Ruh-roh Reorge!
Another one bites the cosmic dust!
Posted on 02/13/2009 11:41:57 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
WMAP ‘proof’ of big bang fails normal radiological standards
by John Hartnett
Satellite maps of the big bang?
The WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) satellite1 was launched with the intention of mapping the very small anisotropies (temperature fluctuations) in the cosmic microwave radiation (CMB) (figure 1). After the successful mission of the COBE (COsmic Background Explorer) satellite2 George Smoot as team leader built WMAP for NASA and the data obtained resulted in him being awarded the Nobel prize in Physics last year.3,4
The anisotropies in the 2.7 K CMB temperature maps contain information regarding the radiation from the fireball 380,000 years after the alleged big bang, it is claimed. These very small 40 µK to 70 µK anisotropies represent the monopole term of a spherical multipole expansion of the cleaned data. These were interpreted as the seeds for early galaxy formation. The dipole term was extracted, also giving a very smooth 2.7 K temperature but slightly different to the temperature determined from the monopole term. Nevertheless it was close to 2.7 K also. On the basis of the WMAP analysis, many papers have claimed evidence for details of the big bang theory, such as the amounts of alleged ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’.5
How well do the claims stack up?
However, this year, an expert in radiology published two papers6,7 which prompted another8 in the journal Progress in Physics9 claiming that the analysis was flawed under standard radiological (analysis of radio waves) methodology. He argued that the maps contain no information of cosmological significance, certainly no information about the creation and history of the early universe...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
Big Bang/Cosmology ping!
Thanks for the ping!
Another one bites the cosmic dust!
This is an honest and sincere inquiry.
What is your religious faith, and are creationism and opposition to evolution a tenet of that faith?
Exactly!
Even if true, that is a far cry from saying that the Big Bang theory is refuted or lacks evidence. Such claims are absent from the original article.
More important, the website “Reasons to Believe” cites the same WMAP data in support of the Christian account of Creation:
” . . . the new WMAP results potently challenge speculative attempts to escape the conclusion that an Agent beyond space and time created the universe and exquisitely designed it so that humans can exist. Like so many other breakthrough discoveries in astronomy, the latest WMAP findings support the premise that scientific advance is an ally, not an enemy, to the Christian's faith.”
http://www.reasons.org/resources/connections/200607_connections_q3/index.shtml
Christian. And yes, I think both the Bible and the scientific evidence are diametrically opposed to goo-to-you evolution, whether of the materialist variety, or otherwise.
What is your religious faith, and are creationism and opposition to evolution a tenet of that faith?
This is an honest and sincere inquiry.
What is your religious faith, and are evolution and opposition to creationism a tenet of that faith?
Is there such a thing as peer review of the big bang, and about this evidence...is there truly any evidence of a big bang?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm
From that perspective, regarding opposition to evolution as a matter of Christian doctrine is tantamount to regarding Catholics as non-Christian.
I do not think that you meant that, but expansive claims that imply that Christianity is and must be in adamant opposition to evolution ought to be avoided as simply untrue. Some Christian denominations see faith and evolution as in conflict, while others do not.
There are plenty of Roman Catholics who are young earth creationists. And I never said you have to believe in YEC to be a Christian. But I still maintain that the biblical creation account and evolution are not compatible.
They already tried to reproduce the big bang based on their so called fool-proof theories. It cost them $10 million to prove that they were wrong. They are grasping at straws. There is no way I’ll ever believe in the fairy tale that was made up to exclude the possibility of a Creator. It will never be proven by science.
Yet the weight of Catholic teaching reconciles evolution and Christian faith. Thus Catholics at least can be Christian and accept the scientific case for evolution.
How is it this never-ending series of burn the witch, we hate science threads qualifies for the NEWS section, while the legitimate science threads tend to get pushed into the CHAT ghetto?
I have no idea what you are talking about because I don’t follow your anti-science posts.
Individual Catholics risk error in disputing Church teaching that dates back to St. Thomas Aquinas. The “old earth compromise” as you call it has the benefit of being Christian and scientifically valid.
When extended to science, Biblical literalism engages science as an adversary instead of recognizing it as a product of God’s gift of human reason and having its own area of authority. The Bible was not meant to be a modern science text but to speak in terms that the people of the Biblical era used and understood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.