To the contrary, it tells a great deal. It's temperature is precisely what was predicted (before the background radiation was discovered), as the remnant of the big bang. Its uniformity and ubiquity provide information about conditions in the early universe. There is no other scienfific theory that is consistent with the background radiation. Its discovery ruled out the so-called "steady state theory," which was, until then, the major competition.
Furthermore, it does not compel us to accept the theory.
True. You are free to believe anything you like.
PatrickHenry wrote:Like I said, the radiation by itself tells us nothing. If we didn't have the big bang theory, what would the radiation tell us? Facts, by themselves, are fairly useless without the benefit of a theory or philosophy that attempts to organize and make sense of those facts. I'm not disputing that the background radiation is consistent with the big bang theory. But back to my question, how does the big bang theory explain the existence of more information now then when everything started?
To the contrary, it tells a great deal. It's temperature is precisely what was predicted (before the background radiation was discovered), as the remnant of the big bang. Its uniformity and ubiquity provide information about conditions in the early universe. There is no other scienfific theory that is consistent with the background radiation. Its discovery ruled out the so-called "steady state theory," which was, until then, the major competition.