Man, what flim-flam is that wacky “secular science” going to get up to next?
When is the Western world going to smarten up and abandon so-called “science” and go back to pre-enlightenment dogma?
ping!
I’m amazed at the arrogance of some scientists who actually are convinced that they can understand the Universe! I don’t, and they certainly don’t!
For instance, he cites that inflation seems impossible given limitations such as the speed of light but fails to mention that inflation is theorized to have occurred in the instant prior to the solidifying of the physical laws of the universe.
Big Bang is and always has been a theory and not accepted as Law. By being theory, scientifically it is tested with new evidence and analyzed, debunking or confirming the first theory.
The problem occurs when theories are considered Law, like the Earth being flat, the center of the Universe, or that man is causing global warming.
I thought maybe we were talking about inflation of the Greebacks, but, that’s not unlike the Big Bang theory of the universe.
Maybe that’s how it all started, with the 10 billion, billion, billion, billion fold explosion of Big Ben’s Printing Presses!
I don’t understand the point behind the ramblings continually posted from this author.
If the point is to simply attempt discrediting a theory it would make sense. To use such a conclusion to insist that science must be wrong and that creation and the belief in the almighty hence must be the only alternative explanation makes sense only to those who are terminally delusional, IMO.
The author doesn’t understand the subject.
Well, they made some observations and it didn’t fit.
So they invented “dark matter”.
Then they found that the dark matter theory didn’t some new observations.
So they invented “dark energy”.
Pretty soon, they’ll make more observations that contradict both ideas.
Then we’ll have “in the dark scientists”.
As long as they adhere to Einsteins theories unmodified, they will never find the correct model.
This is from the NASA web site:
“Five Year Results on the Oldest Light in the Universe
WMAP 5-year Results Released - March 7, 2008
A third major finding arising from the new WMAP data places tight constraints on the astonishing burst of growth in the first trillionth of a second of the universe, called “inflation”, when ripples in the very fabric of space may have been created. Some versions of the inflation theory now are eliminated. Others have picked up new support.
“The new WMAP data rule out many mainstream ideas that seek to describe the growth burst in the early universe,” said WMAP principal investigator, Charles Bennett, of The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Md. “It is astonishing that bold predictions of events in the first moments of the universe now can be confronted with solid measurements.”
There is more information at the site.
Regarding this comment from the article:
“Cosmologies other than, and better than, Big Bang are currently being investigated, and several of them predict the young world as described in the Bible”.
There may lots of cosmologies better (or worse) than the BB but, “In the Beginning....” is silent on the question of time as to the creation of the heavens and earth as I assume that is what is meant by the term “world” above.
Here's the position he's arguing for;
Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.
Weirder and weirder.
Funny thing about science... A THEORY is just that!
Given the EVIDENCE in HAND, a THEORY attempts to explain the phenomena!
When better information becomes AVAILABLE, the theory is re-tested and see if it holds up! If not, it’s tossed or MODIFIED!
Get a grip.
I just read the article. The first sentence is a flat-out lie. The rest is devoted to mischaracterize and miscontrue the observations.
Why do you post crap like this? It’s just like the garbage that AlGore writes.
By the way, I’ve told you my educational and work background. Why don’t you tell me yours? What in your life gives you the competency to determine what is real science and what is junk science?