Inflation Hypothesis Doesn't Measure Up to New Data (growing body of evidence contradicts Big Bang)

ICR ^ | January 30, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[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...

[Bosh Flimshaw]

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?

[GodGunsGuts]

ping!

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

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!

[Bosh Flimshaw]

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?

[GodGunsGuts]

On the other hand, perhaps the increasing number of fudge-factors needed to keep the Big Bang afloat is the cosmological equivalent of Ptolemaic epicycles.

[Maceman]

[Psycho_Bunny]

Brian is writing on a subject he doesn't seem to understand very well.

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.

[DaGman]

LOL!

[Bosh Flimshaw]

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.

[Domandred]

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.

[RaceBannon]

This is Post Enlightenment science that is smarter than post enlightenment anti-religious dogma

[GourmetDan]

"When is the Western world going to smarten up and abandon so-called “science” and go back to pre-enlightenment dogma?"

That had already happened at least as far back as 1859.

[mvpel]

Indeed - how can you talk about the “speed of light” before light itself even exists?

[RaceBannon]

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...

[RaceBannon]

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.

[ontap]

You mean this!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[fightinbluhen51]

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!

[GourmetDan]

"Brian is writing on a subject he doesn't seem to understand very well. 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."

Brian's understanding is fine. Yours is a different matter.