/
|
Alright, let's go through this thing....
as protons and electrons combined to form hydrogen of atomic weight one, and neutrons were subsequently captured to form helium of atomic weight four.
False.
No oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, sulfur, copper, iron, nickel, uranium, or other elements existed.
False.
The universe consisted essentially of hydrogen gas.
False.
Then somehow, we are told, the molecules of gas that were racing out at an enormous speed in a radial direction began to collapse in on themselves in local areas by gravitational attraction.
Somehow? See the link on the CMB I provided above.
No satisfactory theory exists to explain any of these events
Has this guy never heard of CMB anisotropies?
Thus, based upon the so-called Cosmological Principle, it was postulated that the distribution of galaxies in the universe would be essentially uniform. No matter in which direction one looked, if one looked far enough, one would see the same number of galaxies. There would be no large scale clusters of galaxies or great voids in space. Recent research, however, has revealed massive superclusters of galaxies and vast voids in space. We exist in a very "clumpy" universe.
The universe is isotropic on sufficiently large scales. And recent research? Astronomers have known of galaxy superclusters and voids for decades. Real cutting edge...
These structures are much too big for the Big Bang theory to produce. At the speeds at which galaxies are supposed to be moving, it would require 80 billion years to create such a huge complex, but the age of the universe is supposed to be somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years.
I would really like to see the maths behind this assertion. I have a tough time believing it. And the age of the universe is not "somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years" (disputing size of range, not number). That's like saying the earth is somewhere between 1 and 10 billion years old. It's a small point, but it is asserting ignorance where there is in fact quite specific knowledge (13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr).
Okay at this point I see where he's going. He's disputing non-baryonic matter and the cosmological constant. Tough to argue with that I guess. It's just him disputing the burned down house again.
Alas, preliminary data from COBE announced in January, show absolutely no evidence of inhomogeneity in the background radiation.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html
Huh?
Eventually, all such theories will fail, for "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1).
But of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireFly
The Big Bang is only one of the other theories, and scientists work hard to either confirm or deny plausibility, cause that's just what it is... And if they find something new, they input that data and keep going. You can redefine science so why can't you redefine religion?
|
Thought experiment time again.
A bank was robbed. Witnesses see four entities leave the bank. One is a dog, one is a three year old girl, another is an old lady in a wheelchair and the fourth is a twenty something male wearing a ski mask and holding a bag full of money.
Who robbed the bank? I have my theory...