I read the same Book. God spoke... nd it all began. I guess you had to be there to hear it! After that, I am sure His laws took effect. Energy is in motion...
Posted on 04/28/2009 9:16:01 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
It's sad how people can destroy something. I was raised with fairly positive religion and experienced none of that. I learned about this aspect listening to churchgoers I know complain. I also learned about a church here that doesn't do that, and try to hook them up. Yes, given the demographics here most of my friends are religious. But we can speak about religion (or the lack thereof) respectfully and never have any problems.
You have no hard evidence to back up this statement. I might believe that only 99% of professional astronomers believe in the Big Bang.
You have no evidence whatsoever to refute it.
By and large, every astronomer has their own theory, (excepting, of course the wannabe astronomy groupies like pose here from time to time, who accept whatever is politically correct) and have from the beginning of their career seen the gaping holes in the ‘big bang.’
You, of course are prone to groupieism, and thus your reply is no surprise.
1. Yes I do.
2. So basically you admit that you made up the 10% figure as I said.
By and large, every astronomer has their own theory,
That is not true and is another assertion that you just made up. The way science is supposed to operate and does most of the time, is that theories have to explain the observable evidence. Since there is a lot of observable evidence for the Big Bang, including the red shift and the microwave background radiation, virtually all professional cosmologists and astronomers agree with the basic concept of the Big Bang. There is still some discussion about the details of what has happened since, but all this is being slowly worked out. And this agreement among scientists is not due to political correctness as you say, but is because of the weight of the evidence.
BTW I always assumed that someone who is a surveyor would be very precisely concerned about factual evidence.
Definately not. Its only the Grant Whores that go along with that ignorant tripe, and its doubtful that even they really believe it.
"The way science is supposed to operate and does most of the time, is that theories have to explain the observable evidence..."
If you don't see that it hasn't worked that way in astronomy, its pointless to attempt an intelligent conversation with you.
"I always assumed that someone who is a surveyor would be very precisely concerned about factual evidence."
Yep, been buried in it for the last 48 years or so, and that's why I reject the fiction that the politically correct crowd puts out.
The Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest. That was a long time ago. He wasn't a "grant whore" and obviously he wasn't trying to be politically correct. It doesn't sound like you have ever actually met or been exposed to, or studied the work of any astronomers, physicists, or cosmologists. All that matters in your mind is a certain angry fixed idea that the Big Bang theory must be wrong. You don't have anything to say about the known concrete facts that conflict with this idea.
Surveyors believe in accurate measurements. And it is precisely accurate measurements that support the Big Bang hypothesis. So why don't you address these known facts instead of merely making ad hominem attacks against astronomers?
This absurd assumption on your part may be where you are stumbling. I have had a close relationship with a group of astronomers since about 1981 when I helped a number of them establish accurate permanent azimuth references at their homes (located in the mountains near the observatory where they are employed) so that they could erect quality observatories at home. It has been very informative to discuss the politics of what the general public mistakenly considers to be 'science.' Political correctness reigns supreme in the Emperor's Clothes division of every institution.
Astronomers are as a group, well aware that the 'big bang' is nothing but wallpaper.
But all this discussion of personalities is really irrelevant. What really counts is what the evidence shows. But you don't seem to care about any of that.
It has been known for over 80 years that the universe is expanding. The rate of expansion is determined by looking at the cosmological redshift of distant stars and galaxies. Since we know how fast these objects are receding from us and there are other methods for estimating how far away many of these objects are, it is not hard to estimate how long it has been since the matter in the universe was much closer together.
It has been known for over 40 years that there is microwave radiation coming from space that is nearly uniform in all directions. The only explanation for this that has stood the test of time is that this radiation is the redshifted remnant of light from a very hot, dense early universe.
You can stipulate anything that you want, but the truth is 180 degrees away from your vomit trail.
You love the grant whores because they support your satanic world view. You hate truth because truth is not in you.
I read the end of the book, and guess what? your gang loses big time!
(and just go on denegrating the guys that produce the results - your guy is in the White House doing it too, but it can’t last)
I read the same Book. God spoke... nd it all began. I guess you had to be there to hear it! After that, I am sure His laws took effect. Energy is in motion...
This just can not be true, the expansion is accelerating and acceleration requires a force. Someone correct me if I am wrong here.
Nice little picture, but no connection to reality.
The Big Bang is a reality, but you can deny it all you wish! God spoke...and the rest is... history!
Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?
* First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
* Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
* Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
* Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4 http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
Sorry, no, the big bang is a fantasy for hundreds of reasons, and none of the arguments you list are in any way supportive of it.
This technique, and your general method of argument are, as we all learned in basic logic, known as “The Big Lie.”
State your evidence. (and that doesn't mean cover us with a page of propagandistic links)
"While very few researchers now doubt the Big Bang occurred, the scientific community was once divided between supporters of the Big Bang and those of alternative cosmological models. Throughout the historical development of the subject, problems with the Big Bang theory were posed in the context of a scientific controversy regarding which model could best describe the cosmological observations ... With the overwhelming consensus in the community today supporting the Big Bang model, many of these problems are remembered as being mainly of historical interest; the solutions to them have been obtained either through modifications to the theory or as the result of better observations.
" "The core ideas of the Big Bang ... can hardly be doubted as important and real features of our universe."
- Wikipedia
You are a wikipedophile?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
P.S. Whatever you smoked today...
don’t!
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.