Replies

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.

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.

Thanks for the kind words, Maximilian. Normally I would agree with you. However, the problem is that the YEC writer that GGG points to makes 3 lies in the very first sentence alone and goes downhill from there. There is not a conflicting claim, but rather (1) an incredibly ignorant piece of writing; or (2) a total lie. The YEC author want you to believe that the Big Bang theory is half empty, but in reality, it's 99% full.

You've seen the Global Warming bunch twist facts and lie to make people believe that there is a catastrophe in the making. The YEC do the same thing by injecting scientific doubt where there is none.

I have tried talking reasonably to GGG in the past. However, he is not open to reason. A few weeks back, I offered to read some YEC books if he would read some science books. Because of work, it won't be for another week before I'm able to read some YEC books. I'm open-minded, but because of my education and career, I've seen the damage that YEC does.

My point being that people can differ on the theories used to account for observational data without being "liars."

It is when they deliberately distort the facts that they become liars and we see that all the time with the YEC'ers.