Skip to comments.Inflation Hypothesis Doesn't Measure Up to New Data (growing body of evidence contradicts Big Bang)
Posted on 01/30/2009 10:54:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Since the Big Bang story of the origin of the universe has been refuted by a host of external observations and internal contradictions,1 secular science has been forced to postulate additional, exceedingly improbable events to keep it afloat. One of these is inflation, which attempts to explain the apparent uniformity of the universe.2 But new observations by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe are forcing cosmologists to revamp inflation, at the cost of inventing yet another miraculous event to prop it up...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
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?
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!
I honestly can't tell--is this satire?
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.
As new data becomes available, theories and hypotheses should be modified. That’s how science works.
The fact that you think this principle is a *weakness* as opposed to the defining *strength* of science speaks to your fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of science itself.
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.
This is Post Enlightenment science that is smarter than post enlightenment anti-religious dogma
That had already happened at least as far back as 1859.
Indeed - how can you talk about the “speed of light” before light itself even exists?
maybe you should read it with an objective mind and find out
Just because it challenges the left wing liberalism of Evolution, doesnt mean it’s wrong...
The Earth was never flat in the Bible, only in the Roman Church’s definition for 2 or 300 years.
Same with the center of the Universe.
Thanks for the ping!
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!
Brian's understanding is fine. Yours is a different matter.
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 fact that you think this principle is a *weakness* as opposed to the defining *strength* of science speaks to your fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of science itself.
It does indeed reflect the strenght of the scientific method. Whereas it reflects the weakness of Big Bang cosmology. Which should come as no surprise—as Stephen Hawkings et al admit—one of the core assumptions of Big Bang cosmology rests on an ideology-based (as opposed to a scientific) foundation.
Are you saying that if the Universe is more in line with young-earth/biblical cosmology, it should be hidden from the public?
Not at all. That conclusion is a singular viewpoint shared by those with a specific agenda, IMO.
I cannot see it as “choose a or b” situation.
Hmmmmmmm. Who [cough] assembled the Canon [cough] of Scripture known also as the Bible [cough].
Yeah, I know, it was brought to earth by "tachyons" into the hands of Luther.
Sorry, no cigar!
==Not at all. That conclusion is a singular viewpoint shared by those with a specific agenda, IMO.
Young earth creationists are no more agenda-driven than Big Bang cosmologists. The main difference being that YEC cosmologies are being strengthened by new evidence, whereas the Big Bang is being steadily weakened.
The author doesn’t understand the subject.
NO scientist says that they understand the universe. It is you that is the arrogant one.
Well, don’t hide your superior knowledge under a bushel...share it with the rest of us!
Wrong. You are misunderstanding hte subject. The subject is to make money off of gullible fools and they are doing just that with their propaganda.
Inflation doesn't involve changes to the speed of light.
The Big Bandaid is dogma.
It fails completely to fit observation, but fits the feelings of its authors.
Right. So inserting a period of time where the normal laws don't apply, because the normal laws can't explain something, is good solid science.
Personally, I'm in wonder at the prospect that there is exactly the right amount of matter in the universe to create a "big bang" and not a bit more. What are the odds of that? Would you not perhaps think it more likely that if a large super-crunch of matter were going to explode, that it would do so at some point before it all came together? Perhaps when 100 billion galaxies came together and not 500 billion? And that would rip through pre-existing matter.
If there was a big bang, I find it highly unlikely that there was only one. In fact, could the expansion not be increasing because there is a lot more matter out there? In effect, the now visible universe is but one kernel in a pot of popping popcorn. The difference being that matter is thrown back and forth.
You actually have a photograph of those men creating the Big Bandaid, wow!
YEC cosmology is a “fringe group” with almost absolute zero credibility, IMO.
The BB theory hasn’t been weakened at all, and in fact has been strengthened overall at a regular clip. In the end there remains the possibility that it is wrong, but at this point and time in the maturation cycle of our civilization it remains the most credible theory available given our level of knowledge.
That is "step two" Here. :o)
Only flat in the minds of the writers and readers of the Bible.
Too easy. Google energy desnsity 160.4 ghz
The number of models is not limited to the Big Bang. There are others that seem to explain a bit more than the BB.
When our first background radiation satellite went up, it appeared that the background radiation was uniform in all directions. As our sensors become more .um...sensitive, we begin to see a more detailed picture of the background radiation and the theories will change or be scrapped to accomodate the more detailed information.
The more recent measurements have shown that the galaxies appeared much earlier than the initial BB theory would dictate and other models have been proposed to explain the “graininess” of the early universal expansion.
The assymetry spoken of in this article will also lead to other models being proposed.
If not A then only B is not a model for science, but a philosphical statement.
Second and third generation apostles, and their students did it 300 years before the Roman Catholic apostasy crushed the church, leading to the "dark ages."
The Roman Church never defined the shape of the Earth. Most people who thought about the issue had understood the world was round since the time of Alexander or earlier.
Background density is symetrical as observewd from Earth, which fits Humphreys’ model, but not the Big Bandaid.
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.
Which Bible do you read? - The one that I read contains references to the curvature of the Earth’s surface that were recorded over 4500 years ago.
==YEC cosmology is a fringe group with almost absolute zero credibility, IMO.
You mean zero credibility amongst their chief religious rivals in the Temple of Darwin. However, amongst fellow YEC Scientists, not to mention over 50% of the US population, Creation Scientists have far more credibility than the materialist religionists who currently control the ideology of science.
“Which of the 45,000 creation myths in every culture should we teach in school?”
Darwin has nothing to do with this.