Replies

“The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples.”

Scientists have observed inflation since 1929. It's real and it's measurable.
Scientists have observed the effects of dark matter and have measured it through observing sheer.
The evidence for dark energy is overwhelming.

There, I've proved to you that the very first sentence is a lie.
I'll ask you this question: Why do Young-Earth Creationists have to resort to lying to prove their inaccurate interpretation of the Bible?
God is truth. These people do not tell the truth, but draw in well-meaning Christians with lies that ultimately make many doubt their faith. Please, do not end up this way.
I sent you to sites that explained things in laymans's terms. If you want technical papers, then "I'm your huckleberry" as Doc Holliday often said.

==Scientists have observed inflation since 1929. It’s real and it’s measurable.

Are there no end to your misreprentations? And from your own sources no less! First you repeat a typical Rossite misrepresentation of St. Augustine, and now you put your lying words into the mouth Gary Felder. Like the fidgety-Ross, either you are ignorant, a liar or both.

From YOUR OWN source:

“Physicists have tried for decades to formulate theories that could eliminate both the questionable assumptions and the problematic particles associated with the standard big bang model. Currently the only plausible candidate is a theory called inflationary cosmology”

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/cosmo.html

You have no idea the damage that you and the fidgety-Ross are doing to the cause of Christianity (or do you?).

Scientists have observed inflation since 1929. It's real and it's measurable. Scientists have observed the effects of dark matter and have measured it through observing sheer. The evidence for dark energy is overwhelming. There, I've proved to you that the very first sentence is a lie.

Thanks for the interesting links. I enjoy reading real science, and layman's terms are fine for me. What I don't enjoy are mutual insults which provide no help in sorting out the conflicting claims.

In the above instance, for example, I don't see a "lie," but rather conflicting claims. There is a distinction between the observations and the theories. In the first instance you mention, what is observed is the fact that all galaxies are receding away from us, and the further away they are, the faster they are receding. One theory to explain that observation is "inflation."

The inflation theory was developed decades after the Hubbell observations in order to account for growing anomalies in the Big Bang theory. It seems to do a good job explaining some of these anomalies, but it can't be observed directly. For example, the theory posits an "inflaton," but the proposed candidate has not worked out.

My point being that people can differ on the theories used to account for observational data without being "liars." The YEC author points to the glass of Big Bang theory being half empty, while you see it as half full. I've read articles by some other famous creationist writer who is a huge proponent of the Big Bang. Hopefully these 2 creationists can disagree about the Big Bang without hurling personal accusations at each other, and hopefully scientists who support aspects of the standard model can do the same.