A very flawed article. For example: The Four Pillars of the Standard Cosmology. That website says (with supporting information that is widely available elsewhere):
The four key observational successes of the standard Hot Big Bang model are the following:# Expansion of the UniverseThe Big Bang model makes accurate and scientifically testable hypotheses in each of these areas and the remarkable agreement with the observational data gives us considerable confidence in the model.
# Origin of the cosmic background radiation
# Nucleosynthesis of the light elements
# Formation of galaxies and large-scale structure
Why can't you approach this discussion in a reasoned manner? Why can't you say you disagree with the premises that the article was written on? There is mounting evidence, among secular scientists, that Big Bang cosmogony may not be correct. But your perjorative response cuts off discussion.
The biggest problem in the debate over origins is the unwillingness of the debaters to look at both sides of the argument, and instead, to resort to ad hominem or disparaging insults.
The second biggest problem is the failure to recognize that the linch pins of the argument are in the presuppositions the debaters bring to the argument. Evolutionists and materialist presuppose a material universe with no possible explanations outside their realm of thinking. Creationists presuppose that there is both matter and non-matter in the universe that can provide a plausible explanation for the origin of the universe (cosmogony) and the origin of life (biogenesis). To dismiss one side or the other out of hand extinguishes the debate, at the worst, or at least, reduces the debate to hurling one "expert" against another.
This whole article is based upon a false premise. The gospel message of Christ ("love your neighbor," and Christ died for our sins) has absolutely nothing to do with science, and science has nothing to do with it. The two are not somehow mutually exclusive and one can hold confidence in science and a firm belief in the message of Christ without cognitive dissonance. The author of this piece has some sort of ideaological axe to grind.
Is it an act of will of did some cosmic alarm clock just spontaneously spring the Bang Bang into action?
The four key observational successes of the standard Hot Big Bang model are the following:# Expansion of the Universe
If the universe is all that exists, and, according to the "Big Bang Theory", the universe is continually expanding, then what is the universe expanding into?
Hmmmm???
Barn Owl
Apparently, this woman's PhD isn't in astronomy or astrophysics.
A good starting place to debunk her silly notions about the BB is here:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
Here's a brief snippet of what Ned, who is a bona fide PhD in Astronomy, has to say:
What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:
The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:
- The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
- The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
- Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
- Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
- Time dilation in supernova light curves.
Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.
- Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
- Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
- Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
- Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.
Ned Wright may not be as pretty as as the author of this article, but in matters Cosmic, he is opining on matters in which he is an expert; she isn't.
Haven't Halton Arp and others pretty much destroyed the idea of interpreting redshift data to mean an expanding universe and big bang?
On top of that, even if the math showing an expanding universe today were believable (which it isn't), projecting that back to a point at which all the mass of the universe was at a point is sort of like assuming that the elasticity of a rubber band remains the same no matter how far you stretch it. In other words, it's basically a stupid use of mathematics.