Bonus points if you can identify the science in question.
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 ...
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?
LOL!
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!
;-o)
==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
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.